Ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and postpartum outcomes following caesarean delivery: a multicentre cohort study.

Disparities relating to postpartum recovery outcomes in different socio-economic and racial ethnic groups are underexplored. We conducted a planned analysis of a large prospective caesarean delivery cohort to explore the relationship between ethnicity, socio-economic status and postpartum recovery. Eligible patients were enrolled and baseline demographic, obstetric and medical history data were collected 18 h and 30 h following delivery. Patients completed postpartum quality of life and recovery measures in person on day 1 (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, including global health visual analogue scale; Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item score; and pain scores) and by telephone between day 28 and day 32 postpartum (EQ-5D-5L and pain scores). Socio-economic group was determined according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile of each patient's usual place of residence. Data from 1000 patients who underwent caesarean delivery were included. There were more patients of Asian, Black and mixed ethnicity in the more deprived quintiles. Patients of White ethnicities had shorter postpartum duration of hospital stay compared with patients of Asian and Black ethnicities (35 (28-56 [18-513]) h vs. 44 (31-71 [19-465]) h vs. 49 (33-75 [23-189]) h, respectively. In adjusted models at day 30, patients of Asian ethnicity had a significantly greater risk of moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at rest and on movement (odds ratio (95%CI) 2.42 (1.24-4.74) and 2.32 (1.40-3.87)), respectively). There were no differences in readmission rates or incidence of complications between groups. Patients from White ethnic backgrounds experience shorter postpartum duration of stay compared with patients from Asian and Black ethnic groups. Ethnic background impacts pain scores and recovery at day 1 postpartum and following hospital discharge, even after adjusting for socio-economic group. Further work is required to understand the underlying factors driving differences in pain and recovery and to develop strategies to reduce disparities in obstetric patients.

Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Remimazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non-inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) -6.28% (-8.89-infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who were ASA physical status 3 or 4, the anaesthetic effect of remimazolam was non-inferior to propofol.

Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study.

The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri-operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96-hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of individual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2-10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04-1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09-2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26-4.54). Use of goggles, powered air-purifying respirators, long-sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID-19 pandemic were not.

Quality of recovery following childbirth: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

To better understand outcomes in postpartum patients who receive peripartum anaesthetic interventions, we aimed to assess quality of recovery metrics following childbirth in a UK-based multicentre cohort study. This study was performed during a 2-week period in October 2021 to assess in- and outpatient post-delivery recovery at 1 and 30 days postpartum. The following outcomes were reported: obstetric quality of recovery 10-item measure (ObsQoR-10); EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) survey; global health visual analogue scale; postpartum pain scores at rest and movement; length of hospital stay; readmission rates; and self-reported complications. In total, 1638 patients were recruited and responses analysed from 1631 (99.6%) and 1282 patients (80%) at one and 30 days postpartum, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) length of stay postpartum was 39.3 (28.5-61.0 [17.7-513.4]), 40.3 (28.5-59.1 [17.8-220.9]), and 35.9 (27.1-54.1 [17.9-188.4]) h following caesarean, instrumental and vaginal deliveries, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) ObsQoR-10 score was 75 ([62-86] 4-100) on day 1, with the lowest ObsQoR-10 scores (worst recovery) reported by patients undergoing caesarean delivery. Of the 1282 patients, complications within the first 30 days postpartum were reported by 252 (19.7%) of all patients. Readmission to hospital within 30 days of discharge occurred in 69 patients (5.4%), with 49 (3%) for maternal reasons. These data can be used to inform patients regarding expected recovery trajectories; facilitate optimal discharge planning; and identify populations that may benefit most from targeted interventions to improve postpartum recovery experience.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 2023 update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists and Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Guidance for the timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection needed reassessment given widespread vaccination, less virulent variants, contemporary evidence and a need to increase access to safe surgery. We, therefore, updated previous recommendations to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and, most importantly, patients. Patients who develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 7 weeks of planned surgery, including on the day of surgery, should be screened for SARS-CoV-2. Elective surgery should not usually be undertaken within 2 weeks of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For patients who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are low risk or having low-risk surgery, most elective surgery can proceed 2 weeks following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. For patients who are not low risk or having anything other than low-risk surgery between 2 and 7 weeks following infection, an individual risk assessment must be performed. This should consider: patient factors (age; comorbid and functional status); infection factors (severity; ongoing symptoms; vaccination); and surgical factors (clinical priority; risk of disease progression; grade of surgery). This assessment should include the use of an objective and validated risk prediction tool and shared decision-making, taking into account the patient's own attitude to risk. In most circumstances, surgery should proceed unless risk assessment indicates that the risk of proceeding exceeds the risk of delay. There is currently no evidence to support delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks for patients who have fully recovered from or have had mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Expert Consensus Regarding Core Outcomes for Enhanced Recovery after Cesarean Delivery Studies: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity among reported outcomes from enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery impact studies is high. This study aimed to develop a standardized enhanced recovery core outcome set for use in future enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery studies. METHODS: An international consensus study involving physicians, patients, and a director of midwifery and nursing services was conducted using a three-round modified Delphi approach (two rounds of electronic questionnaires and a third-round e-discussion) to produce the core outcome set. An initial list of outcomes was based on a previously published systematic review. Consensus was obtained for the final core outcome set, including definitions for key terms and preferred units of measurement. Strong consensus was defined as 70% or greater agreement and weak consensus as 50 to 69% agreement. Of the 64 stakeholders who were approached, 32 agreed to participate. All 32, 31, and 26 stakeholders completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. RESULTS: The number of outcomes in the final core outcome set was reduced from 98 to 15. Strong consensus (70% or greater stakeholder agreement) was achieved for 15 outcomes. The core outcome set included length of hospital stay; compliance with enhanced recovery protocol; maternal morbidity (hospital re-admissions or unplanned consultations); provision of optimal analgesia (maternal satisfaction, compliance with analgesia, opioid consumption or requirement and incidence of nausea or vomiting); fasting times; breastfeeding success; and times to mobilization and urinary catheter removal. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item composite measure was also included in the final core outcome set. Areas identified as requiring further research included readiness for discharge and analysis of cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Results from an international consensus to develop a core outcome set for enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery are presented. These are outcomes that could be considered when designing future enhanced recovery studies.

Position statement from the Editors of Anaesthesia on equity, diversity and inclusion.

There is a need to prioritise equity, diversity and inclusion within anaesthesia and medicine as a whole. This position statement outlines the Anaesthesia Editors' current policies and practices aiming to achieve equity, represent the diversity of our specialty and actively include people engaged with this journal and beyond. We will define, promote and embed principles of equity, diversity and inclusion across all our work. We will monitor and report author and editor characteristics and ensure recruitment practices are transparent and adhere to our principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. We will attempt to remove systemic barriers restricting those from under-represented groups from progressing into leadership roles within anaesthesia. We will respond to threats and barriers to the principles and practices we set. With these principles and specific actions we undertake, we aim to be pro-active rather than reactive. We commit to embracing and embedding equity, diversity and inclusion in all our practices and regularly reviewing, improving and updating our policies and practices.

Analysis of a national difficult airway database.

Difficult airway management continues to adversely affect patient care and clinical outcomes and is poorly predicted. Previous difficult airway management is the most accurate predictor of future difficulty. The Difficult Airway Society initiated a national airway database to allow clinicians to access details of previous difficult airway episodes in patients issued with a difficult airway alert card. We aimed to analyse this database, reporting patient characteristics, airway management and patient outcomes. We included all living adult patients reported in the first 5 years of the database (n = 675). Clinical airway assessment was reported in 634 (94%) patients, with three or more parameters assessed in 488 (72%). A history of difficult airway was known in 136 (20%) patients and difficult airway management was anticipated in 391 (58%). In all, 75 (11%) patients had an airway-related critical incident, with 1 in 29 being awoken from anaesthesia, 1 in 34 requiring unplanned or prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and 1 in 225 needing an emergency front-of-neck airway or had a cardiac arrest/peri-arrest episode. Airway-related critical incidents were associated with out-of-hours airway management, but no other associations were apparent. Our data report the first analysis of a national difficult airway database, finding that unanticipated difficult airway management continues to occur despite airway assessment, and the rate of critical incidents in this cohort of patients is high. This database has the potential to improve airway management for patients in the future.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Centre for Perioperative Care, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Management of haematoma after thyroid surgery: systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the British Association of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgeons and the British Association of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery.

Haematoma after thyroid surgery can lead to airway obstruction and death. We therefore developed guidelines to improve the safety of peri-operative care of patients undergoing thyroid surgery. We conducted a systematic review to inform recommendations, with expert consensus used in the absence of high-quality evidence, and a Delphi study was used to ratify recommendations. We highlight the importance of multidisciplinary team management and make recommendations in key areas including: monitoring; recognition; post-thyroid surgery emergency box; management of suspected haematoma following thyroid surgery; cognitive aids; post-haematoma evacuation care; day-case thyroid surgery; training; consent and pre-operative communication; postoperative communication; and institutional policies. The guidelines support a multidisciplinary approach to the management of suspected haematoma following thyroid surgery through oxygenation and evaluation; haematoma evacuation; and tracheal intubation. They have been produced with materials to support implementation. While these guidelines are specific to thyroid surgery, the principles may apply to other forms of neck surgery. These guidelines and recommendations provided are the first in this area and it is hoped they will support multidisciplinary team working, improving care and outcomes for patients having thyroid surgery.

Epidural vs. transversus abdominis plane block for abdominal surgery - a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Traditionally, pain relief for abdominal surgery has centred on epidural analgesia, but transversus abdominis plane block is increasingly being used. Our aim was to compare the analgesic efficacy and the side-effect profile of transversus abdominis plane block with epidural analgesia in a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. After a systematic search of the electronic databases, we identified 18 randomised controlled trials with 1220 patients. Confirmed by trial sequential analysis, our first co-primary outcome, postoperative pain score at rest at 12 h, was decreased by a mean difference (95%CI) of 0.69 (0.12-1.27; p = 0.02) with epidural analgesia compared with transversus abdominis plane block, with the quality of evidence graded as low. No difference was found for the second co-primary outcome, postoperative pain score at rest at 24 h, with the quality of evidence rated as very low. Relative to transversus abdominis plane block, epidural analgesia further reduced the need for intravenous morphine-equivalent consumption during the 0-24 h interval by a mean difference (95%CI) of 5.91 mg (2.34-9.49; p = 0.001) at the expense of an increased incidence of hypotension at 72 h, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 5.88 (2.08-16.67; p < 0.001). Our meta-analysis was limited by detection and performance bias, significant statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. In view of the minimal clinically important difference in postoperative pain scores, epidural analgesia was interpreted to not be clinically different to transversus abdominis plane block after abdominal surgery. With transversus abdominis plane block, the increase in intravenous morphine-equivalent consumption at 24 h should be balanced against the decreased risk of hypotension at 72 h. In choosing between epidural analgesia and transversus abdominis plane block, potential benefits should be balanced against the reported risk of harm, although the confidence in the evidence varied, underlining the uncertainty in our estimates.

An analysis of the academic capacity of anaesthesia in the UK by publication trends and academic units.

Over a decade ago, bibliometric analysis predicted the disappearance of UK publishing in anaesthesia by 2020. We repeated this analysis to assess if this had turned out to be the case, searching PubMed for papers associated with UK consultant anaesthetists for 2017-2019 across 15 journals. Although the rate of decline has flattened using the same search filter, including a wider range of publication types shows that outputs still remain at half 1990s levels (381 papers for all 3 years combined), authored by 769 anaesthetists, 274 of whom are associated with an academic centre. There are now 11 identifiable academic units, and a further 15 places where anaesthetists have affiliations with academic centres as individuals. The majority of papers (71%) are in secondary analysis (observational, database and association studies, surveys and meta-analyses), rather than in primary research (clinical trials or laboratory studies). These data reflect the current academic capacity in terms of publications, academic units and staffing. We discuss how this information can be used to inform a new strategy for UK academic anaesthesia.

The Anaesthesia Case Report (ACRE) checklist: a tool to promote high-quality reporting of cases in peri-operative practice.

Case reports have fulfilled an important role in the development of anaesthesia and continue to be highly relevant to modern practice. Despite this, they are sometimes criticised for being insufficiently rigorous to meaningfully inform clinical practice or research design. Reporting checklists are a useful tool to improve rigour in research and, although case report checklists have previously been developed, no existing checklist focuses on the peri-operative setting. In order to address the need for a case reports checklist that better accommodates peri-operative care, we used an established tool as the basis for developing the 12-item Anaesthesia Case Report checklist. This was refined using an iterative approach through feedback from journal editors with experience of handling case reports, patient and public involvement, and trialling its use on Anaesthesia Reports submissions. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist differs from existing checklists by aligning with peri-operative practice; it places less emphasis on making diagnoses and focuses on the way in which clinical challenges, for example, related to the patient's comorbidities or operative interventions, are addressed. Adopting a standardised approach to the content of case reports presents clear benefits to authors, editors and peer reviewers through streamlining the processes involved in writing and publication. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist provides a pragmatic framework for comprehensive and transparent reporting. We hope it will facilitate the authorship of high-quality case reports with the potential to further improve the quality and safety of peri-operative care.

Efficacy and safety of intrathecal morphine for analgesia after lower joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

Widespread adoption of intrathecal morphine into clinical practice is hampered by concerns about its potential side-effects. We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis with the primary objective of determining the efficacy and safety of intrathecal morphine. Our secondary objective was to determine the dose associated with greatest efficacy and safety. We also assessed the impact of intrathecal morphine on respiratory depression. We systematically searched the literature for trials comparing intrathecal morphine with a control group in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. Our primary efficacy outcome was rest pain score (0-10) at 8-12 hours; our primary safety outcome was the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting within 24 hours. Twenty-nine trials including 1814 patients were identified. Rest pain score at 8-12 hours was significantly reduced in the intrathecal morphine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -1.7 (-2.0 to -1.3), p < 0.0001 (19 trials; 1420 patients; high-quality evidence), without sub-group differences between doses (p = 0.35). Intrathecal morphine increased postoperative nausea and vomiting, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 1.4 (1.3-1.6), p < 0.0001 (24 trials; 1603 patients; high-quality evidence). However, a sub-group analysis by dose revealed that rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting within 24 hours were similar between groups at a dose of 100 µg, while the risk significantly increased with larger doses (p value for sub-group difference = 0.02). Patients receiving intrathecal morphine were no more likely to have respiratory depression, the risk ratio (95%CI) being 0.9 (0.5-1.7), p = 0.78 (16 trials; 1173 patients; high-quality evidence). In conclusion, there is good evidence that intrathecal morphine provides effective analgesia after lower limb arthroplasty, without an increased risk of respiratory depression, but at the expense of an increased rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A dose of 100 µg is a 'ceiling' dose for analgesia and a threshold dose for increased rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Updates in our understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity: a narrative review.

Despite advances in clinical practice, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity continues to occur with the therapeutic use of local anaesthesia. Patterns of presentation have evolved over recent years due in part to the increasing use of ultrasound which has been demonstrated to reduce risk. Onset of toxicity is increasingly delayed, a greater proportion of clinical reports are secondary to fascial plane blocks, and cases are increasing where non-anaesthetist providers are involved. The evolving clinical context presents a challenge for diagnosis and requires education of all physicians, nurses and allied health professionals about these changing patterns and risks. This review discusses: mechanisms; prevention; diagnosis; and treatment of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The local anaesthetic and dose used, site of injection and block conduct and technique are all important determinants of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity, as are various patient factors. Risk mitigation is discussed including the care of at-risk groups, such as: those at the extremes of age; patients with cardiac, hepatic and specific metabolic diseases; and those who are pregnant. Advances in the changing clinical landscape with novel applications and settings for the use of local anaesthesia are also described. Finally, we signpost future directions to potentially improve the management of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The utility of local anaesthetics remains unquestionable in clinical practice, and thus maximising the safe and appropriate use of these drugs should translate to improvements in patient care.

Quadratus lumborum block vs. transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Caesarean delivery is the most commonly performed inpatient surgical procedure globally. Pain after caesarean delivery is moderate to severe if not adequately treated, and is a primary anaesthetic concern for patients. Transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks are fascial plane blocks that have the potential to improve analgesia following caesarean delivery. Although proponents of the quadratus lumborum block suggest that this technique may provide better analgesia compared with transversus abdominis plane block, there are limited data directly comparing these two techniques. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum block approaches, seeking randomised controlled trials comparing both techniques to each other, or to control, with or without intrathecal morphine. In all, 31 trials with 2188 patients were included and our primary outcome, the cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, was reported in 12 trials. In the absence of intrathecal morphine, transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks were equivalent, and both were superior to control (moderate-quality evidence). In the presence of intrathecal morphine, no differences were found between control, transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks (moderate-quality evidence). Similar results were found for resting and active pain scores at 4-6 h, 8-12 h, 24 h and 36 h, although quadratus lumborum block was associated with lower pain scores at 36 h when compared with transversus abdominis plane block (very low-quality evidence). However, transversus abdominis plane block was associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (moderate-quality evidence) and sedation when compared with inactive control following intrathecal morphine administration (low-quality evidence). There are insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, but transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum block appear to be superior to control in the absence of intrathecal morphine, but provide limited additional benefit over inactive control when intrathecal morphine is also used.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 and timing of elective surgery: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, the Centre for Peri-operative Care, the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic means that a significant number of patients who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will require surgery. Given the potential for multisystem involvement, timing of surgery needs to be carefully considered to plan for safe surgery. This consensus statement uses evidence from a systematic review and expert opinion to highlight key principles in the timing of surgery. Shared decision-making regarding timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection must account for severity of the initial infection; ongoing symptoms of COVID-19; comorbid and functional status; clinical priority and risk of disease progression; and complexity of surgery. For the protection of staff, other patients and the public, planned surgery should not be considered during the period that a patient may be infectious. Precautions should be undertaken to prevent pre- and peri-operative infection, especially in higher risk patients. Elective surgery should not be scheduled within 7 weeks of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection unless the risks of deferring surgery outweigh the risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality associated with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes either transient or asymptomatic disease for most patients, who require no additional precautions beyond a 7-week delay, but those who have persistent symptoms or have been hospitalised require special attention. Patients with persistent symptoms of COVID-19 are at increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality even after 7 weeks. The time before surgery should be used for functional assessment, prehabilitation and multidisciplinary optimisation. Vaccination several weeks before surgery will reduce risk to patients and might lessen the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of other patients and staff. National vaccine committees should consider whether such patients can be prioritised for vaccination. As further data emerge, these recommendations may need to be revised, but the principles presented should be considered to ensure safety of patients, the public and staff.

An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients.

This international multidisciplinary consensus statement was developed to provide balanced guidance on the safe peri-operative use of opioids in adults. An international panel of healthcare professionals evaluated the literature relating to postoperative opioid-related harm, including persistent postoperative opioid use; opioid-induced ventilatory impairment; non-medical opioid use; opioid diversion and dependence; and driving under the influence of prescription opioids. Recommended strategies to reduce harm include pre-operative assessment of the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use; use of an assessment of patient function rather than unidimensional pain scores alone to guide adequacy of analgesia; avoidance of long-acting (modified-release and transdermal patches) opioid formulations and combination analgesics; limiting the number of tablets prescribed at discharge; providing deprescribing advice; avoidance of automatic prescription refills; safe disposal of unused medicines; reducing the risk of opioid diversion; and better education of healthcare professionals, patients and carers. This consensus statement provides a framework for better prescribing practices that could help reduce the risk of postoperative opioid-related harm in adults.

A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes.

The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri-operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single-use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross-contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope-induced infection. We also performed a micro-costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri-operative setting from a high-throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro-costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross-contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro-costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single-use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single-use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross-contamination and resource utilisation.

Neuraxial anaesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review and practice recommendations.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on global healthcare services. In an attempt to limit the spread of infection and to preserve healthcare resources, one commonly used strategy has been to postpone elective surgery, whilst maintaining the provision of anaesthetic care for urgent and emergency surgery. General anaesthesia with airway intervention leads to aerosol generation, which increases the risk of COVID-19 contamination in operating rooms and significantly exposes the healthcare teams to COVID-19 infection during both tracheal intubation and extubation. Therefore, the provision of regional anaesthesia may be key during this pandemic, as it may reduce the need for general anaesthesia and the associated risk from aerosol-generating procedures. However, guidelines on the safe performance of regional anaesthesia in light of the COVID-19 pandemic are limited. The goal of this review is to provide up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations or expert opinion when evidence is limited, for performing regional anaesthesia procedures in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. These recommendations focus on seven specific domains including: planning of resources and staffing; modifying the clinical environment; preparing equipment, supplies and drugs; selecting appropriate personal protective equipment; providing adequate oxygen therapy; assessing for and safely performing regional anaesthesia procedures; and monitoring during the conduct of anaesthesia and post-anaesthetic care. Implicit in these recommendations is preserving patient safety whilst protecting healthcare providers from possible exposure.