Search

Contains fulltext : 244115.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The novel coronavirus pandemic has radically changed the landscape of normal surgical practice. Lifesaving cancer surgery, however, remains a clinical priority, and there is an increasing need to fully define the optimal oncologic management of patients with varying stages of lung cancer, allowing prioritization of which thoracic procedures should be performed in the current era. Healthcare providers and managers should not ignore the risk of a bimodal peak of mortality in patients with lung cancer; an imminent spike due to mortality from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, and a secondary peak reflecting an excess of cancer-related mortality among patients whose treatments were deemed less urgent, delayed, or cancelled. The European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Thoracic Anesthesia Subspecialty group has considered these challenges and developed an updated set of expert recommendations concerning the infectious period, timing of surgery, vaccination, preoperative screening and evaluation, airway management, and ventilation of thoracic surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective The authors sought to provide a snapshot of contemporary thoracic anesthetic practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Design An online survey. Setting United Kingdom. Participants An invitation to participate was e-mailed to all members of the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists. Intervention None. Measurements and Main Results A total of 132 responses were received; 2 were excluded because they did not originate from the United Kingdom. Values are number (percent). Anesthetic Technique The majority of respondents (109, 85%) maintain anesthesia with a volatile anesthetic agent, with a lesser proportion (20, 15%) reporting use of a total intravenous anesthetic technique. The majority of respondents (78, 61%) favor pressure control ventilation over volume control (50, 39%); just under half (57, 45%) report the routine use of positive end-expiratory pressure (median = 5 cmH 2 O [interquartile range (IQR), 4-5]). Fifty-two (40%) respondents report ventilating to a target tidal volume (median = 6 mL/kg [IQR, 5-7]). Most (114, 89%) respondents routinely ventilate with an F I O 2 less than 1.0. Thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) is favored by nearly two thirds of respondents (80, 62%) compared with paravertebral block (39, 30%) and other analgesic techniques (10, 8%). Anesthesiologists favoring TEB are significantly less likely to prescribe systemic opioids (17, 21% v 39, 100% [ p v 0, 0% [ p = 0.003] and 28, 35% v 4, 11% [ p =0.013], respectively). Most respondents (127, 98%) report a double-lumen tube as their first choice. Many (82, 64%) report “rarely” using bronchial blockers. Conclusions The authors hope this survey both provides interest and serves as a useful resource reflecting the current practice of thoracic anesthesia.

Near-patient viscoelastic tests have proved useful in decreasing blood and blood product use in cardiac surgery. Two different analyzers are available, TEG and ROTEM. Many different individuals operate these devices, which raises concern that this factor may significantly affect results. The present study sought to objectively assess variability in results between operators.Prospective study.Regional cardiac center.Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.Thirty-six mL of blood were taken from each of 21 patients. TEG kaolin and functional fibrinogen (FF) analyses and the equivalent ROTEM INTEM S and FIBTEM S analyses were performed. Six operators performed one of each test per patient to assess interoperator variability. One further operator performed 6 of each test per patient to assess intraoperator variability.All routine measurement parameters were noted and the coefficient of variation (CV) calculated, analyzing comparable parameters. All inter-operator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG. CV for INTEM S CT/ kaolin r time was 4.7 versus 16.3 and MCF/MA was 2.6 versus 4.3 (p0.01). Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ FF MA was 8.3 versus 12.2. All intraoperator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG (p0.01). CV for INTEM S CT/kaolin r time was 3.1 versus 9.8 and MCF/ MA was 1.6 versus 4. Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ MA was 6.9 versus 12.1.This series of results suggested ROTEM analyses are more reproducible than TEG and, consequently, that ROTEM may be better suited for use in a multiuser environment.