Preparing for obstetric anaesthesia-An educational randomised controlled trial comparing e-learning to written course material.

BACKGROUND: E-learning is increasingly used in postgraduate medical education. Its numerous benefits include an enhanced learning experience through learning style individualisation, interactive elements, and assessment through tests and quizzes. Current meta-analyses conclude that the overall effectiveness of e-learning is comparable to traditional teaching modalities. However, studies demonstrating its benefits are heterogeneous and of varying quality. This randomised controlled trial aims to investigate whether contemporary e-learning completed prior to a course in obstetric anaesthesia prepares the course participants better than self-study of written course material. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial allocated second-year resident anaesthetists to receive either e-learning in postpartum haemorrhage and written course material in preeclampsia or e-learning in preeclampsia and written course material in postpartum haemorrhage, prior to a compulsory course in obstetric anaesthesia. The primary outcome was knowledge after completion of e-learning before the course, assessed by type X multiple-choice questions with a score ranging from zero to 35. The secondary outcomes were anxiety level before course simulations, performance during course simulations, and knowledge four and 12 weeks after the course. RESULTS: The per protocol analysis of the primary outcome included 45 participants and demonstrated a mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI 0.7-2.9; p = .002) in knowledge after completion of e-learning before the course, in favour of e-learning compared to written course material. There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This blinded parallel group randomised controlled trial found a numerically small but statistically significant difference in knowledge favouring e-learning over written course material.

Sphenopalatine ganglion block for the treatment of postdural puncture headache: a randomised, blinded, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment of postdural puncture headache includes epidural blood patch (EBP), which is invasive and may result in rare but severe complications. Sphenopalatine ganglion block is suggested as a simple, minimally invasive treatment for postdural puncture headache. We aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of a transnasal sphenopalatine ganglion block with local anaesthetic vs saline. METHODS: We conducted a blinded, randomised clinical trial including adults fulfilling the criteria for EBP. Participants received a sphenopalatine ganglion block bilaterally with 1 ml of either local anaesthetic (lidocaine 4% and ropivacaine 0.5%) or placebo (saline). Primary outcome was pain in upright position 30 min post-block, measured on a 0-100 mm VAS. RESULTS: We randomised 40 patients with an upright median pain intensity of 74 and 84 mm in the local anaesthetic and placebo groups at baseline, respectively. At 30 min after sphenopalatine ganglion block, the median pain intensity in upright position was 26 mm in the local anaesthetic group vs 37 mm in the placebo group (estimated median difference: 5 mm; 95% confidence interval: -14 to 21; P=0.53). In the local anaesthetic group, 50% required an EBP compared with 45% in the placebo group (P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a sphenopalatine ganglion block with local anaesthetic had no statistically significant effect on pain intensity after 30 min compared with placebo. However, pain was reduced and EBP was avoided in half the patients of both groups, which suggests a major effect not necessarily attributable to local anaesthetics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03652714.

Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine, have traditionally been used for reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. However, these drugs have significant limitations, such as indirect mechanisms of reversal, limited and unpredictable efficacy, and undesirable autonomic responses. Sugammadex is a selective relaxant-binding agent specifically developed for rapid reversal of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium. Its potential clinical benefits include fast and predictable reversal of any degree of block, increased patient safety, reduced incidence of residual block on recovery, and more efficient use of healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade caused by non-depolarizing neuromuscular agents in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 2 May 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), Embase (WebSPIRS Ovid SP), and the clinical trials registries www.controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov, and www.centerwatch.com. We re-ran the search on 10 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published, or language. We included adults, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I to IV, who received non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents for an elective in-patient or day-case surgical procedure. We included all trials comparing sugammadex versus neostigmine that reported recovery times or adverse events. We included any dose of sugammadex and neostigmine and any time point of study drug administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify trials for eligibility, examined articles for eligibility, abstracted data, assessed the articles, and excluded obviously irrelevant reports. We resolved disagreements by discussion between review authors and further disagreements through consultation with the last review author. We assessed risk of bias in 10 methodological domains using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and examined risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. We used the principles of the GRADE approach to prepare an overall assessment of the quality of evidence. For our primary outcomes (recovery times to train-of-four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9), we presented data as mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and for our secondary outcomes (risk of adverse events and risk of serious adverse events), we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with CIs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (4206 participants) in this updated review, 38 of which were new studies. Twelve trials were eligible for meta-analysis of primary outcomes (n = 949), 28 trials were eligible for meta-analysis of secondary outcomes (n = 2298), and 10 trials (n = 1647) were ineligible for meta-analysis.We compared sugammadex 2 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Sugammadex 2 mg/kg was 10.22 minutes (6.6 times) faster then neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (1.96 vs 12.87 minutes) in reversing NMB from the second twitch (T2) to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 10.22 minutes, 95% CI 8.48 to 11.96; I2 = 84%; 10 studies, n = 835; GRADE: moderate quality).We compared sugammadex 4 mg/kg and neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep NMB. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was 45.78 minutes (16.8 times) faster then neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (2.9 vs 48.8 minutes) in reversing NMB from post-tetanic count (PTC) 1 to 5 to TOFR > 0.9 (MD 45.78 minutes, 95% CI 39.41 to 52.15; I2 = 0%; two studies, n = 114; GRADE: low quality).For our secondary outcomes, we compared sugammadex, any dose, and neostigmine, any dose, looking at risk of adverse and serious adverse events. We found significantly fewer composite adverse events in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74; I2 = 40%; 28 studies, n = 2298; GRADE: moderate quality). Risk of adverse events was 28% in the neostigmine group and 16% in the sugammadex group, resulting in a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8. When looking at specific adverse events, we noted significantly less risk of bradycardia (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; I2= 0%; 11 studies, n = 1218; NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 389; NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality) and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, n = 1474; NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) in the sugammadex group when compared with the neostigmine group. Finally, we found no significant differences between sugammadex and neostigmine regarding risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 10 studies, n = 959; GRADE: low quality).Application of trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicates superiority of sugammadex for outcomes such as recovery time from T2 to TOFR > 0.9, adverse events, and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review results suggest that in comparison with neostigmine, sugammadex can more rapidly reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block regardless of the depth of the block. Sugammadex 2 mg/kg is 10.22 minutes (˜ 6.6 times) faster in reversing moderate neuromuscular blockade (T2) than neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg (GRADE: moderate quality), and sugammadex 4 mg/kg is 45.78 minutes (˜ 16.8 times) faster in reversing deep neuromuscular blockade (PTC 1 to 5) than neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg (GRADE: low quality). With an NNTB of 8 to avoid an adverse event, sugammadex appears to have a better safety profile than neostigmine. Patients receiving sugammadex had 40% fewer adverse events compared with those given neostigmine. Specifically, risks of bradycardia (RR 0.16, NNTB 14; GRADE: moderate quality), PONV (RR 0.52, NNTB 16; GRADE: low quality), and overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis (RR 0.40, NNTB 13; GRADE: moderate quality) were reduced. Both sugammadex and neostigmine were associated with serious adverse events in less than 1% of patients, and data showed no differences in risk of serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.54; GRADE: low quality).

Anaesthesia care for emergency endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding. A nationwide population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, no standard approach exists to the level of monitoring or presence of staff with anaesthetic expertise required during emergency esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) for peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We assess the association between anaesthesia care and mortality. We further describe the prevalence and inter-hospital variation of anaesthesia care in Denmark and identify clinical predictors for choosing anaesthesia care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This population-based cohort study included all emergency EGDs for PUB in adults during 2012-2013. About 90-day all-cause mortality after EGD was estimated by crude and adjusted logistic regression. Clinical predictors of anaesthesia care were identified in another logistic regression model. RESULTS: Some 3.056 EGDs performed at 21 hospitals were included; 2074 (68%) received anaesthesia care and 982 (32%) were managed under supervison of the endoscopist. Some 16.7% of the patients undergoing EGD with anaesthesia care died within 90 days after the procedure, compared to 9.8% of the patients who had no anaesthesia care, adjusted OR = 1.51 (95% CI = 1.25-1.83). Comparing the two hospitals with the most frequent (98.6% of al EGDs) and least frequent (6.9%) use of anaesthesia care, mortality was 13.7% and 11.7%, respectively, adjusted OR = 1.22 (95% CI = 0.55-2.71). The prevalence of anaesthesia care varied between the hospitals, median = 78.9% (range 6.9-98.6%). Predictors of choosing anaesthesia care were shock at admission, high ASA score, and no pre-existing comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Use of anaesthesia care for emergency EGD was associated with increased mortality, most likely because of confounding by indication. The use of anaesthesia care varied greatly between hospitals, but was unrelated to mortality at hospital level.

Body mass index is not associated with reoperation rates in patients with a surgically treated perforated peptic ulcer.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present nationwide Danish cohort study was to examine the association between body mass index (BMI) and reoperation in patients who are sur-gically treated for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). METHODS: This was a nationwide cohort study of all Danish patients who were surgically treated for benign gastric or duodenal PPU between 2011 and 2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: reoperation within 30 days of the primary surgical procedure and 90-day survival. The association between BMI and reoperation are presented as crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 726 patients were included. The median age was 69.5 years (range: 18.2-101.7 years), 51.4% were women (n = 373), 78.4% (n = 569) of the patients had at least one co-existing disease, and 47.5% (n = 345) were categorised as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3. Re-operative surgery was done in 124 patients (17.1%). No statistically significant adjusted association between underweight, overweight or obesity and re-operation was found (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.456 (0.181-1.148), 1.468 (0.857-2.517), and 1.314 (0.663-2.601), respectively). Patients undergoing reoperative surgery had a statistically significantly lower crude 90-day survival than patients without need of reperative surgery; 63.9% (83/124) versus 75.9% (457/602), p = 0.037. CONCLUSION: In the present nationwide cohort study of PPU patients, no statistically significantly adjusted correlation between BMI and re-operation rates was found. Patients undergoing reoperative surgery had a decreased 90-day survival. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.