Ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation and postpartum outcomes following caesarean delivery: a multicentre cohort study.

Disparities relating to postpartum recovery outcomes in different socio-economic and racial ethnic groups are underexplored. We conducted a planned analysis of a large prospective caesarean delivery cohort to explore the relationship between ethnicity, socio-economic status and postpartum recovery. Eligible patients were enrolled and baseline demographic, obstetric and medical history data were collected 18 h and 30 h following delivery. Patients completed postpartum quality of life and recovery measures in person on day 1 (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, including global health visual analogue scale; Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item score; and pain scores) and by telephone between day 28 and day 32 postpartum (EQ-5D-5L and pain scores). Socio-economic group was determined according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile of each patient's usual place of residence. Data from 1000 patients who underwent caesarean delivery were included. There were more patients of Asian, Black and mixed ethnicity in the more deprived quintiles. Patients of White ethnicities had shorter postpartum duration of hospital stay compared with patients of Asian and Black ethnicities (35 (28-56 [18-513]) h vs. 44 (31-71 [19-465]) h vs. 49 (33-75 [23-189]) h, respectively. In adjusted models at day 30, patients of Asian ethnicity had a significantly greater risk of moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale ≥ 4) at rest and on movement (odds ratio (95%CI) 2.42 (1.24-4.74) and 2.32 (1.40-3.87)), respectively). There were no differences in readmission rates or incidence of complications between groups. Patients from White ethnic backgrounds experience shorter postpartum duration of stay compared with patients from Asian and Black ethnic groups. Ethnic background impacts pain scores and recovery at day 1 postpartum and following hospital discharge, even after adjusting for socio-economic group. Further work is required to understand the underlying factors driving differences in pain and recovery and to develop strategies to reduce disparities in obstetric patients.

Anaesthetic efficacy and postinduction hypotension with remimazolam compared with propofol: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Remimazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, may be used for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anaesthesia, but its role in the management of patients with multiple comorbidities remains unclear. In this phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we compared the anaesthetic efficacy and the incidence of postinduction hypotension during total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam vs. propofol. A total of 365 patients (ASA physical status 3 or 4) scheduled for elective surgery were assigned randomly to receive total intravenous anaesthesia with remimazolam (n = 270) or propofol (n = 95). Primary outcome was anaesthetic effect, quantified as the percentage of time with Narcotrend® Index values ≤ 60, during surgery (skin incision to last skin suture), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postinduction hypotensive events. Mean (SD) percentage of time with Narcotrend Index values ≤ 60 during surgery across all patients receiving remimazolam (93% (20.7)) was non-inferior to propofol (99% (4.2)), mean difference (97.5%CI) -6.28% (-8.89-infinite); p = 0.003. Mean (SD) number of postinduction hypotension events was 62 (38.1) and 71 (41.1) for patients allocated to the remimazolam and propofol groups, respectively; p = 0.015. Noradrenaline administration events (requirement for a bolus and/or infusion) were also lower in patients allocated to remimazolam compared with propofol (14 (13.5) vs. 20 (14.6), respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who were ASA physical status 3 or 4, the anaesthetic effect of remimazolam was non-inferior to propofol.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: 2023 update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists and Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Guidance for the timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection needed reassessment given widespread vaccination, less virulent variants, contemporary evidence and a need to increase access to safe surgery. We, therefore, updated previous recommendations to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and, most importantly, patients. Patients who develop symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 7 weeks of planned surgery, including on the day of surgery, should be screened for SARS-CoV-2. Elective surgery should not usually be undertaken within 2 weeks of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For patients who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection and who are low risk or having low-risk surgery, most elective surgery can proceed 2 weeks following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. For patients who are not low risk or having anything other than low-risk surgery between 2 and 7 weeks following infection, an individual risk assessment must be performed. This should consider: patient factors (age; comorbid and functional status); infection factors (severity; ongoing symptoms; vaccination); and surgical factors (clinical priority; risk of disease progression; grade of surgery). This assessment should include the use of an objective and validated risk prediction tool and shared decision-making, taking into account the patient's own attitude to risk. In most circumstances, surgery should proceed unless risk assessment indicates that the risk of proceeding exceeds the risk of delay. There is currently no evidence to support delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks for patients who have fully recovered from or have had mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Quality of recovery following childbirth: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

To better understand outcomes in postpartum patients who receive peripartum anaesthetic interventions, we aimed to assess quality of recovery metrics following childbirth in a UK-based multicentre cohort study. This study was performed during a 2-week period in October 2021 to assess in- and outpatient post-delivery recovery at 1 and 30 days postpartum. The following outcomes were reported: obstetric quality of recovery 10-item measure (ObsQoR-10); EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) survey; global health visual analogue scale; postpartum pain scores at rest and movement; length of hospital stay; readmission rates; and self-reported complications. In total, 1638 patients were recruited and responses analysed from 1631 (99.6%) and 1282 patients (80%) at one and 30 days postpartum, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) length of stay postpartum was 39.3 (28.5-61.0 [17.7-513.4]), 40.3 (28.5-59.1 [17.8-220.9]), and 35.9 (27.1-54.1 [17.9-188.4]) h following caesarean, instrumental and vaginal deliveries, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) ObsQoR-10 score was 75 ([62-86] 4-100) on day 1, with the lowest ObsQoR-10 scores (worst recovery) reported by patients undergoing caesarean delivery. Of the 1282 patients, complications within the first 30 days postpartum were reported by 252 (19.7%) of all patients. Readmission to hospital within 30 days of discharge occurred in 69 patients (5.4%), with 49 (3%) for maternal reasons. These data can be used to inform patients regarding expected recovery trajectories; facilitate optimal discharge planning; and identify populations that may benefit most from targeted interventions to improve postpartum recovery experience.

Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study.

The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri-operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96-hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of individual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2-10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04-1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09-2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26-4.54). Use of goggles, powered air-purifying respirators, long-sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID-19 pandemic were not.

Position statement from the Editors of Anaesthesia on equity, diversity and inclusion.

There is a need to prioritise equity, diversity and inclusion within anaesthesia and medicine as a whole. This position statement outlines the Anaesthesia Editors' current policies and practices aiming to achieve equity, represent the diversity of our specialty and actively include people engaged with this journal and beyond. We will define, promote and embed principles of equity, diversity and inclusion across all our work. We will monitor and report author and editor characteristics and ensure recruitment practices are transparent and adhere to our principles on equity, diversity and inclusion. We will attempt to remove systemic barriers restricting those from under-represented groups from progressing into leadership roles within anaesthesia. We will respond to threats and barriers to the principles and practices we set. With these principles and specific actions we undertake, we aim to be pro-active rather than reactive. We commit to embracing and embedding equity, diversity and inclusion in all our practices and regularly reviewing, improving and updating our policies and practices.

Analysis of a national difficult airway database.

Difficult airway management continues to adversely affect patient care and clinical outcomes and is poorly predicted. Previous difficult airway management is the most accurate predictor of future difficulty. The Difficult Airway Society initiated a national airway database to allow clinicians to access details of previous difficult airway episodes in patients issued with a difficult airway alert card. We aimed to analyse this database, reporting patient characteristics, airway management and patient outcomes. We included all living adult patients reported in the first 5 years of the database (n = 675). Clinical airway assessment was reported in 634 (94%) patients, with three or more parameters assessed in 488 (72%). A history of difficult airway was known in 136 (20%) patients and difficult airway management was anticipated in 391 (58%). In all, 75 (11%) patients had an airway-related critical incident, with 1 in 29 being awoken from anaesthesia, 1 in 34 requiring unplanned or prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and 1 in 225 needing an emergency front-of-neck airway or had a cardiac arrest/peri-arrest episode. Airway-related critical incidents were associated with out-of-hours airway management, but no other associations were apparent. Our data report the first analysis of a national difficult airway database, finding that unanticipated difficult airway management continues to occur despite airway assessment, and the rate of critical incidents in this cohort of patients is high. This database has the potential to improve airway management for patients in the future.

Expert Consensus Regarding Core Outcomes for Enhanced Recovery after Cesarean Delivery Studies: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity among reported outcomes from enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery impact studies is high. This study aimed to develop a standardized enhanced recovery core outcome set for use in future enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery studies. METHODS: An international consensus study involving physicians, patients, and a director of midwifery and nursing services was conducted using a three-round modified Delphi approach (two rounds of electronic questionnaires and a third-round e-discussion) to produce the core outcome set. An initial list of outcomes was based on a previously published systematic review. Consensus was obtained for the final core outcome set, including definitions for key terms and preferred units of measurement. Strong consensus was defined as 70% or greater agreement and weak consensus as 50 to 69% agreement. Of the 64 stakeholders who were approached, 32 agreed to participate. All 32, 31, and 26 stakeholders completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. RESULTS: The number of outcomes in the final core outcome set was reduced from 98 to 15. Strong consensus (70% or greater stakeholder agreement) was achieved for 15 outcomes. The core outcome set included length of hospital stay; compliance with enhanced recovery protocol; maternal morbidity (hospital re-admissions or unplanned consultations); provision of optimal analgesia (maternal satisfaction, compliance with analgesia, opioid consumption or requirement and incidence of nausea or vomiting); fasting times; breastfeeding success; and times to mobilization and urinary catheter removal. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item composite measure was also included in the final core outcome set. Areas identified as requiring further research included readiness for discharge and analysis of cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Results from an international consensus to develop a core outcome set for enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery are presented. These are outcomes that could be considered when designing future enhanced recovery studies.