Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Combined spinal-epidural versus spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Single-shot spinal anaesthesia (SSS) and combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia are both commonly used for caesarean section anaesthesia. Spinals offer technical simplicity and rapid onset of nerve blockade which can be associated with hypotension. CSE anaesthesia allows for more gradual onset and also prolongation of the anaesthesia through use of a catheter. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of CSE anaesthesia to single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (search date: 8 August 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE anaesthesia with single-shot spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We further subgrouped spinal anaesthesia as either high-dose (10 or more mg bupivacaine), or low-dose (less than 10 mg bupivacaine). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials including 1272 women, but almost all comparisons for individual outcomes involved relatively small numbers of women. Two trials did not report on this review's outcomes and therefore contribute no data towards this review. Trials were conducted in national or university hospitals in Australia (1), Croatia (1), India (1), Italy (1), Singapore (3), South Korea (4), Spain (1), Sweden (1), Turkey (2), UK (1), USA (2). The trials were at a moderate risk of bias overall.CSE versus high-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and high-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.97; 7 studies, 341 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether having CSE or spinal makes any difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or spinal anaesthetic insertion (average RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.43; 7 studies, 390 women; very low-quality evidence), or the number of women requiring intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.95; 7 studies, 388 women; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the results for the number of women who were satisfied with anaesthesia, regardless of whether they received CSE or high-dose spinal (RR 0.93 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19; 2 studies, 72 women; very low-quality evidence). More women in the CSE group (13/21) experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment than in the high-dose spinal group (6/21). There were 11 cases of post-dural puncture headache (5/56 with CSE versus 6/57 with SSS; 3 trials, 113 women) with no clear difference between groups. There was also no clear difference in intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment (46/86 with CSE versus 41/76 with SSS; 4 trials, 162 women). There were no babies with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (4 trials, 182 babies).CSE versus low-dose spinal anaesthesiaThere may be little or no difference between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups for the number of women requiring a repeat regional block or general anaesthetic as a result of failure to establish adequate initial blockade (RR 4.81, 95% CI 0.24 to 97.90; 3 studies, 224 women; low-quality evidence). Similarly, there is probably little difference in the number of women requiring supplemental intra-operative analgesia at any time after CSE or low-dose spinal anaesthetic insertion (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.92; 4 studies, 298 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of CSE or low-dose spinal on the need for intra-operative conversion to general anaesthesia, because this was not required by any of the 222 women in the three trials (low-quality evidence). None of the studies examined whether women were satisfied with their anaesthesia.The mean time to effective anaesthesia was faster in women who received low-dose spinal compared to CSE, although it is unlikely that the magnitude of this difference is clinically meaningful (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.85 minutes, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18 minutes; 2 studies, 160 women).CSE appeared to reduce the incidence of intra-operative hypotension requiring treatment compared with low-dose spinal (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; 4 studies, 336 women). Similar numbers of women between the CSE and low-dose spinal groups experienced intra-operative nausea or vomiting requiring treatment (3/50 with CSE versus 6/50 with SSS; 1 study, 100 women), and there were no cases of post-dural puncture headache (1 study, 138 women). No infants in either group had an Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes (1 study; 60 babies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, the number of studies and participants for most of our analyses were small and some of the included trials had design limitations. There was some suggestion that, compared to spinal anaesthesia, CSE could be associated with a reduction in the number of women with intra-operative hypotension, but an increase in intra-operative nausea and vomiting requiring treatment. One small study found that low-dose spinal resulted in a faster time to effective anaesthesia compared to CSE. However, these results are based on limited data and the difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Consequently, there is currently insufficient evidence in support of one technique over the other and more evidence is needed in order to further evaluate the relative effectiveness and safety of CSE and spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.More high-quality, sufficiently-powered studies in this area are needed. Such studies could consider using the outcomes listed in this review and should also consider reporting economic aspects of the different methods under investigation.

Systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols for elective caesarean section versus conventional care.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols for caesarean section have been introduced in many maternity units with the aim of improving clinical outcomes and improving service efficiency. AIM: Our aim was to assess the available evidence for the efficacy of enhanced recovery protocols for elective caesarean section compared to conventional care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed through a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Database. RESULTS: After screening 118 records and reviewing 38 articles, no studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. However, from ten articles we were able to describe 29 individual interventions that are included in the enhanced recovery pathways of care for elective caesarean sections. Early reintroduction of fluids and food was the only intervention that was common to all pathways. CONCLUSION: This review reveals that while the adoption of enhanced recovery pathways for caesarean sections is increasing, there remains a paucity of evidence in the published literature on outcomes. This is reflected in the significant heterogeneity of the individual components included in various pathways currently in practice. Furthermore, development of standardised outcome metrics is required to facilitate meaningful comparison of multiple interventions. Further well-designed research is needed to properly assess the potential benefits of these interventions to improve maternal outcomes after obstetric surgery.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Combined spinal-epidural versus epidural analgesia in labour.

BACKGROUND: Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.

A sodium salt of the dimer of boronoterephthalic acid anhydride.

The title compound, sodium bis(6-carboxy-1-hydroxy-3-oxo-1,3-dihydro-2,1-benzoxaborol-1-yl)oxidanium, Na(+)·C(16)H(15)B(2)O(13)(-), was prepared in two steps from 2-bromo-p-xylene. Its crystal structure was determined at 140 K and has triclinic ( ̅P1) symmetry. The compound presents a unique structural motif, including two units of the cyclic anhydride of boronoterephthalic acid, joined by a protonated, and thereby trivalent, oxonium center. Association in the crystal is realized by complementary hydrogen bonding of the carboxyl groups, as well as by coordination of the sodium cations to the oxygen centers on the five-membered rings.

Developing clinical leadership in New Zealand hospice staff nurses.

BACKGROUND: Staff nurse clinical leadership is a relatively new concept that includes the elements of collaboration, coordination, patient advocacy, and often quite autonomous decision-making required of palliative care nurses. Staff nurses need structural and psychological empowerment to develop as clinical leaders. AIMS: The aim of this study was to establish baseline data regarding the self-perceived structural and psychological empowerment experienced by New Zealand hospice staff nurses and their ability to practise as clinical leaders. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used, which included questionnaires measuring structural and psychological empowerment and clinical leadership behaviours and focus group discussions. FINDINGS: Survey respondents reported that they were moderately psychologically and sometimes or rarely structurally empowered and felt that they can practise as clinical leaders most of the time. Two themes were identified from the focus groups. CONCLUSION: New Zealand staff hospice nurses felt that-despite feeling only moderately psychologically empowered, and only sometimes or rarely structurally empowered-they practise as clinical leaders most of the time.

Economic evaluation of telemedicine: review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit-cost analysis.

Telemedicine programs provide specialty health services to remote populations using telecommunications technology. This innovative approach to medical care delivery has been expanding for several years and currently covers various specialty areas such as cardiology, dermatology, and pediatrics. Economic evaluations of telemedicine, however, remain rare, and few of those conducted have accounted for the wide range of economic costs and benefits. Rigorous benefit-cost analyses of telemedicine programs could provide credible and comparative evidence of their economic viability and thus lead to the adoption and/or expansion of the most successful programs. To facilitate more advanced economic evaluations, this article presents research guidelines for conducting benefit-cost analyses of telemedicine programs, emphasizing opportunity cost estimation, commonly used program outcomes, and monetary conversion factors to translate outcomes to dollar values. The article concludes with specific recommendations for future research.

Employing telehealth to enhance overall quality of life and health for families.

The role of the "family" is vital to a patient's overall healthcare picture. Telehealth's ability to support the family as they deal with their health needs should be a keystone to our mission. The availability of telehealth services can be a significant support, especially in the time of difficult health situations (cancer, abuse, pediatric needs, aging parents, financial strain) where keeping a family together and connected can be very beneficial to keeping that family foundation strong. As our society looks for ways to stretch the capabilities of our healthcare infrastructure, telehealth can help keep families connected in times of challenging healthcare situations.

One size doesn't fit all: bringing telehealth services to special populations.

Telehealth applications and information communication technologies can be customized and scaled to meet the healthcare service needs of a wide variety of special populations. Categorization of those special groups can be viewed from a spectrum of perspectives such as by gender, age, culture, families, communities, chronic conditions, or particular types of locations, as well as when addressing a specific or unique health need. The emergence of innovations in the use of a range of technologies and connectivity offers exciting new approaches to the integration of telehealth aimed at improving quality and continuity of care to better meet the needs of special populations.

Applying telehealth in natural and anthropogenic disasters.

There are myriad telehealth applications for natural or anthropogenic disaster response. Telehealth technologies and methods have been demonstrated in a variety of real and simulated disasters. Telehealth is a force multiplier, providing medical and public health expertise at a distance, minimizing the logistic and safety issues associated with on-site care provision. Telehealth provides a virtual surge capacity, enabling physicians and other health professionals from around the world to assist overwhelmed local health and medical personnel with the increased demand for services postdisaster. There are several categories of telehealth applications in disaster response, including ambulatory/primary care, specialty consultation, remote monitoring, and triage, medical logistics, and transportation coordination. External expertise would be connected via existing telehealth networks in the disaster area or specially deployed telehealth systems in shelters or on-scene. This paper addresses the role of telehealth in disaster response and recommends a roadmap for its widespread use in preparing for and responding to natural and anthropogenic disasters.

Associations between maternal size and health outcomes for women undergoing caesarean section: a multicentre prospective observational study (The MUM SIZE Study).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate associations between maternal body mass index (BMI) at delivery (using pregnancy-specific BMI cut-off values 5 kg/m2 higher in each of the WHO groups) and clinical, theatre utilisation and health economic outcomes for women undergoing caesarean section (CS). DESIGN: A prospective multicentre observational study. SETTING: Seven secondary or tertiary referral obstetric hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand and four hundred and fifty-seven women undergoing all categories of CS. DATA COLLECTION: Height and weight were recorded at the initial antenatal visit and at delivery. We analysed the associations between delivery BMI (continuous and pregnancy-specific cut-off values) and total theatre time, surgical time, anaesthesia time, maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes, total hospital admission and theatre costs. RESULTS: Mean participant characteristics were: age 32 years, gestation at delivery 38.4 weeks and delivery BMI 32.2 kg/m2. Fifty-five per cent of participants were overweight, obese or super-obese using delivery pregnancy-specific BMI cut-off values. As BMI increased, total theatre time, surgical time and anaesthesia time increased. Super-obese participants had approximately 27% (17 min, p<0.001) longer total theatre time, 20% (9 min, p<0.001), longer surgical time and 40% (11 min, p<0.001) longer anaesthesia time when compared with normal BMI participants. Increased BMI at delivery was associated with increased risk of maternal intensive care unit admission (relative risk 1.07, p=0.045), but no increased risk of neonatal admission to higher acuity care. Total hospital admission costs were 15% higher in super-obese women compared with normal BMI women and theatre costs were 27% higher in super-obese women. CONCLUSIONS: Increased maternal BMI was associated with increased total theatre time, surgical and anaesthesia time, increased total hospital admission costs and theatre costs. Clinicians and health administrators should consider these clinical risks, time implications and financial costs when managing pregnant women.

Telehealth technologies and applications for terrorism response: a report of the 2002 coastal North Carolina domestic preparedness training exercise.

Effective response to natural or man-made disasters (i.e., terrorism) is predicated on the ability to communicate among the many organizations involved. Disaster response exercises enable disaster planners and responders to test procedures and technologies and incorporate the lessons learned from past disasters or exercises. On May 31 and June 1, 2002, one such exercise event took place at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in Jacksonville, North Carolina. During the exercise, East Carolina University tested: (1) in-place Telehealth networks and (2) rapidly deployable communications, networking, and data collection technologies such as satellite communications, local wireless networking, on-scene video, and clinical and environmental data acquisition and telemetry. Exercise participants included local, county, state, and military emergency medical services (EMS), emergency management, specialized response units, and local fire and police units. The technologies and operations concepts tested at the exercise and recommendations for using telehealth to improve disaster response are described.

Evaluation of technical approaches to tele-electromyography via internet protocol networks.

An exploratory study was conducted to determine the feasibility and clinical utility of remote electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies over Internet Protocol (IP) networks. A progression of technical approaches was attempted until a workable solution was discovered. An evaluation form was completed for each tele-EMG session to attempt to quantify the clinical utility of tele-EMG. In all, 73 tele-EMG examinations were conducted over 29 months. Improvements in scores of evaluation survey items corresponded with the technical modifications. The final working model involved the use of contemporaneous developments in commercial videoconferencing systems that allowed simultaneous transmission and remote display of video and EMG computer (video graphics array [VGA]) signals. This exploratory study demonstrated a technical solution that met the clinical needs of rehabilitation medicine physicians for remote assessment of EMG and nerve conduction studies.

Telepsychiatry and e-mental health services: potential for improving access to mental health care.

Reforming mental health care is a focus of many ongoing initiatives in the United States, both at the national and state levels. Access to adequate mental health care services is one of the identified problems. Telepsychiatry and e-mental health services could improve access to mental health care in rural, remote and underserved areas. The authors discuss the required technology, common applications and barriers associated with the implementation of telepsychiatry and e-mental health services.

Internet-based tele-audiometry system for the assessment of hearing: a pilot study.

The application of tele-audiology is in its infancy. Several systems have been developed to screen hearing, yet the application of real-time diagnostic audiology to a remote location is new. This paper describes a tele-audiometric system developed for the application of realtime diagnostic audiometry via the Internet. A pilot study evaluated 31 adult participants in a double-blind study of two different systems (i.e., conventional versus Internet-based) for assessing auditory thresholds. The threshold data show substantial agreement between the two systems. Mean thresholds varied by no more than 1.3 dB, well within established variability of audiometric testing. This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of real-time Internet-based assessment of hearing. The system allows this remote assessment of hearing without an audiologist on site. Further investigation will assess of outcomes and costs.