Anaesthetists' attitudes towards attending the funerals of their patients: A cross-sectional study among Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists.

A patient's death can pose significant stress on the family and the treating anaesthetist. Anaesthetists' attitudes about the benefits of and barriers to attending a patient's funeral are unknown. Therefore, we performed a prospective, cross-sectional study to ascertain the frequency of anaesthetists' attendance at a patient's funeral and their perceptions about the benefits and barriers. The primary aim was to investigate the attitudes of anaesthetists towards attending the funeral of a patient. The secondary aims were to examine the perceived benefits of and barriers to attending the funeral and to explore the rate of bonds being formed between anaesthetists, patients and families. Of the 424 anaesthetists who completed the survey (response rate 21.2%), 25 (5.9%) had attended a patient's funeral. Of the participants, 364 (85.9%) rarely formed special bonds with patients or their families; 233 (55%) believed that forming a special bond would increase the likelihood of their attendance. Showing respect to patients or their families was the most commonly perceived benefit of attending a funeral. Participants found expression of personal grief and caring for the patient at the end-of-life and beyond beneficial to themselves and the family. Fear of their attendance being misinterpreted or perceived as not warranted by the family as well as time restraints were barriers for their attendance. Most anaesthetists had never attended a patient's funeral. Few anaesthetists form close relationships with patients or their families. Respect, expression of grief and caring beyond life were perceived benefits of attendance. Families misinterpreting the purpose of attendance or not expecting their attendance and time restraints were commonly perceived barriers. Trial registration: ACTRN 12618000503224.

The effects of intravenous lignocaine on depth of anaesthesia and intraoperative haemodynamics during open radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Lignocaine is a local anaesthetic agent, which is also commonly used as a perioperative analgesic adjunct to accelerate rehabilitation and enhance recovery after surgery. Lignocaine's systemic effects on intraoperative haemodynamics and volatile anaesthetic requirements are not well explored. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of intravenous lignocaine on intraoperative volatile agent requirements and haemodynamics in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: We performed an analysis of 76 participants who underwent elective open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Patients received lignocaine (1.5 mg/kg loading dose) followed by an infusion (1.5 mg/kg/h) for the duration of surgery, or saline at an equivalent rate. The aims of the study were to evaluate the end-tidal sevoflurane concentration required to maintain a bispectral index of between 40 and 60. Measurements included intraoperative blood pressure, heart rate, and the volume of intravenous fluids and dosage of vasoactive medications administered. RESULTS: The average end-tidal sevoflurane concentration was lower in the Lignocaine group compared to saline [1.49% (SD: 0.32) vs. 1.89% (SD: 0.29); 95% CI 0.26-0.5, p < 0.001]. In the Lignocaine group, the average mean arterial pressure was 80.3 mmHg (SD: 4.9) compared to 85.1 mmHg (SD: 5.4) in the Saline group (95% CI 2.4-7.1, p < 0.001). Systolic blood pressure was also lower in the Lignocaine group: 121.7 mmHg (SD: 6.1) vs. 128.0 mmHg (SD: 6.4) in the Saline group; 95% CI 3.5-9.2, p < 0.001, as was the mean heart rate [Lignocaine group: 74.9 beats/min (SD: 1.8) vs. 81.5 beats/min (SD: 1.7) in the Saline group, 95% CI 4.1-9.1, p < 0.001]. Maintenance fluid requirements were higher in the Lignocaine group: 3281.1 mL (SD: 1094.6) vs. 2552.6 mL (SD: 1173.5) in the Saline group, 95% CI 206-1251, p = 0.007. There were no differences in the use of vasoactive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lignocaine reduces volatile anaesthetic requirements and lowers blood pressure and heart rate in patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy.

Restrictive intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm improves outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial.

We aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without a cardiac output goal directed therapy (GDT) algorithm. We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial in four high volume hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery centres. We evaluated whether the additional impact of a intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm would influence the amount of fluid delivered, reduce fluid related complications, and improve length of hospital stay. Fifty-two consecutive adult patients were recruited. The median (IQR) duration of surgery was 8.6 hours (7.1:9.6) in the GDT group vs. 7.8 hours (6.8:9.0) in the usual care group (p = 0.2). Intraoperative fluid balance was 1005mL (475:1873) in the GDT group vs. 3300mL (2474:3874) in the usual care group (p<0.0001). Total volume of fluid administered intraoperatively was also lower in the GDT group: 2050mL (1313:2700) vs. 4088mL (3400:4525), p<0.0001 and vasoactive medications were used more frequently. There were no significant differences in proportions of patients experiencing overall complications (p = 0.179); however, fewer complications occurred in the GDT group: 44 vs. 92 (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.41; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.69, p = 0.001). Median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 9.5 days (IQR: 7.0, 14.3) in the GDT vs. 12.5 days in the usual care group (IQR: 9.0, 22.3) for an Incidence Rate Ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.85, p = 0.002). In conclusion, using a surgery-specific, patient-specific goal directed restrictive fluid therapy algorithm in this cohort of patients, can justify using enough fluid without causing oedema, yet as little fluid as possible without causing hypovolaemia i.e. "precision" fluid therapy. Our findings support the use of a perioperative haemodynamic optimization plan that prioritizes preservation of cardiac output and organ perfusion pressure by judicious use of fluid therapy, rational use of vasoactive drugs and timely application of inotropic drugs. They also suggest the need for further larger studies to confirm its findings.