The use of processed electroencephalography (pEEG) in obstetric anaesthesia: a narrative review.

Accidental awareness under general anaesthesia (AAGA) remains a major complication of anaesthesia. The incidence of AAGA during obstetric anaesthesia is high relative to other specialities. The use of processed electroencephalography (pEEG) in the form of "depth of anaesthesia" monitoring has been shown to reduce the incidence of AAGA in the non-obstetric population. The evidence for using pEEG to prevent AAGA in the obstetric population is poor and requires further exploration. Furthermore, pregnancy and disease states affecting the central nervous system, such as pre-eclampsia, may alter the interpretation of pEEG waveforms although this has not been fully characterised. National guidelines exist for pEEG monitoring with total intravenous anaesthesia and for "high-risk" cases regardless of technique, including the obstetric population. However, none of the currently available guidelines relates specifically to obstetric anaesthesia. Using pEEG monitoring for obstetric anaesthesia may also provide additional benefits beyond a reduction in risk of AAGA. These potential benefits include reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, reduced anaesthetic agent use, and a shorter post-anaesthetic recovery stay. In addition, pEEG acts as a surrogate marker of cerebral perfusion, and thus as an additional monitor for impending cardiovascular collapse, as seen in amniotic fluid embolism. The subtle physiological and pathological changes in EEG activity that may occur during pregnancy are an unexplored research area in the context of anaesthetic pEEG monitors. We believe that the direction of clinical practice is moving towards greater use of pEEG monitoring and individualisation of anaesthesia.

Detection method of intraoperative awareness: a randomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: : The incidence of intraoperative awareness varies in a wide range in the literature. The reasons for these different results include the questioning method used and the questioning time. The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of different questioning methods and times used in intraoperative awareness research for detecting the incidence. METHODS: We recruited patients between the ages of 18-70 years, with normal cognitive functions and able to speak after general anesthesia to the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. In Group 1 we applied the modified Brice questionnaire in the first 2 h and 24 h after surgery for investigating intraoperative awareness. In Group 2, 24 h after surgery, we asked about anesthesia satisfaction and patients' complaints, if any. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age (p = 0.514).The proportion of women was significantly higher (p = 0.002), the duration of anesthesia was shorter, and the rate of narcotic analgesic use was higher in Group 2 (p < 0.001). The assessment in the first 2 h showed the frequency of awareness was statistically higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p = 0.016). In the postoperative 24-h assessment, we found no significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative awareness between the groups (p < 0.05). In Group 1, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of incidence of awareness according to evaluation time (p = 250). DISCUSSION: The incidence of intraoperative awareness in Group 1 was significantly higher than in Group 2 in the evaluation conducted in the first 2 h. There was no significant difference in the determination of intraoperative awareness between questioning times in group 1.

Raw and processed electroencephalography in modern anesthesia practice: a brief primer on select clinical applications.

The evidence supporting the intraoperative use of processed electroencephalography (pEEG) monitoring to guide anesthetic delivery is growing rapidly. This article reviews the key features of electroencephalography (EEG) waveforms and their clinical implications in select patient populations and anesthetic techniques. The first patient topic reviewed is the vulnerable brain. This term has emerged as a description of patients who may exhibit increased sensitivity to anesthetics and/or may develop adverse neurocognitive effects following anesthesia. pEEG monitoring of patients who are known to have or are suspected of having vulnerable brains, with focused attention on the suppression ratio, alpha band power, and pEEG indices, may prove useful. Second, pEEG monitoring along with vigilant attention to anesthetic delivery may minimize the risk of intraoperative awareness when administering a total intravenous anesthesia in combination with a neuromuscular blockade. Third, we suggest that processed EEG monitoring may play a role in anesthetic and resuscitative management when adverse changes in blood pressure occur. Fourth, pEEG monitoring can be used to better identify anesthesia requirements and guide anesthetic titration in patients with known or suspected substance use.

Self-reported awareness during general anesthesia in pediatric patients: A study from Wake Up Safe.

BACKGROUND: Awareness under general anesthesia occurs rarely, but can result in emotional trauma. Although well-studied in adults, there is a paucity of data on unintentional awareness in children. AIMS: This case series examines instances of self-reported awareness registered with Wake Up Safe, a patient safety organization that maintains a database of adverse events in pediatric anesthesia. METHODS: Cases of self-reported intraoperative awareness submitted to Wake Up Safe from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2020 were reviewed for circumstances, causative factors, and level of harm. RESULTS: Fourteen cases of self-reported intraoperative awareness out of 555 360 cases in patients aged 5-20 years were noted during the study period. Overall incidence of awareness was 2.52 (95% CI: 1.38-4.23) cases per 100 000 patients, or approximately 1:40 000. Self-reported intraoperative awareness was more frequently associated with cardiac and gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Incidence for cardiac procedures was 20.34 (95% CI: 8.18-41.90) cases per 100 000 patients. Incidence for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was 7.74 (95% CI: 1.60-22.62) cases per 100 000 patients. Most patients were assessed to have suffered harm. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported intraoperative awareness is a rare complication in pediatric patients that has implications for harm. Compared to awareness cases elicited by a questionnaire method, cases of self-reported awareness during general anesthesia may represent those that have a greater impact. A preoperative discussion of intraoperative awareness should be considered for procedures that carry a higher likelihood of awareness in order to mitigate harm.

Incidence of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetrics: a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m-2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m-2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

Unintended intraoperative awareness: An analysis of Perioperative Anesthetic Adverse Events in Thailand (PAAd Thai).

BACKGROUND: Despite the improvement of anesthetic-related modalities, the incidence of unintended intraoperative awareness remains at around 0.005-0.038%. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the intraoperative awareness incidents that occurred across Thailand between January to December, 2015. METHODS: Observational data was collected from 22 hospitals throughout Thailand. The awareness category was selected from incident reports according to the Perioperative Anesthetic Adverse Events in Thailand (PAAd Thai) study database and descriptive statistics were analyzed. The awareness characteristics and the related factors were recorded. RESULTS: A total of nine intraoperative awareness episodes from 2000 incidents were observed. The intraoperative awareness results were as follows: experience of pain (38.1%), perception of sound (33.3%), perception of intubation (9.5%) and feeling of paralysis (14.3%). The observed factors that affect intraoperative awareness were anesthesia-related (100%), patient-related (55.5%), surgery-related (22.2%) and systematic process-related (22.2%). The contributing factors were situational inexperience (77.8%) and inappropriate patient evaluation (44.4%). An awareness of anesthetic performer (100%) and experience (88.9%) were defined as incident-mitigating factors. The suggested corrective strategies were quality assurance activity (88.9%), improved supervision (44.4%) and equipment utilization (33.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Nine intraoperative awareness incidents were observed, however the causes were preventable. The anesthetic component seems to be the most influential to prevent these events.

[The relation between preoperative anxiety and awareness during anesthesia: an observational study]. / Relação entre ansiedade pré­operatória e consciência durante a anestesia: estudo observacional.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is a state of worry caused by the anticipation of external or internal danger. Awareness During Anesthesia (ADA) is an unexpected memory recall during anesthesia. In this study, we aimed to determine the factors that affect preoperative anxiety and observe the incidence of ADA, as well as to determine the anxiety levels of these patients with a history of ADA. METHODS: This study was planned to be prospective, observational, and cross-sectional. Patients in whom septoplasty was planned, who was admitted to the anesthesiology outpatients between March 2018 and September 2018, were ASA I-II, and aged 18-70 years were included in the study. The demographic characteristics of patients were recorded. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to determine anxiety during a preoperative evaluation. The modified Brice awareness score was used simultaneously to determine previous ADA. RESULTS: The anxiety scores of patients who were conscious during anesthesia were higher than other patients. The mean STAI score was 40.85±14.8 in the 799 patients who met the inclusion criteria of this study. When the anxiety scores were compared, the scores were higher in females than in males (p < 0.05). The mean STAI score was found as 40.3±13.8 in patients who dreamed during anesthesia. CONCLUSION: It is important to determine the anxiety levels of patients in the preoperative period to prevent the associated complications. Preoperative anxiety, besides preventing ADA, should be dealt with in a multidisciplinary manner. ADA should be carefully questioned while evaluating previous anesthesia experiences.

The relation between preoperative anxiety and awareness during anesthesia: an observational study / Relação entre ansiedade pré-operatória e consciência durante a anestesia: estudo observacional

Abstract Background: Anxiety is a state of worry caused by the anticipation of external or internal danger. Awareness During Anesthesia (ADA) is an unexpected memory recall during anesthesia. In this study, we aimed to determine the factors that affect preoperative anxiety and observe the incidence of ADA, as well as to determine the anxiety levels of these patients with a history of ADA. Methods: This study was planned to be prospective, observational, and cross-sectional. Patients in whom septoplasty was planned, who was admitted to the anesthesiology outpatients between March 2018 and September 2018, were ASA I-II, and aged 18-70 years were included in the study. The demographic characteristics of patients were recorded. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to determine anxiety during a preoperative evaluation. The modified Brice awareness score was used simultaneously to determine previous ADA. Results: The anxiety scores of patients who were conscious during anesthesia were higher than other patients. The mean STAI score was 40.85 ± 14.8 in the 799 patients who met the inclusion criteria of this study. When the anxiety scores were compared, the scores were higher in females than in males (p < 0.05). The mean STAI score was found as 40.3 ± 13.8 in patients who dreamed during anesthesia. Conclusion: It is important to determine the anxiety levels of patients in the preoperative period to prevent the associated complications. Preoperative anxiety, besides preventing ADA, should be dealt with in a multidisciplinary manner. ADA should be carefully questioned while evaluating previous anesthesia experiences.

Resumo Justificativa: A ansiedade é um estado de preocupação causado pela expectativa de perigo externo ou interno. Consciência durante a anestesia (CDA) é a evocação imprevista da memória de eventos intranestésicos. O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar os fatores que afetam a ansiedade pré-operatória, a incidência de CDA e os níveis de ansiedade nos pacientes com antecedente de CDA. Método: O estudo foi planificado como prospectivo, observacional e transversal. Foram incluídos no estudo pacientes programados para septoplastia eletiva, admitidos ao ambulatório de anestesiologia entre Março de 2018 e Setembro de 2018, com classe funcional ASA I-II e faixa etária entre 18 e 70 anos. As características demográficas dos pacientes foram registradas. O Inventário de Ansiedade Traço-Estado (IDATE) foi utilizado para determinar a ansiedade durante a avaliação pré-operatória. Simultaneamente, o escore de consciência de Brice modificado foi usado para determinar CDA anterior. Resultados: Os escores de ansiedade dos pacientes que apresentaram CDA foram mais elevados do que de outros pacientes. A pontuação média do IDATE foi 40,85±14,8 nos 799 pacientes que obedeceram aos critérios de inclusão do estudo. Quando os escores de ansiedade foram comparados, foram maiores no sexo feminino do que no masculino (p < 0,05). O escore médio do IDATE encontrado foi 40,3±13,8 nos pacientes que relataram sonhos durante a anestesia. Conclusão: É importante determinar no pré-operatório os níveis de ansiedade dos pacientes para evitar as complicações associadas. Ansiedade pré-operatória e a prevenção de CDA devem ser tratadas com abordagem multiprofissional. A CDA deve ser cuidadosamente investigada, avaliando-se as experiências vividas pelo paciente em anestesias pregressas.

Comparison of electroencephalogram between propofol- and thiopental-induced anesthesia for awareness risk in pregnant women.

There have been few comparative studies using electroencephalogram (EEG) spectral characteristics during the induction of general anesthesia for cesarean section. This retrospective study investigated the differences in the depth of anesthesia through EEG analysis between propofol- and thiopental-induced anesthesia. We reviewed data of 42 patients undergoing cesarean section who received either thiopental (5 mg/kg) or propofol (2 mg/kg). EEG data were extracted from the bispectral index (BIS) monitor, and 10-second segments were selected from the following sections: 1) Stage I, BIS below 60 after induction; 2) Stage II, after intubation completion; 3) Stage III, end-tidal sevoflurane above 0 vol%. The risk of awareness was represented by the BIS and entropy measures. In Stage III, the thiopental group (n = 20) showed significantly higher BIS value than the propofol group (n = 22) (67.9 [18.66] vs 44.5 [20.63], respectively, p = 0.002). The thiopental group had decreased slow-delta oscillations and increased beta-oscillations as compared to the propofol group in Stages II and III (p < 0.05). BIS, spectral entropy, and Renyi permutation entropy were also higher in the thiopental group at Stages II and III (p < 0.05). In conclusion, frontal spectral EEG analysis demonstrated that propofol induction maintained a deeper anesthesia than thiopental in pregnant women.

Protocol for direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients (DREAMY): a prospective, multicentre cohort study of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) is a complex and rare outcome to investigate in surgical patient populations, particularly obstetric patients. We report the protocol of the Direct Reporting of Awareness in Maternity patients (DREAMY) study, illustrating how the research was designed to address practical and methodological challenges for investigating AAGA in an obstetric cohort. METHODS: This is the trial protocol of a prospective, multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing obstetric surgery under general anaesthesia. Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia will be detected using three repetitions of standardised direct questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia verified using structured interviews. Reports will be adjudicated, then classified, in accordance with pre-defined and pre-validated structures, including the Michigan Awareness Classification tool. Quantitative data will be collected on general anaesthesia conduct for all participants. This descriptive study is being conducted in England and aims to recruit a minimum of 2015 patients. RESULTS: The DREAMY study was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03100396) and ethical approval granted. Participant recruitment began in May 2017 and one year follow up concluded in August 2019. Publication of the results is anticipated in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The DREAMY study will provide data on incidence, experience and implications of AAGA for obstetric patients, using a robust methodology that will reliably detect and translate subjective AAGA reports into objective outcomes. In addition, the study is expected to improve vigilance for AAGA in participating hospitals and encourage adoption of recommendations for support of patients experiencing AAGA.

Accidental awareness while under general anaesthesia.

Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia may cause many intraoperative discomforts and bring further moderate to severe long-term symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares, hyperarousal or post-traumatic stress disorder. The incidence of awareness varied from 0.017% to 4% among studies. The relatively reliable incidence of intraoperative awareness with postoperative recall is 0.02%. The reason causing awareness was unclear. Insufficient anaesthetic dosing was thought as the principal cause. Even awareness was not comprehensively understood, some endeavors have been raised to prevent or reduce it, including i) Reducing the insufficient anaesthetic dosing induced by negligence; ii) Providing close clinical observation and clinical parameters from the monitor such as bispectral index or electroencephalogram, as well as isolated forearm technique and passive brain-computer interface may bring some effects sometimes. Because current studies still have some flaws, further trials with new detecting approach, superior methodology and underlying aetiology are needed to unfasten the possible factors causing awareness.

Anaesthesia management by residents does not alter the incidence of self-reported anaesthesia awareness: A teaching hospital-based propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative awareness during general anaesthesia is rare but represents one of the major anaesthesia-related complications. Intraoperative awareness may be a result of inadequate anaesthesia management. Therefore, the incidence can be related with the experience of anaesthetists. To assess whether the incidence of intraoperative awareness is related to anaesthetists' experience, we compared the incidence of self-reported intraoperative awareness between patients managed by anaesthesia residents or by experienced anaesthetists. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of an institutional registry containing 21,606 general anaesthesia cases. It was conducted with the ethics board approval. Propensity score analysis was used to generate a set of matched cases (resident managements) and controls (anaesthetist managements), yielding 4940 matched patient pairs. The incidence of self-reported intraoperative awareness compared as primary outcomes. Additionally, a multivariate logistic analysis in the entire cohort, using the incidence of self-reported intraoperative awareness as dependent variable, was conducted to confirm the result of the primary outcome. RESULTS: In the unmatched population, contrary to our hypothesis, the incidence of self-reported intraoperative awareness was lower in resident management compared with anaesthetist management (1.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.028). However, after propensity score matching, there was no difference in incidences of self-reported intraoperative awareness (1.5% vs. 1.3%, 0.38). The multivariate analysis confirmed the result of the primary outcome from the matched pair analysis and showed that ASA physical status (OR=1.40, 95% CI=1.08 to 1.81), emergency case (CI=2.05, 95% CI=1.40 to 3.00), and application of postoperative analgesia (OR=0.70, 95% CI=0.50 to 0.97) were independently associated with incidence of self-reported intraoperative awareness. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, when supervised by an anaesthetist, resident anaesthesia management is not more likely to result in complaints about intraoperative recall than anaesthetist management.

Nitrous oxide-based vs. nitrous oxide-free general anaesthesia and accidental awareness in surgical patients: an abridged Cochrane systematic review.

Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia can arise from a failure to deliver sufficient anaesthetic agent, or from a patient's resistance to an expected sufficient dose of such an agent. Awareness is 'explicit' if the patient is subsequently able to recall the event. We conducted a systematic review into the effect of nitrous oxide used as part of a general anaesthetic on the risk of accidental awareness in people over the age of five years undergoing general anaesthesia for surgery. We included 15 randomised controlled trials, 14 of which, representing a total of 3439 participants, were included in our primary analysis of the frequency of accidental awareness events. The awareness incidence rate was rare within these studies, and all were considered underpowered with respect to this outcome. The risk of bias across all studies was judged to be high, and 76% of studies failed adequately to conceal participant allocation. We considered the available evidence to be of very poor quality. There were a total of three accidental awareness events reported in two studies, one of which reported that the awareness was the result of a kink in a propofol intravenous line. There were insufficient data to conduct a meta- or sub-group analysis and there was insufficient evidence to draw outcome-related conclusions. We can, however, recommend that future studies focus on potentially high-risk groups such as obstetric or cardiac surgery patients, or those receiving neuromuscular blocking drugs or total intravenous anaesthesia.

Awareness during general anaesthesia in the first 4,000 incidents reported to webAIRS.

The aim of this study was to analyse the incidents related to awareness during general anaesthesia in the first 4,000 cases reported to webAIRS-an anaesthetic incident reporting system established in Australia and New Zealand in 2009. Included incidents were those in which the reporter selected "neurological" as the main category and "awareness/dreaming/nightmares" as a subcategory, those where the narrative report included the word "awareness" and those identified by the authors as possibly relevant to awareness. Sixty-one awareness-related incidents were analysed: 16 were classified as "awareness", 31 were classified as "no awareness but increased risk of awareness" and 14 were classified as "no awareness and no increased risk of awareness". Among 47 incidents in the former two categories, 42 (89%) were associated with low anaesthetic delivery and 24 (51%) were associated with signs of intraoperative wakefulness. Memory of intraoperative events caused significant ongoing distress for five of the 16 awareness patients. Patients continue to be put at risk of awareness by a range of well-described errors (such as syringe swaps) but also by some new errors related to recently introduced anaesthetic equipment, such as electronic anaesthesia workstations.

Anesthesia management by residents does not alter the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation: a teaching hospital-based propensity score analysis / A administração de anestesia por residentes não altera a incidência de memória da extubação traqueal: uma análise de pontuação de propensão baseada no ensino hospitalar

Abstract Background and objectives: The memory of emergence from anesthesia is recognized as one type of anesthesia awareness. Apart from planed awake extubation, unintentional recall of tracheal extubation is thought to be the results of inadequate anesthesia management; therefore, the incidence can be related with the experience of anesthetists. To assess whether the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation is related to anesthetists' experience, we compared the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation between patients managed by anesthesia residents or by experienced anesthetists. Methods: This is a retrospective review of an institutional registry containing 21,606 general anesthesia cases and was conducted with the board of ethical review approval. All resident tracheal extubations were performed under anesthetists' supervision. To avoid channeling bias, propensity score analysis was used to generate a set of matched cases (resident managements) and controls (anesthetist managements), yielding 3,475 matched patient pairs. The incidence of recall of tracheal extubation was compared as primary outcomes. Results: In the unmatched population, there was no difference in the incidences of recall of tracheal extubation between resident management and anesthetist management (6.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.275). After propensity score matching, there was still no difference in incidences of recall of tracheal extubation (7.1% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.853). Conclusion: In conclusion, when supervised by an anesthetist, resident extubations are no more likely to result in recall than anesthetist extubations.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: A recordação da emergência da anestesia é reconhecida como um dos tipos de memória da anestesia. Excluindo a extubação planejada com o paciente acordado, acredita-se que a memória não intencional durante a extubação traqueal seja o resultado de manejo inadequado da anestesia; portanto, a incidência pode estar relacionada com a experiência dos anestesistas. Para avaliar se a incidência de memória durante a extubação traqueal está relacionada com a experiência dos anestesistas, comparamos a incidência de memória durante a extubação traqueal entre pacientes tratados por residentes de anestesia ou por anestesistas experientes. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo de revisão de um registo institucional com 21.606 casos de anestesia geral, conduzido com a aprovação do Comitê de Ética. Todas as extubações traqueais foram feitas por residentes sob a supervisão de anestesistas. Para evitar o viés de canalização, a análise do índice de propensão foi usada para gerar um grupo de casos pareados (manejo por residentes) e de controles (manejo por anestesistas), obtiveram-se 3.475 pares combinados de pacientes. A incidência de memória durante a extubação traqueal foi comparada com os desfechos primários. Resultados: Na população não pareada, não houve diferença na incidência de memória durante a extubação traqueal entre o manejo feito por residentes e anestesistas (6,5% vs. 7,1%, p = 0,275). Mesmo após parear os escores de propensão, não observamos diferença na incidência de memória durante a extubação traqueal (7,1% vs. 7,0%, p = 0,853). Conclusão: Em conclusão, quando supervisionadas por um anestesista, as extubações feitas por residentes não são mais propensas a resultar em memória do que as extubações feitas por anestesistas.

[Anesthesia management by residents does not alter the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation: a teaching hospital-based propensity score analysis]. / A administração de anestesia por residentes não altera a incidência de memória da extubação traqueal: uma análise de pontuação de propensão baseada no ensino hospitalar.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The memory of emergence from anesthesia is recognized as one type of anesthesia awareness. Apart from planed awake extubation, unintentional recall of tracheal extubation is thought to be the results of inadequate anesthesia management; therefore, the incidence can be related with the experience of anesthetists. To assess whether the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation is related to anesthetists' experience, we compared the incidence of recall of tracheal extubation between patients managed by anesthesia residents or by experienced anesthetists. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of an institutional registry containing 21,606 general anesthesia cases and was conducted with the board of ethical review approval. All resident tracheal extubations were performed under anesthetists' supervision. To avoid channeling bias, propensity score analysis was used to generate a set of matched cases (resident managements) and controls (anesthetist managements), yielding 3,475 matched patient pairs. The incidence of recall of tracheal extubation was compared as primary outcomes. RESULTS: In the unmatched population, there was no difference in the incidences of recall of tracheal extubation between resident management and anesthetist management (6.5% vs. 7.1%, p=0.275). After propensity score matching, there was still no difference in incidences of recall of tracheal extubation (7.1% vs. 7.0%, p=0.853). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, when supervised by an anesthetist, resident extubations are no more likely to result in recall than anesthetist extubations.

Patient reported outcome of adult perioperative anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the patient perspective on healthcare is central to the evaluation of quality. This study measured selected patient-reported outcomes after anaesthesia in order to identify targets for research and quality improvement. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study in UK National Health Service hospitals, recruited adults undergoing non-obstetric surgery requiring anaesthesia care over a 48 h period. Within 24 h of surgery, patients completed the Bauer questionnaire (measuring postoperative discomfort and satisfaction with anaesthesia care), and a modified Brice questionnaire to elicit symptoms suggestive of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Patient, procedural and pharmacological data were recorded to enable exploration of risk factors for these poor outcomes. RESULTS: 257 hospitals in 171 NHS Trusts participated (97% of eligible organisations). Baseline characteristics were collected on 16,222 patients; 15,040 (93%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Anxiety was most frequently cited as the worst aspect of the perioperative experience. Thirty-five per cent of patients reported severe discomfort in at least one domain: thirst (18.5%; 95% CI 17.8-19.1), surgical pain (11.0%; 10.5-11.5) and drowsiness (10.1%; 9.6-10.5) were most common. Despite this, only 5% reported dissatisfaction with any aspect of anaesthesia-related care. Regional anaesthesia was associated with a reduced burden of side-effects. The incidence of reported AAGA was one in 800 general anaesthetics (0.12%) CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and discomfort after surgery are common; despite this, satisfaction with anaesthesia care in the UK is high. The inconsistent relationship between patient-reported outcome, patient experience and patient satisfaction supports using all three of these domains to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of anaesthesia care.