Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) is making giant strides in the medical domain, and the field of anaesthesia is not untouched. Enhancement in technology, especially AI, in many fields, including medicine, has proven to be far superior, safer and less erratic than human decision-making. The intersection of anaesthesia and AI holds the potential for augmenting constructive advances in anaesthesia care. AI can improve anaesthesiologists' efficiency, reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Anaesthesiologists are well placed to harness the advantages of AI in various areas like perioperative monitoring, anaesthesia care, drug delivery, post-anaesthesia care unit, pain management and intensive care unit. Perioperative monitoring of the depth of anaesthesia, clinical decision support systems and closed-loop anaesthesia delivery aid in efficient and safer anaesthesia delivery. The effect of various AI interventions in clinical practice will need further research and validation, as well as the ethical implications of privacy and data handling. This paper aims to provide an overview of AI in perioperative monitoring in anaesthesia.

PICO question In horses undergoing volatile anaesthesia, is recovery quality superior with the use of sevoflurane compared to isoflurane during the maintenance phase? Clinical bottom line The category of research question Treatment Number and type of study designs reviewed Seven papers were available for critical appraisal. Of the seven papers, six were prospective, randomised trials and four of these were of crossover design. Of the same seven papers, three were experimental and four were clinical. Strength of evidence Moderate Outcomes reported Five out of seven critically appraised articles found that there was no clinically significant improvement in recovery quality following volatile anaesthesia with sevoflurane compared to isoflurane. Two of the seven articles did find improvement in recovery quality following the use of sevoflurane over isoflurane, but both studies were of crossover design, one of these studies used non-blinded evaluators and the second study used both unblinded and blinded evaluators and a recovery quality scoring scale that did not show interobserver reliability. Conclusion In healthy horses presented for elective surgical and diagnostic imaging procedures in a clinical setting, there is no significant difference in recovery quality following the use of sevoflurane or isoflurane for the maintenance phase. How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

Animal capture is essential in conservation and management programs, both for captive and wild species. This paper describes the effect of midazolam sedation in domestic and wild phasianids with respect to dorso-abdominal massage for obtaining semen samples, and on the quality of the sperm thus collected. Three experiments were performed. Experiment 1 - Determination, with respect to semen quality, of the optimum midazolam treatment for sedation in the domestic chicken. This involved sedating birds with either: 1) 2 mL of saline (control [C]), 2) 2 mg/kg of midazolam (low dose [LD]), 3) 6 mg/kg of midazolam (high dose [HD]), or 4) 6 mg/kg of midazolam and waiting 10 min before starting to massage (HD-10) (all performed in duplicate). The response time to the sedative (T1) was recorded, as were the times from the start of massage to ejaculation (T2) and its end (T3). The proportion of animals that showed stress during massage was noted via their waking, wing flapping, and the heterophil-lymphocyte ratio. The volume of all sperm samples obtained was determined, along with sperm concentration, motility, viability, and DNA integrity. Experiment 2 - The same determinations were made in captive red-legged partridges. Experiment 3 - The effect of the discovered optimum conditions (HD-10) for the above species was examined in the capercaillie (a wild species). Sperm quality was not affected by sedation with midazolam in any of the examined species, although the capercaillies and partridges were more nervous during semen collection than were the chickens.

PICO question In rabbits, undergoing general anaesthesia, does the placement of a v-gel® device result in less airway trauma compared to the use of other airway management devices? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Three papers were critically appraised, two blinded randomised experimental trial studies and one randomised crossover experimental trial study Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported One blinded randomised trial study demonstrated that the trauma to the upper airways of rabbits during anaesthesia is not significantly different between the use of v-gel® and an endotracheal tube. The other blinded randomised trial study demonstrated that the trauma to the upper airway caused by endotracheal intubation is significantly more than that caused by v-gel® placement. The randomised crossover trial study demonstrated that v-gel® placement causes more significant compression to the larynx compared to a laryngeal mask or face mask Conclusion The current evidence suggests that use of the v-gel® in rabbits causes less trauma / injury to the airways compared to placement of an endotracheal tube but not compared to the use of a laryngeal or face mask. However, based on the low number and quality of published studies, this evidence is weak, and better-quality studies are required to support the routine use of v-gel® over other airway devices in rabbits. While v-gel® may be a safer alternative for securing airways in rabbits compared to endotracheal intubation, knowing the injuries this device can cause to the upper airways is useful for managing rabbits during post anaesthesia recovery How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.

PICO question In healthy dogs, does the use of diazepam or midazolam administered in co-induction with propofol result in a reduction in the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia and a decrease in adverse cardiovascular and respiratory events? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Eight papers were critically reviewed. A total of six manuscripts were prospective, randomised, blinded, clinical studies. One trial was prospective, randomised, blinded, clinical with a Latin square, incomplete design. One study was retrospective, randomised, blinded, crossover, experimental Strength of evidence Moderate Outcomes reported Variables assessed in this Knowledge Summary included: propofol dose required to induce anaesthesia (considering successful orotracheal intubation as an end point), changes in cardiovascular variables (heart rate, systolic, mean and diastolic blood pressure) and changes in respiratory variables (development of apnoea, changes in respiratory rates) Conclusion In healthy dogs, using propofol-diazepam or propofol-midazolam co-induction resulted in a reduction in propofol dose required to induce anaesthesia in some trials only. Midazolam appeared more effective than diazepam in this context. The dosages, timing and sequence of drug administration seemed relevant. No evidence suggested that using propofol-diazepam or propofol-midazolam co-induction resulted in a reduction of adverse cardiovascular or respiratory events. In addition, although this was out of the scope of the PICO question addressed here, adverse events (e.g. excitement, poorer quality of induction) were reported in several studies when diazepam or midazolam were used in co-induction How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.