Efficacy of facemask ventilation techniques in novice providers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine which of two facemask grip techniques for two-person facemask ventilation was more effective in novice clinicians, the traditional E-C clamp (EC) grip or a thenar eminence (TE) technique. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover comparison study. SETTING: Operating room of a university hospital. SUBJECTS: 60 novice clinicians (medical and paramedic students). MEASUREMENTS: Subjects were assigned to perform, in a random order, each of the two mask-grip techniques on consenting ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients undergoing elective general anesthesia while the ventilator delivered a fixed 500 mL tidal volume (VT). In a crossover manner, subjects performed each facemask ventilation technique (EC and TE) for one minute (12 breaths/min). The primary outcome was the mean expired VT compared between techniques. As a secondary outcome, we examined mean peak inspiratory pressure (PIP). MAIN RESULTS: The TE grip provided greater expired VT (379 mL vs 269 mL), with a mean difference of 110 mL (P < 0.0001; 95% CI: 65, 157). Using the EC grip first had an average VT improvement of 200 mL after crossover to the TE grip (95% CI: 134, 267). When the TE grip was used first, mean VTs were greater than for EC by 24 mL (95% CI: -25, 74). When considering only the first 12 breaths delivered (prior to crossover), the TE grip resulted in mean VTs of 339 mL vs 221 mL for the EC grip (P = 0.0128; 95% CI: 26, 209). There was no significant difference in PIP values using the two grips: the TE mean (SD) was 14.2 (7.0) cm H2O, and the EC mean (SD) was 13.5 (9.0) cm H2O (P = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The TE facemask ventilation grip results in improved ventilation over the EC grip in the hands of novice providers.

Should more patients continue aspirin therapy perioperatively?: clinical impact of aspirin withdrawal syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based focused review of aspirin use in the perioperative period along with an in-depth discussion of the considerations and risks associated with its preoperative withdrawal. BACKGROUND: For patients with established cardiovascular disease, taking aspirin is considered a critical therapy. The cessation of aspirin can cause a platelet rebound phenomenon and prothrombotic state leading to major adverse cardiovascular events. Despite the risks of aspirin withdrawal, which are exacerbated during the perioperative period, standard practice has been to stop aspirin before elective surgery for fear of excessive bleeding. Mounting evidence suggests that this practice should be abandoned. METHODS: We performed a PubMed and Medline literature search using the keywords aspirin, withdrawal, and perioperative. We manually reviewed relevant citations for inclusion. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should employ a patient-specific strategy for perioperative aspirin management that weighs the risks of stopping aspirin with those associated with its continuation. Most patients, especially those taking aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention, should have their aspirin continued throughout the perioperative period. When aspirin is held preoperatively, the aspirin withdrawal syndrome may significantly increase the risk of a major thromboembolic complication. For many operative procedures, the risk of perioperative bleeding while continuing aspirin is minimal, as compared with the concomitant thromboembolic risks associated with aspirin withdrawal. Those cases where aspirin should be stopped include patients undergoing intracranial, middle ear, posterior eye, intramedullary spine, and possibly transurethral prostatectomy surgery.