Fatigue among anaesthesiologists in Europe: Findings from a joint EBA/NASC survey.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthesiologists deliver an increasing amount of patient care and often work long hours in operating theatres and intensive care units, with frequent on-calls and insufficient rest in between. In the long term, this will negatively influence mental and physical health and well being. As fatigue becomes more prevalent, this has predictable implications for patient safety and clinical effectiveness. 1. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, severity, causes and implications of work-related fatigue amongst specialist anaesthesiologists. DESIGN: An online survey of specialist anaesthesiologists. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to anaesthesiologists in 42 European countries by electronic mail. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses from a 36-item online survey assessed work-related fatigue and its impact on anaesthesiologists in European countries. RESULTS: Work-related fatigue was experienced in 91.6% of the 1508 respondents from 32 European countries. Fatigue was caused by their working patterns, clinical and nonclinical workloads, staffing issues and excessive work hours. Over 70% reported that work-related fatigue negatively impacted on their physical and mental health, emotional well being and safe commuting. Most respondents did not feel supported by their organisation to maintain good health and well being. CONCLUSION: Work-related fatigue is a significant and widespread problem amongst anaesthesiologists. More education and increased awareness of fatigue and its adverse effects on patient safety, staff well being and physical and mental health are needed. Departments should ensure that their rotas and job plans comply with the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) and introduce a fatigue risk management system to mitigate the effects of fatigue.

SIMULATION-BASED TRAINING OF REGIONAL ANESTHESIA MEDICAL SIMULATION CENTER, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA.

Simulation-based training is a technique, which uses technological devices to reproduce different clinical situations like in the real world. Procedures and simulation scenarios performed on simulators can be planned and repeated with no harm for the patient. Simulation-based training introduced new educational applications in medicine to improve patient safety. Simulation education was introduced in the anesthesia curriculum in 2017 as a first specialization in Slovenia.

REGIONAL ANAESTHESIA IN THORACIC AND ABDOMINAL SURGERY.

Surgical procedure causes tissue damage which activates systemic inflammatory response and leads to changes in endocrine and metabolic system. Anaesthesia and pain can further disrupt immune performance. Regional anaesthesia causes afferent nerve blockade and in this way mediates immune protection. Thoracic epidural analgesia is the cornerstone of pain relief in thoracic and abdominal surgery. Alternatively thoracic paravertebral block can be used with less side effects and good analgesic properties. Drugs that interfere with blood coagulation obstruct the use of central regional blocks. Surgery has also changed recently from open to minimally invasive. Also pain treatment for this procedures has changed to less aggressive, systemic or locoregional techniques. It was shown that transversus abdominis plane block and epidural analgesia have the same effect on postoperative pain, but transversus abdominis plane block was better regarding hemodynamic stability and hospital stay. Multimodal approach combining regional and systemic analgesia is currently the most appropriate perioperative pain management strategy. More studies should be done to give recommendations.

European Society of Anaesthesiology and European Board of Anaesthesiology guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia in adults.

: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) has become a widespread practice given the increasing demand to relieve anxiety, discomfort and pain during invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The role of, and credentialing required by, anaesthesiologists and practitioners performing PSA has been debated for years in different guidelines. For this reason, the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the European Board of Anaesthesiology have created a taskforce of experts that has been assigned to create an evidence-based guideline and, whenever the evidence was weak, a consensus amongst experts on: the evaluation of adult patients undergoing PSA, the role and competences required for the clinicians to safely perform PSA, the commonly used drugs for PSA, the adverse events that PSA can lead to, the minimum monitoring requirements and post-procedure discharge criteria. A search of the literature from 2003 to 2016 was performed by a professional librarian and the retrieved articles were analysed to allow a critical appraisal according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The Taskforce selected 2248 articles. Where there was insufficiently clear and concordant evidence on a topic, the Rand Appropriateness Method with three rounds of Delphi voting was used to obtain the highest level of consensus among the taskforce experts.These guidelines contain recommendations on PSA in the adult population. It does not address sedation performed in the ICU or in children and it does not aim to provide a legal statement on how PSA should be performed and by whom. The National Societies of Anaesthesiology and Ministries of Health should use this evidence-based document to help decision-making on how PSA should be performed in their countries. The final draft of the document was available to ESA members via the website for 4 weeks with the facility for them to upload their comments. Comments and suggestions of individual members and national Societies were considered and the guidelines were amended accordingly. The ESA guidelines Committee and ESA board finally approved and ratified it before publication.

Predictive values of pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation for fluid responsiveness in patients with pneumoperitoneum.

Animal studies suggest that dynamic predictors remain useful in patients with pneumoperitoneum, but human data is conflicting. Our aim was to determine predictive values of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) in patients with pneumoperitoneum using LiDCORapid™ haemodynamic monitor. Standardised fluid challenges of colloid were administered to patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures, one fluid challenge per patient. Intra-abdominal pressure was automatically held at 12 mmHg. Fluid responsiveness was defined as an increase in nominal stroke index (nSI) ≥ 10%. Linear regression was used to assess the ability of PPV and SVV to track the changes of nSI and logistic regression and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) to assess the predictive value of PPV and SVV for fluid responsiveness. Threshold values for PPV and SVV were obtained using the "gray zone" approach. A p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. 56 patients were included in analysis. 41 patients (73%) responded to fluids. Both PPV and SVV tracked changes in nSI (Spearman correlation coefficients 0.34 for PPV and 0.53 for SVV). Odds ratio for fluid responsiveness for PPV was 1.163 (95% CI 1.01-1.34) and for SVV 1.341 (95% CI 1.10-1.63). PPV achieved an AUROC of 0.674 (95% CI 0.518-0.830) and SVV 0.80 (95% CI 0.668-0.932). The gray zone of PPV ranged between 6.5 and 20.5% and that of SVV between 7.5 and 13%. During pneumoperitoneum, as measured by LiDCORapid™, PPV and SVV can predict fluid responsiveness, however their sensitivity is lower than the one reported in conditions without pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry number: (with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry): ACTRN12612000456853.

Effect of propofol and sevoflurane on the inflammatory response of patients undergoing craniotomy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomised, single-centre study was to prospectively investigate the impact of anaesthetic techniques for craniotomy on the release of cytokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and to determine whether intravenous anaesthesia compared to inhalational anaesthesia attenuates the inflammatory response. METHODS: The study enroled 40 patients undergoing craniotomy, allocated into two equal groups to receive either sevoflurane (n = 20) or propofol (n = 20) in conjunction with remifentanil and rocuronium. The lungs were ventilated mechanically to maintain normocapnia. Remifentanil infusion was adjusted according to the degree of surgical manipulation and increased when mean arterial pressure and the heart rate increased by more than 30 % from baseline. The depth of anaesthesia was adjusted to maintain a bispectral index (BIS) of 40-60. Invasive haemodynamic monitoring was used. Serum levels of IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10 were measured before surgery and anaesthesia, during tumour removal, at the end of surgery, and at 24 and 48 h after surgery. Postoperative complications (pain, vomiting, changes in blood pressure, infection and pulmonary, cardiovascular and neurological events) were monitored during the first 15 days after surgery. RESULTS: Compared with patients anaesthetised with sevoflurane, patients who received propofol had higher levels of IL-10 (p = 0.0001) and lower IL-6/IL-10 concentration ratio during and at the end of surgery (p = 0.0001). Both groups showed only a minor response of IL- 8 during and at the end of the surgery (p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received propofol had higher levels of IL-10 during surgery. Neither sevoflurane nor propofol had any significant impact on the occurrence of postoperative complications. Our findings should incite future studies to prove a potential medically important anti-inflammatory role of propofol in neuroanaesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identified as NCT02229201 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Antiinflammatory effect of sevoflurane in open lung surgery with one-lung ventilation.

AIM: To prospectively assess the antiinflammatory effect of volatile anesthetic sevoflurane in patients undergoing open lung surgery with one lung ventilation (OLV). METHODS: This prospective, randomized study included 40 patients undergoing thoracic surgery with OLV (NCT02188407). The patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups that received either propofol or sevoflurane. Four patients were excluded from the study because after surgery they received blood transfusion or non-steroid antiinflammatory drugs. Inflammatory mediators (interleukins 6, 8, and 10, C-reactive protein [CRP], and procalcitonin) were measured perioperatively. The infiltration of the nonoperated lung was assessed on chest x-rays and the oxygenation index was calculated. The major postoperative complications were counted. RESULTS: Interleukin 6 levels were significantly higher in propofol than in sevoflurane group (P=0.014). Preoperative CRP levels did not differ between the groups (P=0.351) and in all patients they were lower than 20 mg/L, but postoperative CRP was significantly higher in propofol group (31±6 vs 15±7 ng/L; P=0.035); Pre- and postoperative procalcitonin was within the reference range (<0.04 µg/L) in both groups. The oxygenation index was significantly lower in propofol group (339±139 vs 465±140; P=0.021). There was no significant difference between the groups in lung infiltrates (P=0.5849). The number of postoperative adverse events was higher in propofol group, but the difference was not-significant (5 vs 1; P=0.115). CONCLUSION: The study suggests an antiinflammatory effect of sevoflurane in patients undergoing thoracotomy with OLV.

Influence of different intraoperative fluid management on postoperative outcome after abdominal tumours resection.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative fluid management is a crucial aspect of cancer surgery, including colorectal surgery and pancreatoduodenectomy. The study tests if intraoperative multimodal monitoring reduces postoperative morbidity and duration of hospitalisation in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery treated by the same anaesthetic protocols with epidural analgesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in 2 parallel groups. High-risk surgical patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were randomly selected in the control group (CG), where standard monitoring was applied (44 patients), and the protocol group (PG), where cerebral oxygenation and extended hemodynamic monitoring were used with the protocol for intraoperative interventions (44 patients). RESULTS: There were no differences in the median length of hospital stay, CG 9 days (interquartile range [IQR] 8 days), PG 9 (5.5), p = 0.851. There was no difference in postoperative renal of cardiac impairment. Procalcitonin was significantly higher (highest postoperative value in the first 3 days) in CG, 0.75 mcg/L (IQR 3.19 mcg/L), than in PG, 0.3 mcg/L (0.88 mcg/L), p = 0.001. PG patients received a larger volume of intraoperative fluid; median intraoperative fluid balance +1300 ml (IQR 1063 ml) than CG; +375 ml (IQR 438 ml), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in intraoperative fluid management and vasopressor use. The median postoperative value of procalcitonin was significantly higher in CG, suggesting differences in immune response to tissue trauma in different intraoperative fluid status, but there was no difference in postoperative morbidity or hospital stay.

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded comparison between multimodal thoracic paravertebral bupivacaine and levobupivacaine analgesia in patients undergoing lung surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of paravertebral analgesia with levobupivacaine or bupivacaine on intra- and postoperative pain for thoracic surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. SETTING: A university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing thoracic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received paravertebral catheterization and a bolus (14-20 mL) of 0.5% bupivacaine (n = 20) or 0.5% levobupivacaine (n = 20) with morphine, 60 µg/kg, before the induction of general anesthesia that consisted of a propofol infusion. A paravertebral continuous infusion (0.05 mL/kg/h) of 0.25% bupivacaine or 0.25% levobupivacaine, 100 mL, with added morphine, 10 mg, and clonidine, 0.15 mg, was started at the end of surgery for 72 hours postoperatively. Postoperative rescue diclofenac analgesia was available if required. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was intraoperative fentanyl consumption. Static and dynamic pain scores measured by a visual analog scale were assessed regularly. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group (p = 0.001). On all 3 postoperative days, static pain scores were significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group (p < 0.05). Dynamic pain scores were significantly lower in the levobupivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group during the 2 postoperative days (p < 0.05). A smaller proportion of patients in the levobupivacaine group used rescue analgesia (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Paravertebral analgesia with levobupivacaine resulted in less intraoperative fentanyl consumption, lower static (3 days) and dynamic (2 days) pain scores, and less rescue analgesia than analgesia with bupivacaine.

Update on thoracic paravertebral blocks.

Thoracic paravertebral block was widely practised at the beginning of the 20th century. It has enjoyed a renaissance in the past decade. This form of afferent blockade is the technique of injecting local anaesthetic into the thoracic paravertebral space. Thoracic paravertebral analgesia is mostly indicated for unilateral surgical procedures of the thorax and abdomen. Compared to the other available regional techniques such as epidural, intercostal and interpleural, paravertebral blocks offer comparable or better analgesia with less side effects. Thoracic paravertebral blocks deserve greater consideration and investigation.

Early extubation and fast-track anesthetic technique for endoscopic cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective study, we evaluated the "fast-track" recovery protocol for endoscopic Port Access (PA) (Edwards Lifesciences) heart procedures. We also determined which factors and variables are important for the success of immediate extubation at the end of the operation while the patient is still in the operating room (OR). METHODS: In the study, we included 104 patients scheduled for PA heart surgery under cardioplegic arrest. All patients were marked before surgery for the fast-track recovery protocol. If the patients fulfilled the extubation criteria within 10 to 15 minutes after the end of operation, they were extubated in the OR (OR group); the others were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) (ICU group) and extubated later. The 2 groups were compared with respect to preoperative and intraoperative variables that could influence early extubation, postoperative complications, duration of ICU stay, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (75%) were extubated in the OR. The patients from the OR group had significantly lower EuroSCOREs than the patients from the ICU group (P = .025). The variables of vital capacity (P = .001) and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (P < .001) were significantly higher preoperatively in the OR group than in the ICU group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to intraoperative characteristics. Postoperative complications were fewer in the OR group. The mean duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter in the OR group than in the ICU group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate extubation in the OR after endoscopic cardiac procedures is safe and possible for the majority of patients. The preoperative patient characteristics of Euro-SCORE, vital capacity, and FEV1 influence the success of ontable extubation.

The analgesic efficacy of local anesthetics for the incisional administration following port access heart surgery: bupivacaine versus ropivacaine.

BACKGROUND: To avoid large dose opioids, the authors investigated an alternative method for postoperative pain relief after Port Access cardiac surgery. METHODS: Out of 104 patients who underwent Port Access heart surgery, 78 patients who were extubated in the operating room were enrolled in the retrospective study. The standardized fast track cardiac anesthesia was used for all patients, and the catheter was placed in the surgical wound at the end of the operation. Analgesia was started with a bolus of bupivacaine (B group) or ropivacaine (R group) through the catheter and followed by continuous infusion of local anesthetic. The variables recorded were visual analogue scale (VAS) at extubation and during the first 24 hours, additional requirements of local anesthetic (LA), and opioid analgetic. Possible complications that could be connected with the catheter in the wound or with the administration of LA were recorded as well. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the R and B groups in mean pain score at extubation and in the first 24 hours. The groups were also comparable concerning the need for bolus application of the LA and opioid analgetic. The microbiological analysis of 9 randomly chosen catheter tips from both groups was sterile. CONCLUSION: Both local anesthetics, ropivacaine and bupivacaine, are equally effective for pain relief after Port Access cardiac surgery. The catheter in surgical incision and application of LA through it does not increase the risk for wound infection and does not interfere with wound healing.

Gastrointestinal Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy With Epidural vs Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Morbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications. Objective: To determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol. Interventions: Patients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution. Results: Among the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.

Influence of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine on perioperative opioid consumption in laparoscopic intestine resection: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The consumption of opioid analgesics could be reduced by the use of analgesics with different mechanisms of action. We investigated whether additional treatment with dexmedetomidine or lidocaine could reduce opioid consumption. METHODS: We randomized 59 study participants into three groups and examined: (i) fentanyl consumption, (ii) consumption of piritramide, and (iii) cognitive function and neuropathic pain. The control group received continuous propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses. Continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) was administered to the dexmedetomidine group and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg/h) was administered to the lidocaine group. RESULTS: No reduction in fentanyl consumption was observed among the groups. However, we noted a significantly lower consumption of piritramide on the first and second postoperative day in the lidocaine group. Total consumption of piritramide was significantly lower in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine and dexmedetomidine reduced intraoperative propofol consumption, while lidocaine reduced postoperative piritramide consumption. Clinical trial registration: NCT02616523.

A prospective, randomized comparison between combined (deep and superficial) and superficial cervical plexus block with levobupivacaine for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) can be performed under cervical plexus block (CPB). Superficial CPB has been reported to be easier to perform with similar efficacy and less anesthesia-related complications than combined deep and superficial CPB. In this study, we compared the efficacy of superficial and combined (deep and superficial) CPB in patients undergoing MIP. METHODS: Forty-two patients with primary hyperparathyroidism due to a solitary adenoma were randomized to receive either a superficial (group superficial, n = 20) or a combined deep and superficial CPB (group combined, n = 22) using 0.35 mL/kg of 0.5% levobupivacaine. The primary end-point was the amount of supplemental fentanyl required to complete surgery. RESULTS: There were no differences in onset of block, pain scores during surgery, or time to first analgesic request between groups. Fentanyl consumption was similar in both groups, i.e., 50 (0-200) microg in group superficial and 50 (0-100) microg in group combined (P = 0.60). Six patients [1 in group superficial (5%) and 5 in group combined (22.7%)] were converted to general anesthesia for surgically required bilateral neck dissection (P = 0.18). General anesthesia for block failure was reported in three superficial (15%) and two combined group patients (9%) (P = 0.99). In group combined, only one patient (4.5%) showed diaphragmatic paresis after the block (P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: Superficial CPB is an alternative to combined block for MIP.

Four different airway-management strategies in patient with Launois-Bensaude syndrome or Madelung's disease undergoing surgical excision of neck lipomatosis with a complicated postoperative course.

Launois-Bensaude syndrome, otherwise known as Madelung's disease, is a rare disorder characterized by fatty accumulations of the upper trunk, neck and head, causing serious cosmetic deformity and neck immobility. We report a case of a patient with Launois-Bensaude syndrome who required 4 different airway management strategies during his hospitalization for postoperative complications after an elective surgical excision of a severe neck lipomatosis. Anesthesiologists who treat patients with Madelung's disease should be aware of 2 major problems: difficult airway and increased frequency of postoperative bleeding. A proper choice of airway management technique is therefore necessary, including a safe intubation and extubation plan to reduce the consequences of airway complications.

USE OF RECOMBINANT ACTIVATED FACTOR VIIa IN A-SIX-MONTH-OLD CHILD DUE TO MASSIVE HEMORRHAGE DURING ELECTIVE SURGERY FOR CHOROID PLEXUS CARCINOMA: CASE REPORT.

We present the use of recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in a 6-month-old infant that suffered massive bleeding and subsequent coagulation disturbances during elective surgery for choroid plexus carcinoma in the lateral ventricle. The administration of rFVIIa resulted in good hemostasis. No intra- or postoperative thromboembolic complications were observed.

Variation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset.

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01203605. Date of registration: 15.09.2010.

The influence of postoperative epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and stress response after major spine surgery--a randomized controlled double blind study.

Major spinal surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain and stress response, bowel dysfunction, and a potential for chronic pain development. Epidural analgesia has been shown to be advantageous compared to intravenous analgesia alone. The aim of the study was to investigate whether postoperative addition of epidural levobupivacaine to intravenous opioid analgesia offers advantage over intravenous opioid analgesia alone. Eighty-one patients scheduled for spinal fusion were enrolled in the study and randomized into two groups. Postoperatively, group A received 0.125% epidural levobupivacaine and group B received saline. Both groups also received intravenous piritramide as a rescue analgesic. Pain intensity, rescue analgesic consumption, blood glucose, cholesterol and cortisol levels, postoperative blood loss, paresthesia, time to first postoperative defecation, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Sixty-eight patients completed the study. The visual analog scale score (mean 2 vs. 4, p = 0.01), consumption ofpiritramide (25 mg vs. 51.5 mg, p = 0.01) and metamizole (1400 vs. 1875 mg, p < 0.01), incidence of nausea (6% vs. 28% p = 0.02) and blood loss (450 mL vs. 650 mL, p < 0.05) were significantly lower in group A. Bowel recovery and first postoperative defecation also occurred earlier in group A (6% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). Blood cortisol, glucose and cholesterol levels and the incidence of paresthesia did not differ between the groups. In conclusion, after spinal fusion, postoperative epidural administration of levobupivacaine provides better analgesia and fewer side effects with no impact on stress response.