Fetal bradycardia in open versus fetoscopic prenatal repair of spina bifida.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of fetal bradycardia in open versus fetoscopic fetal spina bifida surgery. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing open (n = 25) or fetoscopic (n = 26) spina bifida repair between 2017 and 2022. From October 2017 to June 2020, spina bifida repairs were performed via an open classical hysterotomy, and from November 2020 to June 2022 fetoscopic repairs were performed following transition to this technique. Fetal heart rate (FHR) in beats per minute (bpm) was recorded via echocardiography every 15 min during the procedure. Cohort characteristics, fetal bradycardia and maternal physiologic parameters were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Fetuses undergoing an open repair more frequently developed bradycardia defined as <110 bpm (32% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.008), and a trend was observed for FHR decreases more than 25 bpm from baseline (20% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.073). Profound bradycardia less than 80 bpm was rare, occurring in only three operations (two in open, one in fetoscopic repair) with two fetuses (one in each group) requiring emergency cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: When compared to open fetal surgery, fetal bradycardia occurred less frequently in fetoscopic surgery despite a significantly greater anesthetic exposure and the use of the intraamniotic carbon dioxide insufflation.

Handoff checklists improve the reliability of patient handoffs in the operating room and postanesthesia care unit.

BACKGROUND: Ineffective communications among healthcare providers are common and increases the risk of medical errors. During the perioperative period, multiple handoffs occur within a short period of time, and failure to convey important patient information can compromise safety. We used quality improvement methodology to improve the reliability of our handoffs in the operating room and postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: Two quality improvement teams were developed to focus on the intraoperative and postanesthesia handoff processes. Key driver diagrams and 'smart aims' were developed for each process based on feedback from anesthesia and nursing staff, and handoff checklists were developed and revised using multiple plan-do-study-act cycles. Data on the reliability of the handoff processes were obtained prior to initiation of the projects and throughout the 6-month project period. RESULTS: The reliability of intraoperative anesthesia handoffs improved from 20% to 100% with use of the intraoperative handoff checklist. Similarly, with the introduction of a standardized PACU checklist, the reliability of PACU handoffs improved from 59% to greater than 90%. CONCLUSION: We utilized quality improvement methodology to develop and implement standardized checklists for handoffs of care in the operating room and PACU. Acceptance of and adherence to the standardized handoff protocols dramatically increased the quality and reliability of our handoff process.

Outcome for the extremely premature neonate: how far do we push the edge?

Significant advances in perinatal and neonatal medicine over the last 20 years and the recent emergence of fetal surgery has resulted in anesthesia providers caring for a growing number of infants born at the margin of viability. Anesthetic management in this patient population has to take into consideration the immature function of many vital organ systems as well as the effects of the underlying disease processes, which can frequently lead to severe physiological derangements. Accordingly, premature infants presenting for major surgeries early in life can represent a significant anesthetic challenge. However, even with advanced anesthetic and surgical management and optimal intensive care, extremely premature infants face substantial postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as prolonged hospital courses. In this article, we will discuss the following questions: How far have we come in improving outcomes of extreme prematurity? And what will the future medical and societal challenges be, as we continue to redefine the limits of viability?