Procedural Aspects of Epidural Catheter Placement: A Prospective Observational Study of 173 Epidural Catheter Insertions.

OBJECTIVE: The risks and benefits of epidural analgesia have been studied extensively, but information regarding many other aspects of epidural catheter insertion is limited. The authors aimed to add information regarding procedural pain, procedure duration, failure rates, and the effect of experience to the ongoing discussion on this procedure. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: A Danish tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients scheduled to undergo video-assisted thoracic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Epidural catheter insertion in 173 patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors recorded the time required for the epidural insertion procedure, the attempts used, insertion level, access use, patient position, placement technique used, and the designation of the physician placing the catheter. Furthermore, the authors asked the patients to evaluate the expected procedural pain, and after the procedure the authors asked them to evaluate the actual level of pain experienced. Six and 24 months after discharge, the authors examined persistent sequelae by using questionnaire assessments. The median procedure duration was 13 minutes, with 75% of the catheters placed within 22 minutes. Actual procedure-related pain (mean score [M] = 3.5, SD = 2.0) was significantly (p < 0.0001) less than that expected before the procedure (M = 4.9, SD = 2.0). The patients' expected pain, attempts required for successful catheter placement, and approach used to access the epidural space significantly affected the actual procedure-related pain (p = 0.001, p ≤ 0.003, and p = 0.023, respectively). Persistent pain and sensory disturbances were observed in 11% and 4% of the patients, respectively, after 6 months and in 6% and 4% of the patients, respectively, after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the authors examined several lesser-known aspects of epidural procedures. The use of epidural analgesia as part of the pain management plan after surgery requires a more complex evaluation instead of merely discussing the possibility of procedural infections, hematomas, or neurologic injuries. The procedure time, patients' expected and experienced pain related to the procedure, and the potential long-term side effects should be a part of the decision-making process.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing the VivaSight Double-Lumen Tube and a Conventional Double-Lumen Tube in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery Involving One-Lung Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: One-lung ventilation (OLV) procedures are essential for most thoracic surgeries, and the most common method is intubation with a conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT) and bronchoscopy to verify correct tube placement. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the VivaSight double-lumen tube (DL) and a cDLT for OLV procedures. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective in Denmark using a decision analytic model to assess the potential effects and costs of using VivaSight-DL as an alternative to a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. Costs were determined using a micro-costing approach. The effectiveness measure was the number of times that fiberoptic confirmation of the tube placement during intubation or surgery was unnecessary and thus avoided. The effectiveness input was from a randomized controlled trial (n = 52). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fiberoptic confirmation of tube placement was only necessary in two (6.66%) procedures using VivaSight-DL. The cost of using VivaSight-DL was $US299.96 per procedure versus $US347.61 for a cDLT with a reusable bronchoscope. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was - $US51.06 per bronchoscopy avoided. The base-case analysis indicated that the use of VivaSight-DL was cost effective compared with the use of a cDLT with reusable bronchoscope. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust and that VivaSight-DL was more effective and less costly. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that VivaSight-DL is associated with cost savings and reductions in bronchoscope use to verify correct tube placement. The conclusion is based on the results from a single institution. To clarify whether VivaSight-DL is cost effective in larger or global clinical settings, further economic evaluations should be performed.

Is the current level of training in the use of equipment for prehospital radio communication sufficient? A cross-sectional study among prehospital physicians in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Physicians working in prehospital care are expected to handle radio communication both within their own sector as well as with other divisions of the National Emergency Services. To date, no study has been conducted on the level of training received by physicians in the use of the equipment provided or on the level of competency acquired by physicians. METHODS: In order to investigate the self-assessed skill level acquired in the use of the TETRA (TErrestrial Trunked RAdio) authority radio for communication in a prehospital setting, a cross-sectional study was conducted by questionnaire circulated to all 454 physicians working in the Danish Emergency Medical Services. RESULTS: A lack of training was found among physicians working in prehospital care in Denmark in relation to the proper use of essential communication equipment. Prior to starting their first shift in a prehospital setting 38% of physicians reported having received no training in the use of the equipment, while 80% of physicians reported having received one1 hour of training or less. Among the majority of physicians their current level of training was sufficient for their everyday needs for prehospital communication but for 28% of physicians their current level of training was insufficient as they were unable to handle communication at this level. CONCLUSION: As the first study in its field, this study investigated the training received in the use of essential communication equipment among physicians working in prehospital care in Denmark. The study found that competency does not appear to have been prioritised as highly as other technical skills needed to function in these settings. For the majority of physicians their current level of training was sufficient for everyday use but for a substantial minority further training is required, especially if the redundancy of the prehospital system is to be preserved.