Reliability of continuous vital sign monitoring in post-operative patients employing consumer-grade fitness trackers: A randomised pilot trial.

Introduction: Fitness trackers can provide continuous monitoring of vital signs and thus have the potential to become a complementary, mobile and effective tool for early detection of patient deterioration and post-operative complications. Methods: To evaluate potential implementations in acute care setting, we included 36 patients after moderate to major surgery in a recent randomised pilot trial to compare the performance of vital sign monitoring by three different fitness trackers (Apple Watch 7, Garmin Fenix 6pro and Withings ScanWatch) with established standard clinical monitors in post-anaesthesia care units and monitoring wards. Results: During a cumulative period of 56 days, a total of 53,197 heart rate (HR) measurements, as well as 12,219 measurements of the peripheral blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and 28,954 respiratory rate (RR) measurements were collected by fitness trackers. Under real-world conditions, HR monitoring was accurate and reliable across all benchmarked devices (r = [0.95;0.98], p < 0.001; Bias = [-0.74 bpm;-0.01 bpm]; MAPE∼2%). However, the performance of SpO2 (r = [0.21;0.68]; p < 0.001; Bias = [-0.46%;-2.29%]; root-mean-square error = [2.82%;4.1%]) monitoring was substantially inferior. RR measurements could not be obtained for two of the devices, therefore exclusively the accuracy of the Garmin tracker could be evaluated (r = 0.28, p < 0.001; Bias = -1.46/min). Moreover, the time resolution of the vital sign measurements highly depends on the tracking device, ranging from 0.7 to 117.94 data points per hour. Conclusion: According to the results of the present study, tracker devices are generally reliable and accurate for HR monitoring, whereas SpO2 and RR measurements should be interpreted carefully, considering the clinical context of the respective patients.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients - An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic events are common complications of COVID-19. Clinical study results on safety and efficacy of anticoagulation in COVID-19 are controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This report is the second update of our systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard thromboprophylaxis, intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation or no anticoagulation in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. We searched eligible studies up to 5 October 2023. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: For this update we included fourteen new RCTs and a total of 27 RCTs with 16,789 patients. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to high depending on outcome and comparison. Standard thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect for COVID-19 outpatients compared to no anticoagulation. In inpatients with moderate or severe COVID-19, intermediate dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic events or death, but may increase major bleeding compared to standard thromboprophylaxis. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation decreases thrombotic events or deaths in inpatients with moderate COVID-19, but probably has little or no effect in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to standard thromboprophylaxis with low or intermediate dose anticoagulation. With therapeutic dose anticoagulation, the risk of major bleeding probably increases regardless of COVID-19 severity. We are uncertain on the effect of thromboprophylaxis with low dose anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation in the post-discharge setting. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized, moderately-ill COVID-19 patients may benefit from intermediate or therapeutic dose anticoagulation, while critically ill patients may not. Risk of major bleeding must be considered.

Operation-specific risk of postoperative nausea: a cross-sectional study comparing 72 procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Determination of the procedure-specific, risk-adjusted probability of nausea. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcome data. We used a logistic regression model with type of operation, age, sex, preoperative opioids, antiemetic prophylaxis, regional anaesthesia, and perioperative opioids as predictors of postoperative nausea. SETTING: Data from 152 German and Austrian hospitals collected in the Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment (QUIPS) registry from 2013 to 2022. Participants completed a validated outcome questionnaire on the first postoperative day. Operations were categorised into groups of at least 100 cases. PARTICIPANTS: We included 78 231 of the 293 947 participants from the QUIPS registry. They were 18 years or older, willing and able to participate and could be assigned to exactly one operation group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted absolute risk of nausea on the first postoperative day for 72 types of operation. RESULTS: The adjusted absolute risk of nausea ranged from 6.2% to 36.2% depending on the type of operation. The highest risks were found for laparoscopic bariatric operations (36.2%), open hysterectomy (30.4%), enterostoma relocation (29.8%), open radical prostatectomy (28.8%), laparoscopic colon resection (28.6%) and open sigmoidectomy (28%). In a logistic regression model, male sex (OR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.41, p<0.0001), perioperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (0.73, 0.7 to 0.76, p<0.0001), intraoperative regional anaesthesia (0.88, 0.83 to 0.93, p<0.0001) and preoperative opioids for chronic pain (0.74, 0.68 to 0.81, p<0.0001) reduced the risk of nausea. Perioperative opioid use increased the OR up to 2.38 (2.17 to 2.61, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of postoperative nausea varies considerably between surgical procedures. Patients undergoing certain types of operation should receive special attention and targeted prevention strategies. Adding these findings to known predictive tools may raise awareness of the still unacceptably high incidence of nausea in certain patient groups. This may help to further reduce the prevalence of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00006153; German Clinical Trials Register; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00006153.

Efficacy of therapies for post dural puncture headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Clinical management of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) remains an interdisciplinary challenge with significant impact on both morbidity and quality of life. This review aims to give an overview of the most recent literature on prophylactic and therapeutic measures and to discuss novel findings with regard to currently published consensus practice guideline recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: Although current evidence does not support a recommendation of any specific prophylactic measure, new data is available on the use of intrathecal catheters to prevent PDPH and/or to avoid invasive procedures. In case of disabling or refractory symptoms despite conservative treatments, the epidural blood patch (EBP) remains the therapeutic gold standard and its use should not be delayed in the absence of contraindications. However, recent clinical studies and meta-analyses provide additional findings on the therapeutic use of local anesthetics as potential noninvasive alternatives for early symptom control. SUMMARY: There is continuing research focusing on both prophylactic and therapeutic measures offering promising data on potential alternatives to invasive procedures, although there is currently no treatment option that comes close to the effectiveness of an EBP. A better understanding of PDPH pathophysiology is not only necessary to identify new therapeutic targets, but also to recognize patients who benefit most from current treatments, as this might enhance their therapeutic efficacy.

Current concepts in the use of cell salvage in obstetrics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The worldwide leading cause of maternal death is severe maternal hemorrhage. Maternal hemorrhage can be profound leading to an entire loss of blood volume. In the past two decades, Patient Blood Management has evolved to improve patient's care and safety. In surgeries with increased blood loss exceeding 500 ml, the use of cell salvage is strongly recommended in order to preserve the patient's own blood volume and to minimize the need for allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. In this review, recent evidence and controversies of the use of cell salvage in obstetrics are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous medical societies as well as national and international guidelines recommend the use of cell salvage during maternal hemorrhage. SUMMARY: Intraoperative cell salvage is a strategy to maintain the patient's own blood volume and decrease the need for allogeneic RBC transfusion. Historically, cell salvage has been avoided in the obstetric population due to concerns of iatrogenic amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) or induction of maternal alloimmunization. However, no definite case of AFE has been reported so far. Cell salvage is strongly recommended and cost-effective in patients with predictably high rates of blood loss and RBC transfusion, such as women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder. However, in order to ensure sufficient practical experience in a multiprofessional obstetric setting, liberal use of cell salvage appears advisable.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care consensus document on sustainability: 4 scopes to achieve a more sustainable practice.

Climate change is a defining issue for our generation. The carbon footprint of clinical practice accounts for 4.7% of European greenhouse gas emissions, with the European Union ranking as the third largest contributor to the global healthcare industry's carbon footprint, after the United States and China. Recognising the importance of urgent action, the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) adopted the Glasgow Declaration on Environmental Sustainability in June 2023. Building on this initiative, the ESAIC Sustainability Committee now presents a consensus document in perioperative sustainability. Acknowledging wider dimensions of sustainability, beyond the environmental one, the document recognizes healthcare professionals as cornerstones for sustainable care, and puts forward recommendations in four main areas: direct emissions, energy, supply chain and waste management, and psychological and self-care of healthcare professionals. Given the urgent need to cut global carbon emissions, and the scarcity of evidence-based literature on perioperative sustainability, our methodology is based on expert opinion recommendations. A total of 90 recommendations were drafted by 13 sustainability experts in anaesthesia in March 2023, then validated by 36 experts from 24 different countries in a two-step Delphi validation process in May and June 2023. To accommodate different possibilities for action in high- versus middle-income countries, an 80% agreement threshold was set to ease implementation of the recommendations Europe-wide. All recommendations surpassed the 80% agreement threshold in the first Delphi round, and 88 recommendations achieved an agreement >90% in the second round. Recommendations include the use of very low fresh gas flow, choice of anaesthetic drug, energy and water preserving measures, "5R" policies including choice of plastics and their disposal, and recommendations to keep a healthy work environment or on the importance of fatigue in clinical practice. Executive summaries of recommendations in areas 1, 2 and 3 are available as cognitive aids that can be made available for quick reference in the operating room.

Association of preclinical blood glucose with hospitalization rate and in-hospital mortality: A single-center retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Critical illness is often accompanied by elevated blood glucose, which generally correlates with increased morbidity and mortality. Prehospital blood glucose (PBG) level might be a useful and easy-to-perform tool for risk assessment in emergency medicine. This retrospective single-center cohort study was designed to analyze the association of prehospital glucose measurements with hospitalization rate and in-hospital mortality. Methods: Records of 970 patients admitted to a university hospital by an emergency physician were analyzed. Patients with a PBG ≥140 mg/dL (G1, n = 394, equal to 7.8 mmol/L) were compared with patients with a PBG <140 mg/dL (G2, n = 576). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to correct for age, prediagnosed diabetes, and sex. Results: Five hundred thirty-four patients (55%) were hospitalized. In comparison to normoglycemic patients, hyperglycemic patients were more likely to be hospitalized with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.97), more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with an adjusted OR of 1.74 (95% CI 1.31-2.31) and more likely to die in the hospital with an adjusted OR of 1.84 (95% CI 0.96-3.53). Hospitalized hyperglycemic patients had a median length of stay of 6.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0) compared to 3.0 days (IQR 6.0) in the normoglycemic group (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis of cases without known diabetes, patients with PBG ≥140 mg/dL were more likely to be hospitalized with an adjusted OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.10-2.03) and more likely to be admitted to ICU/intermediate care with an adjusted OR of 1.80 (95% CI 1.32-2.45), compared to normoglycemic patients. Conclusion: Elevated PBG ≥140 mg/dL was associated with a higher hospitalization risk, a longer length of stay, and a higher mortality risk and may therefore be included in risk assessment scores.

Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted. RESULTS: Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77%) and "need for further resources" (77%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020214247.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines.

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1C). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1C). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B).

Decoding the meaning of medical guidelines and their medicolegal implications.

Medical practice guidelines (MPGs) are important in medicine to ensure well tolerated and effective healthcare. They provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals in daily clinical settings. MPGs help patients and practitioners make informed decisions, ensure quality of care, allocate healthcare resources effectively and reduce legal liability. MPGs have medicolegal implications, as they influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes, which can impact liability and malpractice cases. They define the standard of care within the healthcare industry and provide best practice recommendations. MPGs are a cornerstone of the informed consent process, as they facilitate a shared decision support system and they provide valuable evidence-based recommendations on various treatments or medical options. Finally, MPGs are also relevant in medical claims; thus, adherence to MPGs is highly encouraged in order to assure the best medical care. Nonetheless, MPGs have limitations and we advocate for wise usage of MPGs combined with the expertise of trained physicians that allows for individualisation and evidence-based recommendations. In this review, we describe the potential legal implications that MPGs may represent for healthcare providers and the role that MPGs have in daily practice at different stages in the doctor--patient relationship.

Peri-operative night-time work of anaesthesiologists: A qualitative study of critical issues and proposals.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative data on the opinions of anaesthesiologists regarding the impact of peri-operative night-time working conditions on patient safety are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to achieve in-depth understanding of anaesthesiologists' perceptions regarding the impact of night-time working conditions on peri-operative patient safety and actions that may be undertaken to mitigate perceived risks. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of responses to two open-ended questions. SETTING: Online platform questionnaire promoted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). PARTICIPANTS: The survey sample consisted of an international cohort of anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We identified and classified recurrent themes in the responses to questions addressing perceptions regarding (Q1) peri-operative night-time working conditions, which may affect patient safety and (Q2) potential solutions. RESULTS: We analysed 2112 and 2113 responses to Q1 and Q2, respectively. The most frequently reported themes in relation to Q1 were a perceived reduction in professional performance accompanied by concerns regarding the possible consequences of work with fatigue (27%), and poor working conditions at night-time (35%). The most frequently proposed solutions in response to Q2 were a reduction of working hours and avoidance of 24-h shifts (21%), an increase in human resources (14%) and performance of only urgent or emergency surgeries at night (14%). CONCLUSION: Overall, the surveyed anaesthesiologists believe that workload-to-staff imbalance and excessive working hours were potential bases for increased peri-operative risk for their patients, partly because of fatigue-related medical errors during night-time work. The performance of nonemergency elective surgical cases at night and lack of facilities were among the reported issues and potential targets for improvement measures. Further studies should investigate whether countermeasures can improve patient safety as well as the quality of life of anaesthesia professionals. Regulations to improve homogeneity, safety, and quality of anaesthesia practice at night seem to be urgently needed.

Airway management in neonates and infants: European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and British Journal of Anaesthesia joint guidelines.

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1С). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1С). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO 2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B).

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

[Obstetric Anesthesia]. / Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie.

Patient safety and reduction of possible complications are the top priorities for anesthesiologists in everyday clinical practice. Thus, interdisciplinary early assessment and optimization of patient specific medical conditions and risk factors are crucial. In obstetrics, regional anesthesia and general anesthesia are routinely being performed. To ensure maternal and fetal safety, knowledge regarding physiological changes during pregnancy is highly important. Regional anesthesia, particularly epidural analgesia, has its main field of application in the context of natural birth in the delivery room. Spinal anesthesia, as well as epidural and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSE) are widely used for caesarean section. In this context, special attention should be paid to possible bleeding disorders. The combination of risk stratification and strategies to improve the patient's preoperative medical status is capable to reduce maternal and fetal complications.

[Postpartum Hemorrhage]. / Postpartale Hämorrhagie.

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) affects about 4% of all deliveries in high-income countries and continues to rise, a trend attributable to the increase in caesarean section rates and maternal morbidity. Preventive measures such as the precautionary administration of uterotonics effectively reduce the risk of severe bleeding irrespective of birth mode. As a time-critical condition and a significant contributor to adverse maternal outcomes, PPH needs to be diagnosed early by measuring, not estimating, blood losses. Institutional treatment algorithms should be available to guide stage-based interdisciplinary management without delay. The main therapy goals are to identify the etiology and stop the bleeding by using uterotonics and mechanical and surgical interventions, to restore hemodynamic stability by volume and transfusion therapy and to optimize hemostasis by laboratory- and viscoelastic assay-guided factor replacement. This review highlights current recommendations for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of PPH.