Perioperative management of surgical procedure during pregnancy: a systematic review.

Background: Approximately 1-2% of pregnant women undergo non-obstetric surgery under anaesthesia during their pregnancy. This review specifically targets anaesthesia management for pregnant women undergoing non-obstetric surgery in resource-limited settings. Methods: Following the delineation of primary questions, scope, and inclusion criteria, a comprehensive search strategy utilizing advanced techniques was implemented across electronic sources, databases, and websites to identify relevant articles. A rigorous screening process was applied during the literature evaluation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement guided the conduct of this review, ensuring adherence to standardized reporting practices. Results: A total of 240 articles were initially identified from databases and websites. After screening titles and abstracts, 85 papers were excluded, and an additional 43 were removed due to duplication. Subsequently, 68 items were subjected to eligibility screening. Finally, 30 papers that specifically addressed anaesthetic considerations for pregnant women undergoing non-obstetric operations were reviewed. Conclusion: Thorough preoperative evaluation is essential for all patients, with particular attention to modifications in anaesthetic management to accommodate physiological changes during pregnancy. Urgent and emergent surgeries should proceed promptly during pregnancy to optimize outcomes for both the mother and foetus. Maintaining uteroplacental perfusion generally involves avoiding maternal hypoxaemia, hypotension, hyper- and hypocapnia, temperature extremes, and stress. When deemed safe, regional anaesthesia may offer favourable outcomes for both the mother and foetus.

Zoonotic tuberculosis in a high bovine tuberculosis burden area of Ethiopia.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is a major cause of ill health and one of the leading causes of death worldwide, caused by species of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC), with Mycobacterium tuberculosis being the dominant pathogen in humans and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle. Zoonotic transmission of TB (zTB) to humans is frequent particularly where TB prevalence is high in cattle. In this study, we explored the prevalence of zTB in central Ethiopia, an area highly affected by bovine TB (bTB) in cattle. Method: A convenient sample of 385 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB, N = 287) and tuberculous lymphadenitis (TBLN, N = 98) were included in this cross-sectional study in central Ethiopia. Sputum and fine needle aspirate (FNA) samples were obtained from patients with PTB and TBLN, respectively, and cultures were performed using BACTEC™ MGIT™ 960. All culture positive samples were subjected to quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays, targeting IS1081, RD9 and RD4 genomic regions for detection of MTBC, M. tuberculosis and M. bovis, respectively. Results: Two hundred and fifty-five out of 385 sampled patients were culture positive and all were isolates identified as MTBC by being positive for the IS1081 assay. Among them, 249 (97.6%) samples had also a positive RD9 result (intact RD9 locus) and were consequently classified as M. tuberculosis. The remaining six (2.4%) isolates were RD4 deficient and thereby classified as M. bovis. Five out of these six M. bovis strains originated from PTB patients whereas one was isolated from a TBLN patient. Occupational risk and the widespread consumption of raw animal products were identified as potential sources of M. bovis infection in humans, and the isolation of M. bovis from PTB patients suggests the possibility of human-to-human transmission, particularly in patients with no known contact history with animals. Conclusion: The detected proportion of culture positive cases of 2.4% being M. bovis from this region was higher zTB rate than previously reported for the general population of Ethiopia. Patients with M. bovis infection are more likely to get less efficient TB treatment because M. bovis is inherently resistant to pyrazinamide. MTBC species identification should be performed where M. bovis is common in cattle, especially in patients who have a history of recurrence or treatment failure.

Evidence-Based Guideline on Critical Patient Transport and Handover to ICU.

The perioperative period is a time in which significant physiological change occurs. Improper transfer of information at this point can lead to medical errors. Planning and preparation for critical patient transport to ICU is vital to prevent adverse events. Critical patient transport to ICU must be as safe as possible and should not cause additional risks. It needs good communication, planning, and appropriate staffing with standard monitoring. Evidence shows inconsistency and variability on the use of standardized protocols during critical patient transfer and handover to the ICU. There is a variety of controversial approaches about the need of sedation, use of end-tidal CO2 monitoring, and manual versus mechanical ventilation based on different evidence. The objective of this review was to recommend safer options of critical patient transfer to the ICU that help reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Methods. Google Scholars, PubMed through HINARI, and other search engines were used to search high-quality evidence that help reach appropriate conclusions. Discussion. Critical patient transfer and handover to ICU is a complex procedure that needs experienced hands, availability of appropriate team members, standard monitoring, and necessary emergency and patient-specific medications. Appropriate and adequate transfer of patient information to the receiving team decreases patient morbidity and mortality when the transfer team uses standardized checklist. Conclusion. Involvement of senior physicians, use of standard monitoring, and appropriate transfer of information have been shown to decrease critical patient morbidity and mortality.

Assessment of the practice of pediatrics procedural sedation and analgesia for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scan at a teaching hospital, Ethiopia, 2020: A clinical audit.

BACKGROUND: The main goals of paediatric sedation/general anesthesia vary according to the specific imaging procedure, but generally includes anxiety relief, pain control and control of excessive movement. The quality of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) depends largely on immobility of the patient during the procedure, which is often difficult to achieve without sedation in children. Sedation is the depression of the central nervous system and reflexes by the administration of drugs. Brain imaging is routinely used to identify stroke, hemorrhage, and structural abnormalities. All patients undergoing procedural sedation and those receiving general anesthesia should be evaluated equally. AIM: The study aimed to perform a clinical audit of sedation and analgesia practices for magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography compared against the guidelines/standards to determine if practice meets the standards and identify areas of non-compliance at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia. METHODS: This clinical audit was conducted from January 1 to May 30/2020 for 5 months at a teaching Referral Hospital in Ethiopia. All children below the age of 6 years underwent MRI and CT imaging procedures under sedation during a study period were included. Data were collected through direct observation using checklists of standards by a trained data collector. Descriptive statistics were presented with tables, graphs of sums and percentages of items using SPSS version 20. RESULTS: A total of 40 children underwent MRI and CT imaging were observed at the Hospital imaging sites. Among the 20 standards, 6 of them had 100% compliance rate, 3 of the standards had 0% complaince rate and 11 of the standards had the compliance rate of between 0 and 100%. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In general, even though the practice guidelines of procedural sedation for MRI and CT recommend to practice procedures based on the standards, this study showed there were a number of standards that had <100% compliance rate. Therefore, it is recommended that staff should adopt standards or locally prepared protocols for their day-to-day practice.

Evaluation of decision to delivery time interval and its effect on feto-maternal outcomes and associated factors in category-1 emergency caesarean section deliveries: prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Category-1 emergency caesarean section delivery is the commonly performed surgical procedure in pregnant women associated with significant mortality and morbidity both in the mother and fetus. The decision to delivery time interval is recommended to be less than 30 min by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This study was designed to evaluate the decision to delivery time interval and its effect on feto-maternal outcomes and the associated factors during category-1 emergency caesarean section deliveries. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted from March to May 2018 at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital obstetrics Operation Theater and postnatal ward. A total of 163 clients who were undergone category-1 emergency caesarean section were included in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corporate). Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression with a 95% confidence interval was used to determine the association of decision to delivery time interval with predictor variables and feto-maternal outcomes. RESULTS: Only 19.6% of women had a decision to delivery time interval below 30 min. The average decision to delivery time interval was 42 ± 21.4 min, the average time from the decision of category-1 emergency caesarean section arrival to the operation theater was 21.58 ± 19.76 min and from theater to delivery of anesthesia was 11.5 ± 3.6 min. Factors that were associated with prolonged decision to delivery time interval were: time taken to collect surgical materials (AOR = 13.76, CI = 1.12-168.7), time taken from decision and arrival to the operation theater (AOR = 0.75, CI = 0.17-3.25) and time taken from arrival at the operation theater to the immediate start of skin incision (AOR = 0.43, CI = 0.28-0.65). CONCLUSION: Delivery was not achieved within the recommended time interval in the majority of category-1 emergency caesarean sections. The average decision to delivery time interval was longer than the recommended time but it did not affect feto-maternal outcomes.