Search

Background: Comparisons of peri-operative complications associated with paediatric (≤16 years) and adult anaesthesia are poorly available, especially in which cardiac surgery, organ transplantation and neurosurgery are involved.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nature and incidence of peri-operative complications that might be due to anaesthesia and to identify independent risk factors for complications in children and adults, including those undergoing cardiac surgery, organ transplantation and neurosurgery.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting: The study was performed at the University Medical Centre Groningen in the 4 years between 1 January 2010 and the 31 December 2013.Main Outcome Measures: Complications and their severity were graded according to the standard complication score (20 items) of the Dutch Society of Anaesthesia. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for the reported complications.Results: A total of 81 267 anaesthetic cases were included. In the paediatric cohort, there were 410 (2.9%) complications and 1675 (2.5%) in the adults. In both cohorts age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists classification and emergency treatment were independent risk factors for complications. With respect to age, infants less than 1 year were at the highest risk, whereas in the adult cohort, increased age was related to a greater number of complications. The incidences of the specific complications were different between both cohorts. Upper airway obstruction was more frequently observed in paediatric patients (26%), whereas in the adults, complications with the highest incidence concerned conversion of regional-to-general anaesthesia (25%) and hypotension (17%).Conclusion: Risk factors for all peri-operative complications were similar for paediatric and adult anaesthesia. However, the incidence of specific complications differed between both age categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study was to determine the safety and tolerability of intranasal dexmedetomidine in the elderly.Methods: We randomly assigned 48 surgical patients ≥65 yr of age to receive single intranasal doses of dexmedetomidine or placebo (5:1 ratio) in four sequential dose cohorts: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 μg kg-1. Each dose cohort comprised two groups of six subjects: a group of subjects using β-blockers and a group not taking β-blockers. Vital signs and sedation depth (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation [MOAA/S] and bispectral index) were measured for 2 h after administration. Blood samples were taken to determine dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations.Results: One subject (1.0 μg kg-1) had acute hypotension requiring ephedrine. Systolic arterial BP decreased >30% in 15 of 40 subjects (37.5%) receiving dexmedetomidine, lasting longer than 5 min in 11 subjects (27.5%). The MAP decreased >30% (>5 min) in 10%, 20%, 50%, and 30% of subjects receiving dexmedetomidine 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 μg kg-1, respectively, irrespective of β-blocker use. HR decreased 10-26%. MOAA/S score ≤3 occurred in 18 (45%) subjects; eight (20%) subjects receiving dexmedetomidine showed no signs of sedation. Tmax was 70 min. Cmax was between 0.15 ng ml-1 (0.5 μg kg-1) and 0.46 ng ml-1 (2.0 μg kg-1).Conclusions: Intranasal dexmedetomidine in elderly subjects had a sedative effect, but caused a high incidence of profound and sustained hypotension irrespective of β-blocker use. The technique is unsuitable for routine clinical use.Clinical Trial Registration: NTR5513 (The Netherlands Trial Registry 5513). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A direct comparison of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative control group undergoing an operative intervention during the current pandemic is lacking, and a reliable estimate of the assumed difference in morbidity and mortality between both patient categories remains unknown., Methods: We included all consecutive patients with a confirmed pre- or postoperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive status (operated in 27 hospitals) and negative control patients (operated in 4 hospitals) undergoing emergency or elective operations. A propensity score-matched comparison of clinical outcomes was performed between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and negative tested patients (control group). Primary outcome was overall 30-day mortality rate between both groups. Main secondary outcomes were overall, pulmonary, and thromboembolic complications., Results: In total, 161 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and 342 control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative patients were included in this study. The 30-day overall postoperative mortality rate was greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive cohort compared with the negative control group (16% vs 4% respectively; P = .007). After propensity score matching, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group consisted of 123 patients (median 70 years of age [interquartile range 59-77] and 55% male) were compared with 196 patients in the matched control group (median 69 years (interquartile range 58-75] and 53% male). The 30-day mortality rate and risk were greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group compared with the matched control group (12% vs 4%; P = .009 and odds ratio 3.4 [95% confidence interval 1.5-8.5]; P = .005, respectively). Overall, pulmonary and thromboembolic complications occurred more often in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients (P < .01)., Conclusion: Patients diagnosed with perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have an increased risk of 30-day mortality, pulmonary complications, and thromboembolic events. These findings serve as an evidence-based argument to postpone elective surgery and selected emergency cases., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour., Design: We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial., Population: Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery., Methods: Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire., Results: The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were €2900 versus €3185 respectively (mean difference of -€282 (95% CI -€611 to €47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission., Conclusion: From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: This study was designed to determine the effect of 2 different potassium regulation strategies with different targets (within the reference range) on atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) in a cohort of intensive care unit patients after cardiac surgery., Methods: The GRIP-COMPASS study was a prospective double-blinded interventional study in 910 patients after cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valvular surgery). Patients were assigned to either the normal-low potassium target (nLP group, 4.0 mmol/L) or the normal-high potassium target (nHP group, 4.5 mmol/L) in alternating blocks of 50 patients. Potassium levels were regulated using a validated computer-assisted potassium replacement protocol (GRIP-II). The primary end point was the incidence of AF/AFL on a 12-lead electrocardiogram during the first postoperative week., Results: Of the 910 patients, 447 were assigned to the nLP group; and 463, to the nHP group, with no baseline differences between the 2 groups. The mean daily administered dose of potassium was 30 ± 23 mmol (nLP) versus 52 ± 27 mmol (nHP) (P < .001), which resulted in mean intensive care unit potassium concentration of 4.22 ± 0.36 mmol/L and 4.33 ± 0.34 mmol/L, respectively (P < .001). The incidence of AF/AFL after cardiac surgery did not differ: 38% in the nLP group and 41% in the nHP group. Also in several subgroups (eg, patients not known with prior AF/AFL or with valve surgery), there were no differences., Conclusions: There were no differences in incidence of AF/AFL with 2 potassium regulation strategies with different potassium targets and different amounts of potassium administered in patients after cardiac surgery., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate whether infiltration of the upper eyelid skin is less painful with prilocaine than with lidocaine., Methods: In 40 consecutive patients scheduled for bilateral upper blepharoplasty, one upper eyelid was anaesthetised with lidocaine with epinephrine and the other with prilocaine with felypressin. After injection of each upper eyelid, the patient scored the pain experienced on infiltration using a visual analogue scale (0-10). In addition, the surgeon scored the need for reinjection during the operation; differences in perioperative bleeding; and degree of oedema, erythema and haematoma before discharge on a four-point rating scale (no, minimal, moderate or severe)., Results: Pain scores were significantly lower in upper eyelids injected with lidocaine than in those injected with prilocaine (p = 0.036). In addition, scores for oedema, erythema and haematoma were significantly lower in upper eyelids anaesthetised with lidocaine than in those anaesthetised with prilocaine (respectively, p = 0.001, p = 0.004 and p = 0.000)., Conclusions: Compared with prilocaine with felypressin, lidocaine with epinephrine is significantly less painful in anaesthetising the upper eyelids; gives significantly less postoperative oedema, erythema and haematoma; and provides better haemostasis during upper blepharoplasty., Level of Evidence: This was a level II, randomised double-blinded crossover study., (Copyright © 2015 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)