Difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to French guidelines about "Difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia 2006". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 13 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Few recommendations were ungraded. METHODS: The panel focused on 6 questions: 1) Why must oxygen desaturation be avoided during intubation and what preoxygenation and oxygenation techniques should be used to prevent it? 2) Should videolaryngoscopes be used instead of standard laryngoscopy with or without a long stylet to achieve a better success rate of intubation after the first attempt during anticipated difficult intubation off fiberoptic intubation? 3) Should TCI or target controlled inhalation anaesthesia (TCIA) be used instead of bolus sedation for airway control in the event of suspected or proven difficulty in a patient spontaneously breathing? 4) What mode of anaesthesia should be performed in patients with difficult intubation criteria and potentially difficult mask ventilation? 5) In surgical patients, what criteria predict difficulties encountered during postoperative tracheal extubation? 6) Should decision trees and algorithms be employed to direct decision-making for the management of difficult intubation, whether foreseen or not? (based on the information from the preceding five issues). Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provided 13 statements on difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia. After two rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 99% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, five have a high level of evidence (Grade 1±), 8 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2±). No recommendation was provided for one question. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia.

Endovascular treatment of aortic rupture by blunt chest trauma.

BACKGROUND: The usual treatment of blunt aortic injury (BAI) is prompt surgery. Frequently severe injuries to the brain or lungs exclude further surgical treatment. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of placing endovascular stent-grafts. METHODS: From 1992 through 1999, in our primary and referral trauma center, 26 acute BAI, 21 males and 5 females, mean age 40.2+/-16.3 yrs were diagnosed. The last 4 patients underwent prospectively endovascular repair with Talent endograft. Endoprosthesis parameters were measured on three-dimensional spiral CT reconstruction. While waiting for devices, blood pressure was aggressively lowered and aortic lesions were monitored by transesophageal echography. RESULTS: Stent-graft deployment was successful in all 4 patients. There were no complications of endoleak, stent migration, paraplegia or death. Angiographic exclusion was complete in all 4 patients. CT scans at a mean follow-up of 11+/-5 months showed complete healing of the aortic wall in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: For stable acute BAI, endovascular stent-graft repair is feasible and safe, and is an effective therapeutic alternative to open surgery. Because of the normal proximal and distal wall in aortic injuries, endoluminal treatment might be the therapy of choice in the near future.

Anaesthesia for procedures in the intensive care unit.

Taking in charge severely ill patients in the intensive care environment to manage complex procedures is a performance requiring highly specific knowledge. Close collaboration between anaesthetists and intensive care specialists is likely to improve the safety and quality of medical care. Three forms of anaesthetic care should be considered in clinical practice: sedation and analgesia; monitored anaesthetic care; and general anaesthesia or conduction block anaesthesia. Even in the field of sedation and analgesia, the anaesthesiologist can offer expertise on new anaesthetic techniques like: the most recent concepts of balanced anaesthesia in terms of pharmacokinetics and dynamics, favouring the use of short-acting agents and of sedative-opioid combinations. New modes of administration and monitoring intravenous anaesthesia have been developed, with potential application in the intensive care unit. These include the use of target-controlled administration of intravenous drugs, and of electroencephalographic signals to monitor the level of sedation.

Placement of aortic endoprostheses.

Endovascular stent-grafting has found its place in the elective treatment of 60% of abdominal or thoracic aortic lesions. The morbidity and mortality rates are clearly lower than those of classical repair but the results are suboptimal with 9% residual endoleaks at 6 months. Anesthetic management with extensive monitoring even under local anesthesia remains mandatory and tends to reduce the postoperative care requirements. Future development will allow emergent endovascular treatment of ruptured aorta and further improvement will decrease the rate of late endoleaks.

Midazolam-flumazenil vs. propofol in ambulatory ENT endoscopic procedures.

Two total intravenous anaesthesia techniques were compared in an open study of 80 ambulatory patients undergoing ENT endoscopic procedures randomly assigned to two groups: Group I midazolam-flumazenil n = 40, Group II propofol n = 40. The mean doses including induction were 0.75 +/- 0.31 mg kg-1 h-1 for midazolam and 171 +/- 64 micrograms kg-1 min-1 for propofol for 46.3 +/- 17.7 min and 50.3 +/- 24.8 min respectively. At the end of the procedure flumazenil 8.1 +/- 1.9 micrograms kg-1 was administered to Group I patients followed by a flumazenil continuous infusion at a minimal arousal rate (MAR) of 0.24 +/- 0.1 micrograms kg-1 min-1, and propofol discontinued in Group II patients. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were similar in both groups and remained so during the procedure and recovery. In patients with cardiovascular disease, large variations (greater than or equal to 40% of baseline values) occurred more frequently in the propofol group whereas large variations in patients with no cardiovascular disease occurred more frequently in the midazolam group (P less than 0.05). Early recovery was more rapid after midazolam (P less than 0.05) whereas late criteria for recovery (maze and ambulation tests) were met more rapidly after propofol (P less than 0.05). It is concluded that with the midazolam-flumazenil sequence, early recovery is faster and haemodynamic stability better maintained in poor cardiovascular risk patients, whereas with propofol, street-fitness is more rapidly obtained, and haemodynamic stability better maintained in good risk patients.