RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. METHODS: The Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists examined the incidence, predisposing factors, management, and impact of life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. NAP6 included: a national survey of anaesthetists' experiences and perceptions; a national survey of allergy clinics; a registry collecting detailed reports of all Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis cases for 1 yr; and a national survey of anaesthetic workload and perioperative allergen exposure. NHS and independent sector (IS) hospitals were approached to participate. Cases were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary expert panel (anaesthetists, intensivists, allergists, immunologists, patient representatives, and stakeholders) using a structured process designed to minimise bias. Clinical management and investigation were compared with published guidelines. This paper describes detailed study methods and reports on project engagement by NHS and IS hospitals. The methodology includes a new classification of perioperative anaphylaxis and a new structured method for classifying suspected anaphylactic events including the degree of certainty with which a causal trigger agent can be attributed. RESULTS: NHS engagement was complete (100% of hospitals). Independent sector engagement was limited (13% of approached hospitals). We received >500 reports of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis, with 266 suitable for analysis. We identified 199 definite or probable culprit agents in 192 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The methods of NAP6 were robust in identifying causative agents of anaphylaxis, and support the accompanying analytical papers.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Anestésicos/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Auditoría Médica/métodos , Anafilaxia/terapia , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/terapia , Humanos , Incidencia , Periodo Perioperatorio , Sistema de Registros , Proyectos de Investigación , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. METHODS: The 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) on perioperative anaphylaxis collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grades 3-5 anaphylaxis over 1 yr from all NHS hospitals in the UK. RESULTS: The estimated incidence was ≈1:10 000 anaesthetics. Case exclusion because of reporting delays or incomplete data means true incidence might be ≈70% higher. The distribution of 199 identified culprit agents included antibiotics (94), neuromuscular blocking agents (65), chlorhexidine (18), and Patent Blue dye (9). Teicoplanin comprised 12% of antibiotic exposures, but caused 38% of antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis. Eighteen patients reacted to an antibiotic test dose. Succinylcholine-induced anaphylaxis, mainly presenting with bronchospasm, was two-fold more likely than other neuromuscular blocking agents. Atracurium-induced anaphylaxis mainly presented with hypotension. Non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents had similar incidences to each other. There were no reports of local anaesthetic or latex-induced anaphylaxis. The commonest presenting features were hypotension (46%), bronchospasm (18%), tachycardia (9.8%), oxygen desaturation (4.7%), bradycardia (3%), and reduced/absent capnography trace (2.3%). All patients were hypotensive during the episode. Onset was rapid for neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics, but delayed with chlorhexidine and Patent Blue dye. There were 10 deaths and 40 cardiac arrests. Pulseless electrical activity was the usual type of cardiac arrest, often with bradycardia. Poor outcomes were associated with increased ASA, obesity, beta blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication. Seventy per cent of cases were reported to the hospital incident reporting system, and only 24% to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency via the Yellow Card Scheme. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis was estimated to be 1 in 10 000 anaesthetics.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/fisiopatología , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/fisiopatología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/efectos adversos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Niño , Preescolar , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/mortalidad , Femenino , Paro Cardíaco/epidemiología , Paro Cardíaco/etiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Auditoría Médica , Persona de Mediana Edad , Periodo Perioperatorio , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Details of the current UK drug and allergen exposure were needed for interpretation of reports of perioperative anaphylaxis to the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 356 NHS hospitals determining anaesthetic drug usage in October 2016. All cases cared for by an anaesthetist were included. RESULTS: Responses were received from 342 (96%) hospitals. Within-hospital return rates were 96%. We collected 15 942 forms, equating to an annual caseload of 3.1 million, including 2.4 million general anaesthetics. Propofol was used in 74% of all cases and 90% of general anaesthetics. Maintenance included a volatile agent in 95% and propofol in 8.7%. Neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 47% of general anaesthetics. Analgesics were used in 88% of cases: opioids, 82%; paracetamol, 56%; and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 28%. Antibiotics were administered in 57% of cases, including 2.5 million annual perioperative administrations; gentamicin, co-amoxiclav, and cefuroxime were most commonly used. Local anaesthetics were used in 74% cases and 70% of general anaesthetics. Anti-emetics were used in 73% of cases: during general anaesthesia, ondansetron in 78% and dexamethasone in 60%. Blood products were used in ≈3% of cases, gelatin <2%, starch very rarely, and tranexamic acid in ≈6%. Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine exposures were 74% and 40% of cases, and 21% reported a latex-free environment. Exposures to bone cement, blue dyes, and radiographic contrast dye were each reported in 2-3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insights into allergen exposures in perioperative care, which is important as denominator data for the NAP6 registry.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anestésicos/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Periodo Perioperatorio/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Transversales , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Humanos , Auditoría Médica , Sistema de Registros , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. There is little published information on management and outcomes of perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. METHODS: The 6th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (NAP6) collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grade 3-5 anaphylaxis from all UK NHS hospitals over 1 yr. Quality of management was assessed against published guidelines. RESULTS: Appropriately senior anaesthetists resuscitated all patients. Immediate management was 'good' in 46% and 'poor' in 15%. Recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis were prompt in 97% and 83% of cases, respectively. Epinephrine was administered i.v. in 76%, i.m. in 14%, both in 6%, and not at all in 11% of cases. A catecholamine infusion was administered in half of cases. Cardiac arrests (40 cases; 15%) were promptly treated but cardiac compressions were omitted in half of patients with unrecordable BP. The surgical procedure was abandoned in most cases, including 10% where surgery was urgent. Of 54% admitted to critical care, 70% were level 3, with most requiring catecholamine infusions. Ten (3.8%) patents (mostly elderly with cardiovascular disease) died from anaphylaxis. Corticosteroids and antihistamines were generally administered early. We found no clear evidence of harm or benefit from chlorphenamine. Two patients received vasopressin and one glucagon. Fluid administration was inadequate in 19% of cases. Treatment included sugammadex in 19 cases, including one when rocuronium had not been administered. Adverse sequelae (psychological, cognitive, or physical) were reported in one-third of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Management of perioperative anaphylaxis could be improved, especially with respect to administration of epinephrine, cardiac compressions, and i.v. fluid. Sequelae were common.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/terapia , Anestesia/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/terapia , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/efectos adversos , Adulto , Anafilaxia/mortalidad , Reanimación Cardiopulmonar , Niño , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/mortalidad , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Fluidoterapia , Masaje Cardíaco , Humanos , Auditoría Médica , Periodo Perioperatorio , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Vasoconstrictores/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: UK national anaesthetic activity was studied in 2013 but weekend working was not examined. Understanding changes since 2013 in workload and manpower distribution, including weekends, would be of value in workforce planning. METHODS: We performed an observational survey of NHS hospitals' anaesthetic practice in October 2016 as part of the 6th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (NAP6). All cases cared for by an anaesthetist during the study period were included. Patient characteristics and details of anaesthetic conduct were collected by local anaesthetists. RESULTS: Responses were received from 342/356 (96%) hospitals. In total, 15 942 cases were reported, equating to an annual anaesthetic workload of ≈3.13 million cases. Approximately 95% (9888/10 452) of elective and 72% (3184/4392) of emergency work was performed on weekdays and 89% (14 145/15 942) of activity was led by senior (consultant or career grade) anaesthetists and 1.1% (180/15942) by those with <2 yr anaesthetic experience. During weekends case urgency increased, the proportion of healthy patients reduced and case mix changed. Cases led by senior anaesthetists fell to 80% (947/1177) on Saturday and 66% (342/791) on Sunday. Senior involvement in obstetric anaesthetic activity was 69% (628/911) during the week and 45% (182/402) at weekends, compared with 93% (791/847) in emergency orthopaedic procedures during the week and 89% (285/321) at weekends. Since 2013, the proportion of obese patients, elective weekend working, and depth of anaesthesia monitoring has increased [12% (1464/12 213) vs 2.8%], but neuromuscular monitoring has not [37% (2032/5532) vs 38% of paralysed cases]. CONCLUSIONS: Senior clinicians deliver most UK anaesthesia care, including at weekends. Our findings are important for any planned workforce reorganisation to rationalise 7-day working.
Asunto(s)
Anestesiólogos , Auditoría Médica , Carga de Trabajo/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Anestesia Obstétrica/estadística & datos numéricos , Anestésicos , Monitores de Conciencia , Estudios Transversales , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Monitoreo Intraoperatorio/estadística & datos numéricos , Monitoreo Neuromuscular , Obesidad/complicaciones , Embarazo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project examined Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis for 1 year in the UK. OBJECTIVE: To describe the causes and investigation of anaphylaxis in the NAP6 cohort, in relation to published guidance and previous baseline survey results. METHODS: We used a secure registry to gather details of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis. Anonymous reports were aggregated for analysis and reviewed in detail. Panel consensus diagnosis, reaction grade, review of investigations and clinic assessment are reported and compared to the prior NAP6 baseline clinic survey. RESULTS: A total of 266 cases met inclusion criteria between November 2015 and 2016, detailing reactions and investigations. One hundred and ninety-two of 266 (72%) had anaphylaxis with a trigger identified, of which 140/192 (75%) met NAP6 criteria for IgE-mediated allergic anaphylaxis, 13% lacking evidence of positive IgE tests were labelled "non-allergic anaphylaxis". 3% were non-IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. Adherence to guidance was similar to the baseline survey for waiting time for clinic assessment. However, lack of testing for chlorhexidine and latex, non-harmonized testing practices and poor coverage of all possible culprits was confirmed. Challenge testing may be underused and many have unacceptably delayed assessments, even in urgent cases. Communication or information provision for patients was insufficient, especially for avoidance advice and communication of test results. Insufficient detail regarding skin test methods was available to draw conclusions regarding techniques. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current clinical assessment in the UK is effective but harmonization of approach to testing, access to services and MHRA reporting is needed. Expert anaesthetist involvement should increase to optimize diagnostic yield and advice for future anaesthesia. Dynamic tryptase evaluation improves detection of tryptase release where peak tryptase is <14 µg/L and should be adopted. Standardized clinic reports containing appropriate details of tests, conclusions, avoidance, cross-reactivity and suitable alternatives are required to ensure effective, safe future management options.
Asunto(s)
Servicios de Salud , Hipersensibilidad/epidemiología , Especialización , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/genética , Biomarcadores , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad/etiología , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Periodo Perioperatorio , Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Triptasas/metabolismo , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for investigation of perioperative drug allergy exist, but the quality of services is unknown. Specialist perioperative anaphylaxis services were surveyed through the Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project. OBJECTIVES: We compare self-declared UK practice in specialist perioperative allergy services with national recommendations. METHODS: A SurveyMonkey™ questionnaire was distributed to providers of allergy services in the UK. Responses were assessed for adherence to the best practice recommendations of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI), the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidance on Drug Allergy-CG183. RESULTS: Over 1200 patients were evaluated in 44 centres annually. Variation in workload, waiting times, access, staffing and diagnostic approach was noted. Paediatric centres had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult centres (most wait <12 weeks). Service leads are allergists/immunologists (91%) or anaesthetists (7%). Potentially important differences were seen in: testing repertoire [10/44 (23%) lacked BSACI compliant neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) panels and 17/44 (39%) lacked a NAP6-defined extended panel; many failed to screen all cases for chlorhexidine 19/44 (43%) or latex 21/44 (48%)], staffing [only 26/44 (59%) had specialist nurses and 18/44 (41%) an anaesthetist] and provision of information [18/44 (41%) gave immediate information in clinic and 5/44 (11%) sign-posted support groups]. Most centres were able to provide diagnostic challenges to antibiotics [40/44 (91%]) and local anaesthetics [41/44 (93%)]. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Diagnostic testing is not harmonized, with marked variability in the NMBA panels used to identify safe alternatives. Chlorhexidine and latex are not part of routine testing in many centres. Poor access to services and patient information provision require attention. Harmonization of diagnostic approach is desirable, particularly with regard to a minimum NMBA panel for identification of safe alternatives.
Asunto(s)
Anestésicos/efectos adversos , Anestesistas , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Periodo Perioperatorio , Especialización , Factores de Edad , Bases de Datos Factuales , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Adhesión a Directriz , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Enfermeras Anestesistas , Pruebas Cutáneas , Análisis Espacial , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Carga de TrabajoRESUMEN
Introduction: Besides the typical complaints and symptoms, myomas can cause sterility, infertility and complications during pregnancy. Laparoscopic interventions reach their limits with regard to organ preservation and the simultaneous desire to have children in the removal of multiple and larger intramural myoma nodes. The aim of this study is to examine fertility status and pregnancy outcome after myoma removal by minilaparotomy (skin incision maximal 8 cm) in women with pronounced uterus myomatosus. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study makes use of the data from 160 patients with an average age of 34.6 years. Factors analysed include number, size and localisation of the myomas, complaints due to the myoma, pre- and postoperative gravidity, mode of delivery, and complications of birth. Results: Indications for organ-sparing myoma enucleation were the desire to have children (72.5â%), bleeding disorders (60â%) and pressure discomfort (36.5â%). On average 4.95 (SD ± 0.41), maximally 46 myomas were removed. The largest myoma had a diameter of 6.64 cm (SD ± 2.74). 82.5â% of the patients had transmural myomas, in 17.5â% the uterine cavity was inadvertently opened. On average the operating time was 163 minutes (SD ± 45.47), the blood loss 1.59 g/dL (SD ± 0.955). 60.3â% of the patients with the desire to have children became pregnant postoperatively. 75.3â% of the pregnancies were on average carried through to the 38th week (28.4â% vaginal deliveries, 71.6â% Caesarean sections). In the postoperative period there was one case of uterine rupture in the vicinity of a previous scar. Discussion: By means of the microsurgical "mini-laparotomy" even extensive myomatous uterine changes can, in the majority of cases, be operated in an organ-sparing manner with retention of the ability to conceive and to carry a pregnancy through to maturity of the infant. The risk for a postoperative uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy and during delivery is minimal.