Search

Recent data indicated a high incidence of inappropriate management of neuromuscular block, with a high rate of residual paralysis and relaxant-associated postoperative complications. These data are alarming in that the available neuromuscular monitoring, as well as myorelaxants and their antagonists basically allow well tolerated management of neuromuscular blockade. In this first European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) guideline on peri-operative management of neuromuscular block, we aim to present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians provide best medical care and ensure patient safety. We identified three main clinical questions: Are myorelaxants necessary to facilitate tracheal intubation in adults? Does the intensity of neuromuscular blockade influence a patient's outcome in abdominal surgery? What are the strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of residual paralysis? On the basis of this, PICO (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. A stepwise approach was used to reduce the number of trials of the initial research ( n  = 24 000) to the finally relevant clinical studies ( n  = 88). GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used for formulating the recommendations based on the findings of the included studies in conjunction with their methodological quality. A two-step Delphi process was used to determine the agreement of the panel members with the recommendations: R1 We recommend using a muscle relaxant to facilitate tracheal intubation (1A). R2 We recommend the use of muscle relaxants to reduce pharyngeal and/or laryngeal injury following endotracheal intubation (1C). R3 We recommend the use of a fast-acting muscle relaxant for rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) such as succinylcholine 1 mg kg -1 or rocuronium 0.9 to 1.2 mg kg -1 (1B). R4 We recommend deepening neuromuscular blockade if surgical conditions need to be improved (1B). R5 There is insufficient evidence to recommend deep neuromuscular blockade in general to reduce postoperative pain or decrease the incidence of peri-operative complications. (2C). R6 We recommend the use of ulnar nerve stimulation and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring at the adductor pollicis muscle to exclude residual paralysis (1B). R7 We recommend using sugammadex to antagonise deep, moderate and shallow neuromuscular blockade induced by aminosteroidal agents (rocuronium, vecuronium) (1A). R8 We recommend advanced spontaneous recovery (i.e. TOF ratio >0.2) before starting neostigmine-based reversal and to continue quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade until a TOF ratio of more than 0.9 has been attained. (1C)., (Copyright © 2022 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Acute hypersensitivity reactions to drugs occur infrequently during anaesthesia and the peri-operative period. When clinical presentation includes the classical triad, erythema, cardiovascular abnormalities and increased airway pressure, the diagnosis is evident and the challenge is to prescribe a therapeutic regimen according to guidelines and to manage refractory signs in a timely manner. In many situations, however, the initial clinical signs are isolated, such as increased airway pressure or arterial hypotension. Rendering a differential diagnosis with causes and mechanisms other than acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) is difficult, delaying treatment with possible worsening of the clinical signs, and even death, in previously healthy individuals. In these difficult diagnostic situations, clinical reasoning is mandatory, and guidelines do not explicitly explain the elements on which clinical reasoning can be built. In this article, based on clinical evidence whenever available, experimental data and pathophysiology, we propose algorithms that have been evaluated by experts. The goal of these algorithms is to provide explicit elements on which the differential diagnosis of AHRs can be made, accelerating the implementation of adequate therapy., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) has become a widespread practice given the increasing demand to relieve anxiety, discomfort and pain during invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The role of, and credentialing required by, anaesthesiologists and practitioners performing PSA has been debated for years in different guidelines. For this reason, the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the European Board of Anaesthesiology have created a taskforce of experts that has been assigned to create an evidence-based guideline and, whenever the evidence was weak, a consensus amongst experts on: the evaluation of adult patients undergoing PSA, the role and competences required for the clinicians to safely perform PSA, the commonly used drugs for PSA, the adverse events that PSA can lead to, the minimum monitoring requirements and post-procedure discharge criteria. A search of the literature from 2003 to 2016 was performed by a professional librarian and the retrieved articles were analysed to allow a critical appraisal according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The Taskforce selected 2248 articles. Where there was insufficiently clear and concordant evidence on a topic, the Rand Appropriateness Method with three rounds of Delphi voting was used to obtain the highest level of consensus among the taskforce experts.These guidelines contain recommendations on PSA in the adult population. It does not address sedation performed in the ICU or in children and it does not aim to provide a legal statement on how PSA should be performed and by whom. The National Societies of Anaesthesiology and Ministries of Health should use this evidence-based document to help decision-making on how PSA should be performed in their countries. The final draft of the document was available to ESA members via the website for 4 weeks with the facility for them to upload their comments. Comments and suggestions of individual members and national Societies were considered and the guidelines were amended accordingly. The ESA guidelines Committee and ESA board finally approved and ratified it before publication.

These European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA) recommendations for safe medication practice replace the first edition of the EBA recommendations published in 2011. They were updated because evidence from critical incident reporting systems continues to show that medication errors remain a major safety issue in anaesthesia, intensive care, emergency medicine and pain medicine, and there is an ongoing need for relevant up-to-date clinical guidance for practising anaesthesiologists. The recommendations are based on evidence wherever possible, with a focus on patient safety, and are primarily aimed at anaesthesiologists practising in Europe, although many will be applicable elsewhere. They emphasise the importance of correct labelling practice and the value of incident reporting so that lessons can be learned, risks reduced and a safety culture developed.

Background: Prognostic research studies in anesthesiology aim to identify risk factors for an outcome (explanatory studies) or calculate the risk of this outcome on the basis of patients' risk factors (predictive studies). Multivariable models express the relationship between predictors and an outcome and are used in both explanatory and predictive studies. Model development demands a strict methodology and a clear reporting to assess its reliability. In this methodological descriptive review, we critically assessed the reporting and methodology of multivariable analysis used in observational prognostic studies published in anesthesiology journals., Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline through Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and journal websites to identify observational prognostic studies with multivariable analysis published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, and Anaesthesia in 2010 and 2011. Data were extracted by 2 independent readers. First, studies were analyzed with respect to reporting of outcomes, design, size, methods of analysis, model performance (discrimination and calibration), model validation, clinical usefulness, and STROBE (i.e., Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist. A reporting rate was calculated on the basis of 21 items of the aforementioned points. Second, they were analyzed with respect to some predefined methodological points., Results: Eighty-six studies were included: 87.2% were explanatory and 80.2% investigated a postoperative event. The reporting was fairly good, with a median reporting rate of 79% (75% in explanatory studies and 100% in predictive studies). Six items had a reporting rate <36% (i.e., the 25th percentile), with some of them not identified in the STROBE checklist: blinded evaluation of the outcome (11.9%), reason for sample size (15.1%), handling of missing data (36.0%), assessment of colinearity (17.4%), assessment of interactions (13.9%), and calibration (34.9%). When reported, a few methodological shortcomings were observed, both in explanatory and predictive studies, such as an insufficient number of events of the outcome (44.6%), exclusion of cases with missing data (93.6%), or categorization of continuous variables (65.1%.)., Conclusions: The reporting of multivariable analysis was fairly good and could be further improved by checking reporting guidelines and EQUATOR Network website. Limiting the number of candidate variables, including cases with missing data, and not arbitrarily categorizing continuous variables should be encouraged.

Résumé: Une table ronde, organisée par la Société française de perfusion (Sofraperf) lors du congrès national français sur les circulations extracorporelles (Perfusion 2013), a réuni perfusionnistes, anesthésistes, réanimateurs et chirurgiens autour du thème de l’assistance respiratoire veino-veineuse et circulatoire veino-artérielle avec oxygénation extracorporelle en réanimation. Le débat a été mené de manière participative sous formes de questions–réponses bidirectionnelles entre modérateurs et assistance. Les auteurs rapportent les prises en charge de ce type de thérapeutique qui ne sont pas parfaitement homogènes en s’appuyant sur les données de la littérature. Canulation, insertion, circuit, oxygénateur, anticoagulation, contrôle, surveillance, sevrage font l’objet de paragraphes à entrée définie dont les contenus se complètent dans l’ensemble du document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]