Anaesthesia praCtice for Caesarean dElivery Snapshot Study (ACCESS): Protocol and baseline characteristics of registered centres.

BACKGROUND: Specific guidelines to manage caesarean delivery anaesthesia are lacking. A European multicentre study, ACCESS investigates caesarean delivery anaesthesia management in European centres. In order to identify ACCESS participating centres, a registration survey was created. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current report is to describe the characteristics of ACCESS study participating centres, the rationale for the ACCESS study and the study methodology. DESIGN AND SETTING: The ACCESS study is a European multicentre cross-sectional study to describe anaesthesia management for caesarean delivery (CD) using a snapshot (2-week) design. The ACCESS registration survey gathered: contact details for National Coordinators (NC); Lead Investigators (LI) per centre; centre annual CD volume; expected no. of CD during 2-week snapshot window; centre practice information; data collection language. The ACCESS registration survey was launched July 2022 (Google Forms, Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and distributed through personal connections, national and international societies, social media networks, during Euroanaesthesia 2023, through the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care newsletter. RESULTS: The ACCESS registration survey identified Lead Investigators for 418 centres, in 32 countries, representing an anticipated number of 15,073 CD cases over the planned 12-month study period. A median (range) of 20 (2 to 400) CD cases are anticipated per centre during the 2-week snapshot window. Most 366/418 (87.6%) centres are small, ≤2000 annual CD cases, 42 are medium 2000-5000 cases and 10 are large, ≥5000 annual CD cases. Registered centres reported in 134 (32.0%) centres that anaesthesia for caesarean delivery is performed mostly by a specialist obstetric anaesthesiologist. CONCLUSION: The ACCESS registration survey revealed variability in volume and CD practice as well as training-levels and staffing among European countries. The ACCESS study (https://www.access-study.org/) aims to generate practice data to guide CD anaesthetic management strategies.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: an abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia. Although dozens of different anti-emetics are available for clinical practice, there is currently no comparative ranking of efficacy and safety of these drugs to inform clinical practice. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare, and rank in terms of efficacy and safety, single anti-emetic drugs and their combinations, including 5-hydroxytryptamine3 , dopamine-2 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists; corticosteroids; antihistamines; and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. We systematically searched for placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials up to November 2017 (updated in April 2020). We assessed how trustworthy the evidence was using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches for vomiting within 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events, any adverse event and drug class-specific side-effects. We included 585 trials (97,516 participants, 83% women) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 trials, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared with placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Out of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, with risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.18-0.38); ramosetron, 0.44 (0.32-0.59); granisetron, 0.45 (0.38-0.54); dexamethasone, 0.51 (0.44-0.57); and ondansetron, 0.55 (0.51-0.60). It was moderate for fosaprepitant, 0.06 (0.02-0.21) and droperidol, 0.61 (0.54-0.69). Granisetron and amisulpride are likely to have little or no increase in any adverse event compared with placebo, while dimenhydrinate and scopolamine may increase the number of patients with any adverse event compared with placebo. So far, there is no convincing evidence that other single drugs effect the incidence of serious, or any, adverse events when compared with placebo. Among drug class specific side-effects, evidence for single drugs is mostly not convincing. There is convincing evidence regarding the prophylactic effect of at least seven single drugs for postoperative vomiting such that future studies investigating these drugs will probably not change the estimated beneficial effect. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine : A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study-the HYPOTENS trial.

BACKGROUND: Sympathomimetic drugs are a therapeutic cornerstone for the management of hypotensive states like intraoperative hypotension (IOH). While cafedrine/theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany to restore blood pressure in patients with IOH, more research is required to compare its effectiveness with alternatives such as ephedrine (E) that are more commonly available internationally. METHODS: HYPOTENS (NCT02893241, DRKS00010740) was a prospective, national, multicenter, open-label, two-armed, non-interventional study that compared C/T with E for treatment of IOH. We describe a prospectively defined cohort of patients ≥50 years old with comorbidities undergoing general anesthesia induced with propofol and fentanyl. Primary objectives were to examine treatment precision, rapidity of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without relevant increases in heart rate. Secondary endpoints were treatment satisfaction and the number of required additional boluses or other accompanying measures. RESULTS: A total of 1496 patients were included in the per protocol analysis. Overall, effective stabilization of blood pressure was achieved with both C/T and E. Post-hoc analysis showed that blood pressure increase from baseline was more pronounced with C/T. Fewer additional boluses or other accompanying measures were required in the C/T arm. The incidence of tachycardia was comparable between groups. Post-hoc analysis showed that E produced dose-dependent elevated heart rate values. By contrast, heart rate remained stable in patients treated with C/T. Physicians reported a higher level of treatment satisfaction with C/T, with a higher proportion of anesthetists rating treatment precision and rapidity of onset as good or very good when compared with E. CONCLUSION: Neither drug was superior in restoring blood pressure levels; however, post-hoc analyses suggested that treatment is more goal-orientated and easier to control with C/T. Heart rate was shown to be more stable with C/T and fewer additional interventions were required to restore blood pressure, which could have contributed to the increased treatment satisfaction reported by anesthetists using C/T.

[Hot topics in obstetric anesthesia]. / "Hot topics" aus der geburtshilflichen Anästhesie.

In 2019 the annual conference of the scientific working group on obstetric anesthesiology of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) took place in the usual manner. Emergency situations, such as the challenge of a preclinical birth or the recognition and treatment of an amniotic fluid embolism were discussed. In addition, topics on the correct treatment of a female patient with a known addictive disorder were of great interest as well as the discussion on the question when a transfusion should be performed in postpartum anemia and which risks accompany the increasing prevalence of obesity, especially during pregnancy. A further hot topic was the deliberation on the prevalence and differential diagnostic clarification of neurological complications after epidural anesthesia. In connection with the topic of birth, exciting and practice relevant topics for all anesthetists confronted with this field were presented and discussed. The essential aspects are summarized in this article.

[Anesthesia and intensive care ventilators: differences and usability in COVID-19 patients]. / Anästhesie- und Intensivbeatmungsgeräte: Unterschiede und Nutzbarkeit bei COVID-19-Patienten.

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemia is a highly dynamic situation characterized by therapeutic and logistic uncertainties. Depending on the effectiveness of social distancing, a shortage of intensive care respirators must be expected. Concomitantly, many physicians and nursing staff are unaware of the capabilities of alternative types of ventilators, hence being unsure if they can be used in intensive care patients. Intensive care respirators were specifically developed for the use in patients with pathological lung mechanics. Nevertheless, modern anesthesia machines offer similar technical capabilities including a number of different modes. However, conceptual differences must be accounted for, requiring close monitoring and the presence of trained personnel. Modern transport ventilators are mainly for bridging purposes as they can only be used with 100% oxygen in contaminated surroundings. Unconventional methods, such as "ventilator-splitting", which have recently received increasing attention on social media, cannot be recommended. This review intends to provide an overview of the conceptual and technical differences of different types of mechanical ventilators.

Adverse side-effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients - an abridged Cochrane systematic review.

In the peri-operative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the adverse effects of an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone in adult surgical patients. We searched in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science for randomised controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone with a control intervention in adult patients undergoing surgery. Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed all included studies for bias. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing and glycaemic response within 24 h. We included 37 studies in this meta-analysis. The pooled results found no evidence that dexamethasone increased the risk of a postoperative wound infection, Peto OR (95%CI) 1.01 (0.80-1.27); 4603 participants, 26 studies; I² = 32%; moderate-quality evidence. Whether dexamethasone influenced wound healing was unclear due to the large confidence intervals, Peto OR (95%CI) 0.99 (0.28-3.43); 1072 participants, 8 studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence. Dexamethasone produced a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 h after surgery, mean difference (95%CI) 0.7 mmol.l-1 (0.3-1.2) 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence. This article is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review.

[Identification of the epidural space using pressure waveform analysis (CompuFlo® technology): a case series]. / Identifikation des Epiduralraums mithilfe einer Druckkurvenanalyse (CompuFlo®-Technologie): eine Fallserie.

Anesthesiologists commonly perform the loss of resistance technique in order to identify the epidural space during neuraxial procedures; however, this technique is subjective and lacks reliability in certain cases. The so-called CompuFlo® technology provides objective information about the position of the epidural needle by means of a pressure curve and acoustic signals. The technology was introduced several years ago and was evaluated in several trials, which showed promising results. The purpose of the present publication is to report on the first experiences with the CompuFlo® technology in German-speaking countries. A series of 24 epidural procedures using the CompuFlo® device was carried out in routine daily practice. The epidural space was successfully identified in 23 cases. Conversion to the conventional loss of resistance technique was performed during the initial cases in a prolonged procedure. The CompuFlo® technique is considered to be a promising technology, which might help to reduce complications after epidural anesthesia, e.g. postdural puncture headache.

[Relevant aspects of the ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy for obstetric anaesthesia (update 2018)]. / Anästhesiologisch relevante Aspekte der ESC-Leitlinien für das Management von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen während der Schwangerschaft (Update 2018).

The current update of the ESC (European Society of Cardiology) guidelines on managing cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy provides instructions for doctors in daily practice. Heart diseases are the most common reason for maternal death during pregnancy in western countries. Among other things, the following topics are dealt with: congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, aortic and valvular diseases as well as arrhythmias and hypertensive disorders. Compared to the guidelines from 2011 some changes have been made regarding the recommendations to classify maternal risk according to the modified World Health Organization (mWHO) classification or in recommendations on anticoagulation for low-dose and high-dose requirements of vitamin K antagonists. The main focus of this summary of recent recommendations is the impact on the anesthesia management in order to provide responsible anesthesiologists with relevant background knowledge.

Effects of epidural volume extension by saline injection on the efficacy and safety of intrathecal local anaesthetics: systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

Epidural volume extension, a modification of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, involves the epidural injection of saline in order to increase the spread of drugs given intrathecally. Results from individual studies have so far been contradictory and we aimed to gather the available evidence for this technique. We performed a systematic literature search for randomised, controlled trials comparing epidural volume extension after spinal injection with a control group without epidural injection in patients undergoing surgery. Conventional meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and meta-regression were performed, with the Grading of Recommendations on Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach used to express reliability of outcome estimates. We included 15 studies with 1177 participants. Meta-analyses for the primary outcomes, such as maximum sensory height (6 studies, 274 participants, mean difference (MD) (95%CI) -0.59 (-1.24 to 0.07) dermatomes, low-quality evidence) and hypotension (10 studies, 683 participants, risk ratio (95%CI) 0.84 (0.66-1.07), low-quality evidence), did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms, but trial sequential analysis suggested insufficient evidence to be certain of these findings. Meta-regression suggested a volume-dependent effect, with higher volumes causing a higher spread of intrathecal drugs and a higher incidence of hypotension. A sub-group analysis indicated a pronounced effect on motor block recovery time when a lower anaesthetic dose plus epidural volume extension was compared with a higher anaesthetic dose without epidural volume extension, the MD (95%CI) being -66.75 (-76.0 to -57.5) min, with trial sequential analysis suggesting the evidence was sufficient to draw this conclusion. In trials using the same anaesthetic mixture in the epidural volume extension and the control groups, motor block recovery time did not differ between groups, with a MD (95%CI) of -1.06 (-5.48 to 3.36) min, although trial sequential analysis suggested insufficient evidence. In summary, there is not enough evidence to draw definite conclusions on the effect of epidural volume extension. The quality of the current evidence is low for both efficacy (maximum sensory height) and safety (hypotension). However, there may be a significantly shorter motor block recovery time when different anaesthetic mixtures are used in epidural volume extension and control groups; this warrants further investigation.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil vs. alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour: a Cochrane systematic review.

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).

[Pain therapy in obstetrics]. / Schmerztherapie in der Geburtshilfe.

Labor pains can be stronger than pain caused by fractures and as a result of fear and stress can even have a negative effect on the course of parturition. A proportion of 75% of all women in labor use one or more supportive forms of analgesia to relieve labor pains. The procedures used range from supportive non-pharmacological measures, single intramuscular or intravenous analgesics and a prolonged inhalative analgesia up to highly efficient neuraxial blocks. Non-pharmacological interventions are considered to be generally safe but poorly effective. In contrast, pharmacological and invasive interventions are proven to be effective for analgesia but associated with potential side effects.

[Trial sequential analysis : Sample size calculation for reliable meta-analyses]. / Sequenzielle Studienanalyse : "Fallzahlberechnung" für verlässliche Metaanalysen.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have a great impact on medical decision-making. Random errors are, however, often the reason for misinterpretation of interventional effects in meta-analyses. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to introduce authors and readers of meta-analyses to the problem of random errors. The article presents trial sequential analysis (TSA) as a suitable and user-friendly method that adjusts for the risk of random errors in meta-analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The practical application of TSA is illustrated and exemplified using regional anesthesiology procedures versus conventional pain therapy with respect to the prevention of persistent postoperative pain after breast cancer surgery or thoracotomy. The results were compared with those from conventional meta-analytical methods. RESULTS: Conventional meta-analytical methods showed a significant advantage for patients after breast cancer surgery as well as after thoracotomy for regional anesthesia procedures with respect to the reduction of persistent postoperative pain. By means of TSA it could be concluded for thoracotomy that the evidence of this meta-analysis was sufficient. In contrast, the TSA for breast cancer surgery showed that based on the current data set and on the basis of relevant assumptions, it is potentially a false indication of an effect. There is currently no evidence that regional anesthesia leads to a significant reduction of persistent postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: The TSA is a suitable tool to minimize the risk of random errors and for a more reliable assessment of the evidence for the results of a meta-analysis.

[Polytrauma following a truck accident : How to save lives by guideline-oriented emergency care]. / Polytrauma nach LKW-Unfall : Wie eine leitliniengerechte Notfallversorgung Leben retten kann.

BACKGROUND: Identification and immediate treatment of life-threatening conditions is fundamental in patients with multiple trauma. In this context, the S3 guidelines on polytrauma and the S1 guidelines on emergency anesthesia provide the scientific background on how to handle these situations. CASE STUDY: This case report deals with a seriously injured driver involved in a truck accident. The inaccessible patient showed a scalping injury of the facial skeleton with massive bleeding and partially blocked airway but with spontaneous breathing as well as centralized cardiovascular circulation conditions and an initial Glasgow coma scale (GCS) of 8. An attempt was made to stop the massive bleeding by using hemostyptic-coated dressings. In addition, the patient was intubated via video laryngoscopy and received a left and right thoracic drainage as well as two entry points for intraosseous infusion. DISCUSSION: In modern emergency medical services, treatment based on defined algorithms is recommended and also increasingly established in dealing with critical patients. The guideline-oriented emergency care of patients with polytrauma requires invasive measures, such as intubation and thoracic decompression in the preclinical setting. The foundation for this procedure includes training in theory and practice both of the non-medical and medical rescue service personnel.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after surgery: a systematic review with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Improvement of postoperative pain and other perioperative outcomes remain a significant challenge and a matter of debate among perioperative clinicians. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion on postoperative pain and recovery in patients undergoing various surgical procedures. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and ClinicalTrials.gov, and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials until May 2014, that compared patients who did or did not receive continuous perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion. RESULTS: Forty-five trials (2802 participants) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that lidocaine reduced postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) at 1-4 h (MD -0.84, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.59) and at 24 h (MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11) after surgery, but not at 48 h (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03). Subgroup analysis and trial sequential analysis suggested pain reduction for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery or open abdominal surgery, but not for patients undergoing other surgeries. There was limited evidence of positive effects of lidocaine on postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of hospital stay. There were limited data available on the effect of systemic lidocaine on adverse effects or surgical complications. Quality of evidence was limited as a result of inconsistency (heterogeneity) and indirectness (small studies). CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence suggesting that i.v. lidocaine may be a useful adjuvant during general anaesthesia because of its beneficial impact on several outcomes after surgery.

[Anesthesia in obstetrics: Tried and trusted methods, current standards and new challenges]. / Anästhesie in der Geburtshilfe: Altbewährtes, gegenwärtige Standards und neue Herausforderungen.

Obstetric analgesia and anesthesia have some specific aspects, which in particular are directly related to pathophysiological alterations during pregnancy and also to the circumstance that two or even more individuals are always affected by complications or therapeutic measures. This review article deals with some evergreens and hot topics of obstetric anesthesia and essential new knowledge on these aspects is described. The article summarizes the talks given at the 16th symposium on obstetric anesthesia organized by the Scientific Committee for Regional Anaesthesia and Obstetric Anaesthesia within the German Society of Anaesthesiology. The topics are in particular, special features and pitfalls of informed consent in the delivery room, challenges in education and training in obstetric anesthesia, expedient inclusion of simulation-assisted training and further education on risk minimization, knowledge and recommendations on fasting for the delivery room and cesarean sections, monitoring in obstetric anesthesia by neuraxial and alternative procedures, the possibilities and limitations of using ultrasound for lumbal epidural catheter positioning in the delivery room, recommended approaches in preparing peridural catheters for cesarean section, basic principles of cardiotocography, postoperative analgesia after cesarean section, the practice of early bonding in the delivery room during cesarean section births and the management of postpartum hemorrhage.

Comparison of vestipitant with ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough postoperative nausea and vomiting after failed prophylaxis with ondansetron.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common; ondansetron is often used as prophylaxis or for breakthrough episodes. Vestipitant is a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist that is effective for prophylaxis, but its efficacy for treating established PONV is unknown. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vestipitant, compared with ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough PONV in patients who had already received prophylactic ondansetron before surgery. METHODS: A multicentre, randomized, single-blind (sponsor-open), parallel group study. Of 527 surgical patients, 130 (25%) had breakthrough PONV and were equally randomized to one of six i.v. doses of vestipitant (4-36 mg) or ondansetron 4 mg. The primary endpoint was the rate of patients exhibiting complete response, defined as no emesis and no further rescue medication from 10 min after infusion up to 24 h after surgery or hospital discharge. RESULTS: All doses of vestipitant were non-inferior to ondansetron in treating PONV after failed prophylaxis with ondansetron. However, vestipitant was superior to ondansetron in decreasing episodes of postoperative emesis and retching. The complete response rate analysis using Bayesian model averaging indicated that no vestipitant dose was superior to ondansetron. Nausea numerical rating scale scores and the times-to-PONV or discharge were similar between the vestipitant and ondansetron treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall efficacy was non-inferior between vestipitant and ondansetron, the rate of emesis was lower with vestipitant. These data suggest that vestipitant may be a useful agent for the management of PONV, similar to other NK-1 antagonists. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01507194.