Search

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to provide an update on how best to manage the investigation of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions based on recent literature and key publications., Recent Findings: In the past two years, several very important initiatives have been taken in the field of perioperative hypersensitivity. The 6th national audit project in the United Kingdom has provided new knowledge through a series of studies, including a nationwide prospective study, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has commissioned a position paper with updated recommendations for investigations. Lastly, a large international working group comprising experts in anesthesiology, allergology, and immunology, the International Suspected Perioperative Allergic Reactions group, has published a series of articles providing updates and new insights into several different key areas of perioperative hypersensitivity., Summary: The investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions is highly complex and aims to identify the correct culprit to ensure future avoidance but also to disprove allergy to other suspected culprits, making them available for subsequent anesthesia. To achieve this, close collaboration between anesthesiologists and allergists is called upon to ensure the best possible outcome for the patient.

The purpose of this article is to review the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, the clinical-epidemiological aspects of COVID-19, and the implications anesthesiologists when performing aerosol-generating procedures. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, and Web of Science databases was performed until April 9, 2020, using the words: "COVID-19 or COVID19 or SARS-CoV-2 and anesthesiology or anesthesia". Forty-eight articles with information on the management of the patient in the perioperative period or the intensive care unit when suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. In general, the postponement of elective surgeries for no more than 6 to 8 weeks, depending on the clinical condition of the patients is recommended. In the case of urgent or emergency surgeries, we review the use of personal protection gear, as well as the recommended strategies for carrying out the procedure.

: Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the 'Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology'. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.

Background: More patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are presenting to spine and pain practices for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures for chronic pain. Although the potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) affecting CIED function is known with RFA procedures, available guidelines do not specifically address CIED management for percutaneous RFA for zygapophyseal (z-joint) joint pain, and thus physician practice may vary., Objectives: To better understand current practices of physicians who perform RFA for chronic z-joint pain with respect to management of CIEDs. Perioperative CIED management guidelines are also reviewed to specifically address risk mitigation strategies for potential EMI created by ambulatory percutaneous spine RFA procedures., Study Design: Web-based provider survey and narrative review., Setting: Multispecialty pain clinic, academic medical center., Methods: A web-based survey was created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A survey link was provided via e-mail to active members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS), American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, as well as distributed freely to community Pain Physicians and any receptive academic departments of PM&R or Anesthesiology. The narrative review summarizes pertinent case series, review articles, a SIS recommendation statement, and multi-specialty peri-operative guidelines as they relate specifically to spine RFA procedures., Results: A total of 197 clinicians participated in the survey from diverse clinical backgrounds, including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, neurosurgery, and neurology, with 81% reporting fellowship training. Survey responses indicate wide variability in provider management of CIEDs before, during, and after RFA for z-joint pain. Respondents indicated they would like more specific guidelines to aid in management and decision-making around CIEDs and spine RFA procedures. Literature review yielded several practice guidelines related to perioperative management of CIEDs, but no specific guideline for percutaneous spine RFA procedures. However, combining the risk mitigation strategies provided in these guidelines, with interventional pain physician clinical experience allows for reasonable management recommendations to aid in decision-making., Limitations: Although this manuscript can serve as a review of CIEDs and aid in management decisions in patients with CIEDs, it is not a clinical practice guideline., Conclusions: Practice patterns vary regarding CIED management in ambulatory spine RFA procedures. CIED presence is not a contraindication for spine RFA but does increase the complexity of a spine RFA procedure and necessitates some added precautions., Key Words: Radiofrequency ablation, neurotomy, cardiac implantable electrical device, zygapophyseal joint, spondylosis, neck pain, low back pain, chronic pain.

Background: The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists., Objectives: To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists., Study Design: Retrospective review., Setting: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database., Methods: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff's decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study., Results: A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed., Limitations: There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search., Conclusions: Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases., Key Words: Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) pandemic has challenged medical systems and clinicians globally to unforeseen levels. Rapid spread of COVID-19 has forced clinicians to care for patients with a highly contagious disease without evidence-based guidelines. Using a virtual modified nominal group technique, the Pediatric Difficult Intubation Collaborative (PeDI-C), which currently includes 35 hospitals from 6 countries, generated consensus guidelines on airway management in pediatric anesthesia based on expert opinion and early data about the disease. PeDI-C identified overarching goals during care, including minimizing aerosolized respiratory secretions, minimizing the number of clinicians in contact with a patient, and recognizing that undiagnosed asymptomatic patients may shed the virus and infect health care workers. Recommendations include administering anxiolytic medications, intravenous anesthetic inductions, tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopes and cuffed tracheal tubes, use of in-line suction catheters, and modifying workflow to recover patients from anesthesia in the operating room. Importantly, PeDI-C recommends that anesthesiologists consider using appropriate personal protective equipment when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in asymptomatic children, in addition to known or suspected children with COVID-19. Airway procedures should be done in negative pressure rooms when available. Adequate time should be allowed for operating room cleaning and air filtration between surgical cases. Research using rigorous study designs is urgently needed to inform safe practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Until further information is available, PeDI-C advises that clinicians consider these guidelines to enhance the safety of health care workers during airway management when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures. These guidelines have been endorsed by the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia and the Canadian Pediatric Anesthesia Society.

Recommendations of the Main Board of the Polish Society of Otorhinolaryngologists, Head and Neck Surgeons for providing services during the COVID-19 pandemic constitute the guidance to outpatient and hospital practices in all cases where contact with a patient whose status of COVID-19 is unknown. They have been created based on world publications and recommendations due to the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic. Justification for suspension of planned provision of services in the first phase of a pandemic was presented. The indication of the best medical practices for the time of stabilization, but with the persistence of the risk of COVID-19 infection in the population are discussed. The possibility of providing services in the following months of the pandemic is important. We provide the rationale for launching medical activities and indicate optimal practices until the consolidation of SARS COV-2 prevention and treatment methods.

The coronavirus disease 2019, named COVID-19 officially by the World Health Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) on February 12, 2020, has spread at unprecedented speed. After the first outbreak in Wuhan, China, Chinese anesthesiologists encountered increasing numbers of infected patients since December 2019. Because the main route of transmission is via respiratory droplets and close contact, anesthesia providers are at a high risk when responding to the devastating mass emergency. So far, actions have been taken including but not limited to nationwide actions and online education regarding special procedures of airway management, oxygen therapy, ventilation support, hemodynamic management, sedation, and analgesia. As the epidemic situation has lasted for months (thus far), special platforms have also been set up to provide free mental health care to all anesthesia providers participating in acute and critical caring for COVID-19 patients. The current article documents the actions taken, lesson learned, and future work needed.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first reported in Wuhan, Hubei, China, and has spread to more than 200 other countries around the world. COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease with continuous human-to-human transmission. The origin of the virus is unknown. Airway manipulations and intubations, which are common during anesthesia procedures may increasingly expose anesthesia providers and intensive care unit team members to SARS-CoV-2. Through a comprehensive review of existing studies on COVID-19, this article presents the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19, reviews current medical management, and suggests ways to improve the safety of anesthetic procedures. Owing to the highly contagious nature of the virus and the lack of therapeutic drugs or vaccines, precautions should be taken to prevent medical staff from COVID-19.

Healthcare systems worldwide are responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), an emerging infectious syndrome caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Patients with COVID-19 can progress from asymptomatic or mild illness to hypoxemic respiratory failure or multisystem organ failure, necessitating intubation and intensive care management. Healthcare providers, and particularly anesthesiologists, are at the frontline of this epidemic, and they need to be aware of the best available evidence to guide therapeutic management of patients with COVID-19 and to keep themselves safe while doing so. Here, the authors review COVID-19 pathogenesis, presentation, diagnosis, and potential therapeutics, with a focus on management of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. The authors draw on literature from other viral epidemics, treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and recent publications on COVID-19, as well as guidelines from major health organizations. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the evidence currently available to guide management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Relegated to clinical afterthought, the topic of infection control has never taken center stage in our modern dental sedation and anesthesiology practices. Surgical and procedural masks, gloves, gowns, protective eyewear, and appropriate surgical attire have remained de rigueur in both fashion and custom for decades. However, the emergence of certain seminal events throughout health care history has driven mandated changes when practitioners, staff, patients, and the surrounding communities were exposed or put at risk of exposure to infectious disease. Hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus, and now the global COVID-19 pandemic involving the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, have forced us into rethinking our current practices. This review article will contextualize previous epidemics and their influence on infection control in dental settings, and it will explore the rapid evolution of current modifications to personal protective equipment and infection mitigation practices specific to sedation and anesthesia in dentistry., (© 2020 by the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology.)

Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome characterized by decreased reserve and diminished resistance to stressors. People with frailty are vulnerable to stressors, and exposure to the stress of surgery is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes and higher levels of resource use. As Western populations age rapidly, older people with frailty are presenting for surgery with increasing frequency. This means that anesthesiologists and other perioperative clinicians need to be familiar with frailty, its assessment, manifestations, and strategies for optimization. We present a narrative review of frailty aimed at perioperative clinicians. The review will familiarize readers with the concept of frailty, will discuss common and feasible approaches to frailty assessment before surgery, and will describe the relative and absolute associations of frailty with commonly measured adverse outcomes, including morbidity and mortality, as well as patient-centered and reported outcomes related to function, disability, and quality of life. A proposed approach to optimization before surgery is presented, which includes frailty assessment followed by recommendations for identification of underlying physical disability, malnutrition, cognitive dysfunction, and mental health diagnoses. Overall, 30%-50% of older patients presenting for major surgery will be living with frailty, which results in a more than 2-fold increase in risk of morbidity, mortality, and development of new patient-reported disability. The Clinical Frailty Scale appears to be the most feasible frailty instrument for use before surgery; however, evidence suggests that predictive accuracy does not differ significantly between frailty instruments such as the Fried Phenotype, Edmonton Frail Scale, and Frailty Index. Identification of physical dysfunction may allow for optimization via exercise prehabilitation, while nutritional supplementation could be considered with a positive screen for malnutrition. The Hospital Elder Life Program shows promise for delirium prevention, while individuals with mental health and or other psychosocial stressors may derive particular benefit from multidisciplinary care and preadmission discharge planning. Robust trials are still required to provide definitive evidence supporting these interventions and minimal data are available to guide management during the intra- and postoperative phases. Improving the care and outcomes of older people with frailty represents a key opportunity for anesthesiologists and perioperative scientists.

Background: The American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) classification system is used worldwide to classify patients based on comorbid conditions before general anesthesia. Despite its popularity, the ASA-PS classification system has been shown to have poor interrater reliability due to its subjective definitions, especially when applied to the pediatric population. We hypothesized that the clarification of ASA-PS definitions to better reflect pediatric conditions would improve the accuracy of ASA-PS applied to this population., Methods: A stratified, randomized sample of 120 pediatric surgical cases was collected from a tertiary-care pediatric hospital. A team of senior anesthesiologists reclassified ASA-PS within this patient sample using the suggested pediatric-specific ASA-PS definitions. Interrater reliability was measured using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Fleiss κ statistic. In addition, a qualitative study component using small focus groups of senior anesthesiologists identified areas of ambiguity within the ASA-PS system., Results: Among the 90 reclassifications within each ASA-PS group, 42.2% (n = 38) of ASA-PS I were upgraded to ASA-PS II, and 36.7% (n = 33) of ASA-PS II were upgraded to ASA-PS III. In addition, 28.9% (n = 26) of ASA-PS III were upgraded to ASA-PS IV, and 24.4% (n = 22) of ASA-PS IV were downgraded to III. ICC across the reclassified ASA-PS categories was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.83; P < .001) demonstrating strong overall agreement. Fleiss κ statistic was lowest in ASA-PS II and III patients (κ = 0.41 and κ = 0.30, respectively) indicating lower agreement beyond chance within these subgroups. Focus groups revealed common themes such as active sequelae of disease, active versus well-controlled presence of comorbidities, and the possible inclusion of functional limitations as important considerations., Conclusions: The ASA-PS classification system has several benefits including ease-of-use, simplicity, and flexibility. However, revising the ASA-PS system to provide better guidance for pediatric patients could be valuable. While this study demonstrates good interrater reliability with the included ASA-PS pediatric definitions, further work is needed to clarify accurate assignment of ASA-PS within the midrange of the scale (ASA-PS II and III) and explore its implementation in other institutions.

The outbreak of the new Coronavirus disease, COVID-19, has been involved in 77,262 cases in China as well as in 27 other countries as of February 24, 2020. Because the virus is novel to human beings, and there is no vaccine yet available, every individual is susceptible and can become infected. Healthcare workers are at high risk, and unfortunately, more than 3,000 healthcare workers in China have been infected. Anesthesiologists are among healthcare workers who are at an even higher risk of becoming infected because of their close contact with infected patients and high potential of exposure to respiratory droplets or aerosol from their patients' airways. In order to provide healthcare workers with updated recommendations on the management of patients in the perioperative setting as well as for emergency airway management outside of the operating room, the two largest anesthesia societies, the Chinese Society of Anesthesiology (CSA) and the Chinese Association of Anesthesiologists (CAA) have formed a task force to produce the recommendations. The task force hopes to help healthcare workers, particularly anesthesiologists, optimize the care of their patients and protect patients, healthcare workers, and the public from becoming infected. The recommendations were created mainly based on the practice and experience of anesthesiologists who provide care to patients in China. Therefore, adoption of these recommendations outside of China must be done with caution, and the local environment, culture, uniqueness of the healthcare system, and patients' needs should be considered. The task force will continuously update the recommendations and incorporate new information in future versions.

Objective: In this survey, we assessed the current clinical management of postoperative delirium (POD) among Chinese anesthesiologists, after publishing the European POD guideline., Methods: We administered an electronic survey, designed according to the European POD guideline. The survey was completed using mobile devices., Results: In total, 1,514 respondents from China participated in the survey. Overall, 74.4% of participants reported that delirium is very important. More than 95% of participants stated that they routinely assessed POD. In total, 61.4% screened for POD using clinical observation and 37.6% used a delirium screening tool. Although the depth of anesthesia (a POD risk factor) was monitored, electroencephalogram monitoring was unavailable to 30.6% of respondents. Regarding treatment, only 24.1% of respondents used a standard algorithm; 58.5% used individualized treatment., Conclusion: Our survey showed that there are high awareness levels among Chinese anesthesiologists regarding the importance of POD. However, routine assessment and monitoring of all patients, including perioperative anesthesia depth monitoring, and a treatment algorithm need to be implemented on a larger scale. According to the results, efforts should be made to improve the knowledge of POD among Chinese anesthesiologists.

Background: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge of anesthesiology specialists and residents in Turkey about COVID-19 and their attitudes toward the strategies and application methods to be used for a suspected/confirmed COVID-19 case that needs to be operated on or followed up in an intensive care unit, as well as to raise awareness about this issue. Methods: This descriptive study comprised anesthesiology specialists and residents working in various health institutions in Turkey. The data used in this study were obtained online between March 13, 2020 and March 25, 2020 through the website SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA) by using a survey form. We contacted members of the Turkish Anaesthesiology and Reanimation Society through the social media platforms Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp, as well as through their e-mail addresses and invited them to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate responded to the aforementioned survey. We used SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) to analyze the survey data statistically. Results: A total of 346 anesthesiology specialists and residents participated in the study. Although the majority of the participants exhibited the correct attitudes toward airway management, research assistants with little professional experience were observed to be undecided or had the tendency to make incorrect decisions. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic is spreading rapidly worldwide. The incidence of COVID-19 cases is increasing daily, and this disease can cause patient death. Anesthesiology specialists and residents who perform emergency operations on these patients in settings other than intensive care units should follow simple and easy-to-understand algorithms to ensure safety. The provision of theoretical and practical training to healthcare providers before they meet patients will help ensure patient-healthcare provider safety and prevent panic, which can cause distress among healthcare providers.

: Ultrasound for diagnostic and procedural purposes is becoming a standard in daily clinical practice including anaesthesiology and peri-operative medicine. The project of European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) Task Force for the development of clinical guidelines on the PERioperative uSE of Ultra-Sound (PERSEUS) project has focused on the use of ultrasound in two areas that account for the majority of procedures performed routinely in the operating room: vascular access and regional anaesthesia. Given the extensive literature available in these two areas, this paper will focus on the use of ultrasound-guidance for vascular access. A second part will be dedicated to peripheral nerve/neuraxial blocks. The Taskforce identified three main domains of application in ultrasound-guided vascular cannulation: adults, children and training. The literature search were performed by a professional librarian from the Cochrane Anaesthesia and Critical and Emergency Care Group in collaboration with the ESA Taskforce. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment (GRADE) system for assessing levels of evidence and grade of recommendations were used. For the use of ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein, femoral vein and arterial access, the level evidence was classified 1B. For other accesses, the evidence remains limited. For training in ultrasound guidance, there were no studies. The importance of proper training for achieving competency and full proficiency before performing any ultrasound-guided vascular procedure must be emphasised.

Due to the coronavirus epidemic, healthcare systems face growing challenges all around the world nowadays. These challenges are the most critical in the field of intensive treatment and anesthesiology. One of the most important prerequisites of effective critical care treatment is preserving the involved healthcare workers from the infection, by providing them with detailed practical advices on the preventive measures and treatment strategies. The aim of the present review is to summarize the most important related knowledge available from previous experiences. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(17): 652–659., (© Szerző(k)/The Author(s))

Caring for those affected by the coronavirus outbreak of December 2019 imposed a heavy burden on healthcare systems. Not only because some patients require intensive care, but because patients with any form of the disease may need surgical intervention. Managing these cases is a major challenge for anesthesiologists. The purpose of this summary is to present the practical aspects of anesthetic and perioperative care for patients requiring surgical treatment. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(17): 692–695., (© Szerző(k)/The Author(s))

Purpose of Review: Predatory publishing poses a serious educational end ethical threat to the credibility of science. The aim of this review is to discuss the main features of this deceptive open-access model, its potential consequences and relevance for the whole scientific community., Recent Findings: Recent reports showed that scholars and clinicians from all research fields, including anesthesiology, are facing an alarming invasion of predatory journals and, more recently, fake conferences. This review discusses key elements of these phenomena and proposes countermeasures to tackle the problem., Summary: Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical. These range from publication of experimental data that are unreliable and poorly verified to inflated curricula and 'doped' academic careers. Because clinical practice is heavily based on research data, a solution is needed to ultimately ensure patients' safety.

Button battery ingestions result in significant morbidity and mortality in children-before, during, and even after removal. The injuries created by a button battery lodged in the esophagus develop rapidly and can be severe. The current of the button battery, conducted through saliva and the tissue drives a highly alkaline caustic injury, leading to liquefactive tissue necrosis. In June 2018, new guidelines were released from the National Capital Poison Center, which include the use of preoperative protective, pH-neutralizing and viscous barrier interventions with honey and/or sucralfate administered within 12 h of ingestion. In addition, the use of postremoval irrigation of the esophagus with 50-150 mL 0.25% acetic acid is done in the operating room to help neutralize the site of tissue injury. Given that anesthesiologists play an important role in the management of esophageal foreign body removal, the entire specialty needs to be aware of the supporting data behind this and general perioperative considerations for management and potential complications of button battery ingestion.

Numerous clinical conditions that have a direct effect on electroencephalography (EEG) cerebral function could also directly influence brain function monitors (BFM) indices. There is no conventional comparator technology for BFM assessment. The conventional comparator technology used as a benchmark for assessing BFMs technologies chosen by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to reflect the currently used standards in the National Health Service (NHS), was demarcated as "standard anesthetic clinical monitoring" and precisely defined as "the combination of routine clinical observation and electronic monitoring used in clinical practice to assess the adequacy of anesthesia." Because BFMs are EEG-derived parameters, all conditions that can "alter" the raw EEG signal would subsequently change BFM indices to reflect other unrelated EEG events of patient-dependent pathophysiologic perturbations. In many instances we are often confronted with disparate BFM values that do not concur with "standard anesthetic clinical monitoring". Changes in BFM indices during acute cerebral pathology would be highly beneficial to trained informed clinicians as it alerts to something they would not otherwise be aware was happening. This fact-based, citation-supported, narrative review article provides better understanding of BFMs' limitations through examining various published reports of all values that did not coincide with a "standard anesthetic clinical monitoring" whether arising from an underlying alteration of patients' own EEG or those due to shortcomings in the BFM design or performance. The notion of just "riding the numbers" seems to be not a good anesthesia practice; rather we should interpret these BFM indices within context and limitations.

Although theoretical studies on Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) have proved their benefits, much less attention has been paid to researching the actual adoption of AIMS. Only a few studies from the USA and Western Europe have been published up to now. The purpose of this article is to assess the adoption, motivation for, and barriers to, usage of AIMS from the perspective of early Czech adopters of these systems. A questionnaire was used to gather adopters' views on motivating factors, benefits encountered after introduction and obstacles perceived to adopting AIMS. Data about usage, costs and functionalities of each of the AIMS was obtained using semi-structured telephone interviews prior to sending out the questionnaire. Five AIMS from three different vendors in four academic hospitals (20% of Czech hospitals of this type) were identified. Improved clinical documentation and convenience for anesthesiologists was reported from every site. Lack of funds, however, was identified as the primary barrier to further adoption. The cost of introduction of AIMS per operating room varied between 1000 and 40,000 US dollars. Although the number of AIMS in the Czech Republic is limited, findings suggest that benefits have been experienced on every site. Findings corroborate previous studies from the USA and Western Europe.

As the complexity of medicine increases, so too do the challenges with multidisciplinary communication and coordinated patient care. Anesthesiology represents a field for which there is no required study for medical students, pediatric residents, or neonatal-perinatal medicine fellows in the United States, so a neonatologist may have never received any formal training in anesthesiology (and vice versa for pediatric anesthesiologists in neonatology). In this review, we address frequently asked questions of neonatologists to anesthesiologists to better frame common issues. These topics include thermal regulation, fluid management, airway management, and the field of regional anesthesiology. Finally, collaborative efforts between the surgical and medical fields, such as the American College of Surgeons Children's Surgery Verification Quality Improvement Program, and the American Academy of Pediatrics NICU Verification Program, are ongoing and robust; these programs represent important opportunities to significantly improve the perioperative care of infants. Our hope is that this summary can serve as a primer and reference for those caring for neonatal patients during any perioperative period, including seasoned neonatologists and those early in their training. It is our further desire that this review will lead to improved communication and collegiality between the specialties., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Clinical practice parameters have been published with greater frequency by professional societies and groups of experts. These publications run the gamut of practice standards, practice guidelines, consensus statements or practice advisories, position statements, and practice alerts. The definitions of these terms have been clarified in an accompanying article. In this article, we present the criteria for high-quality clinical practice parameters and outline a process for developing them, specifically the Delphi method, which is increasingly being used to build consensus among content experts and stakeholders. Several tools for grading the level of evidence and strength of recommendation are offered and compared. The speciousness of categorizing guidelines as evidence-based or consensus-based will be explained. We examine the recommended checklist for reporting and appraise the tools for evaluating a practice guideline. This article is geared toward developers and reviewers of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.

Accumulating evidence shows that ultrasound (US) guidance improves effectiveness and safety of central venous catheter (CVC) placement. Several international guidelines therefore recommend the use of US for placement of CVCs. However, surveys show that the landmark-based technique is still widely used, while the percentage of physicians using US is increasing less than expected. The goal of this study was to investigate current practice for central venous catheterization in anaesthesiology and intensive care in the Netherlands, identify barriers for further implementation of US guidance and to evaluate whether personality traits are associated with the choice of technique. We conducted a web-based national survey, distributed among members of the Dutch societies of anaesthesiology (NVA) and intensive care (NVIC). The survey contained questions regarding physician and hospital characteristics, frequency of US use and reasons for use or non-use, as well as the NEO-FFI-3, a validated, translated questionnaire to characterize personality traits according to the 'Big Five' concept. Response rate was 22% (506/2291), of which 400 had also the personality questionnaire complete. Ultrasound guidance was used always or almost always in 68%; barriers for US use were working in a non-academic non-teaching hospital, providing cardiac anaesthesia and more years of physician experience. Reasons for not using US were perceived lack of benefit, increased procedure time, lack of US equipment and fear of loss of landmark technique skills. 13% of respondents had never experienced a complication during CVC placement, and 67% knew of a complication occurring the past year at their department. Ultrasound was thought not to be able to prevent the complication in half of these cases. Of the personality traits, only neuroticism and extraversion showed a minor positive association with US guidance. A majority of anaesthesiologists and intensivists uses US guidance for CVC placement, but a significant proportion of physicians still prefers the landmark technique. Most arguments from respondents against US guidance can be challenged. Personality traits most likely do not play a major role in the acceptance of US guidance for central venous catheterization. A potential intervention to increase US use could be formalizing local hospital policies mandating compliance with US guidance. Future research can perhaps focus on cognitive biases that currently limit more widespread use of US guidance.

Titrating an intraoperative anesthetic to achieve the postoperative goals of rapid emergence and prolonged analgesia can be difficult because of inter-patient variability and the need to provide intraoperative sedation and analgesia. Modeling pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anesthetic administrations estimates drug concentrations and predicted responses to stimuli during anesthesia. With utility of these PK/PD models we created an algorithm to optimize the intraoperative dosing regimen. We hypothesized the optimization algorithm would find a dosing regimen that would increase the postoperative duration of analgesia, not increase the time to emergence, and meet the intraoperative requirements of sedation and analgesia. To evaluate these hypotheses we performed a simulation study on previously collected anesthesia data. We developed an algorithm to recommend different intraoperative dosing regimens for improved post-operative results. To test the post-operative results of the algorithm we tested it on previously collected anesthesia data. An anesthetic dataset of 21 patients was obtained from a previous study from an anesthetic database at the University of Utah. Using the anesthetic records from these surgeries we modeled 21 patients using the same patient demographics and anesthetic requirements as the dataset. The anesthetic was simulated for each of the 21 patients with three different dosing regimens. The three dosing regimens are: from the anesthesiologist as recorded in the dataset (control group), from the algorithm in the clinical scenario one (test group), and from the algorithm in the clinical scenario two (test group). We created two clinical scenarios for the optimization algorithm to perform; one with normal general anesthesia constraints and goals, and a second condition where a delayed time to emergence is allowed to further maximize the duration of analgesia. The algorithm was evaluated by comparing the post-operative results of the control group to each of the test groups. Comparing results between the clinical scenario 1 dosing to the actual dosing showed a median increase in the duration of analgesia by 6 min and the time to emergence by 0.3 min. This was achieved by decreasing the intraoperative remifentanil infusion rate, increased the fentanyl dosing regimen, and not changing the propofol infusion rate. Comparing results between the clinical scenario 2 dosing to the actual dosing showed a median increase in the duration of analgesia by 26 min and emergence by 1.5 min. To dosing regimen from clinical scenario 2 greatly increased the fentanyl dosing regimen and greatly decreased the remifentanil infusion rate with no change to the propofol infusion rate. The results from this preliminary analysis of the optimization algorithm appear to imply that it can operate as intended. However a clinical study is warranted to determine to what extent the optimization algorithm determined optimal dosing regimens can maximize the postoperative duration of analgesia without delaying the time to emergence in a clinical setting.

Liver transplantation is a complex procedure performed on critically ill patients with multiple comorbidities, which requires the anesthesiologist to be facile with complex hemodynamics and physiology, vascular access procedures, and advanced monitoring. Over the past decade, there has been a continuing debate whether or not liver transplant anesthesia is a general or specialist practice. Yet, as significant data have come out in support of dedicated liver transplant anesthesia teams, there is not a guarantee of liver transplant exposure in domestic residencies. In addition, there are no standards for what competencies are required for an individual seeking fellowship training in liver transplant anesthesia. Using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines for residency training as a model, the Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia Fellowship Committee in conjunction with the Liver Transplant Anesthesia Fellowship Task Force has developed the first proposed standardized core competencies and milestones for fellowship training in liver transplant anesthesiology.

We implemented a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) based optimization algorithm recommending intraoperative Remifentanil and Propofol infusion rates to minimize time to emergence and maximize the duration of analgesia in a clinical setting. This feasibility study tested the clinical acceptance of the optimization algorithm's recommendations during scoliosis surgical repair for 14 patients. Anesthesiologist accepted 359/394 (91%) of the recommendations given on the basis of the optimization algorithm. While following the optimization's recommendations the anesthesiologist decreased Propofol infusions from an average of 164-135 mcg/kg/min [p = 0.002] and increased Remifentanil infusions from an average of 0.22-0.30 mcg/kg/min [p = 0.004]. The anesthesiologists appeared to accept and follow the recommendations from a PK/PD based optimization algorithm.

Background: Addressing themes raised by the Royal College of Anaesthetists National Audit Project 4, we introduced new training programmes to improve the knowledge and skills necessary for the management of airway crises. A further large-scale multimodal training programme was introduced to implement guidelines published in 2015 by the Difficult Airway Society (DAS)., Methods: In 2014, questionnaires were used to assess the knowledge necessary to manage the unanticipated difficult airway before and after high-fidelity simulation sessions. In 2016, surveys assessed knowledge of new DAS guidelines before and 5 months after the implementation of a large-scale targeted teaching programme to educate staff., Results: In 2014, 20 anaesthetic teams (75 delegates) attended high-fidelity simulations and demonstrated a significant immediate improvement in knowledge. In 2016, 185 participants attended a targeted teaching programme. Although after the teaching programme an increased number of anaesthetists reported having accessed training, there was a persistent knowledge gap, with some details retained by as few as 15% of participants., Discussion: Whereas the knowledge of these important guidelines was improved in the immediate aftermath of high-fidelity simulation training, the knowledge retention was disappointing, raising questions as to why knowledge of highly important techniques used in crises was so poor. We ask whether training should be compulsory and how knowledge retention might be improved across all health care disciplines that rely on guidelines for the effective management of rarely occurring but safety-critical events., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.)

Background and Objective: In this article, the Intensive Care Section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology (SCI-SEDAR) establishes new recommendations based on the standards published by the Ministry of Health, Consumer Affairs and Social Welfare and aligned with the principle international guidelines, and develops a tool to improve quality and efficiency., Materials and Method: Over a 12-month period (2018), 3 members of the SCI-SEDAR defined the methodology, developed the recommendations and selected the panel of experts. Due to the limited evidence available for many of the recommendations and the significant structural differences between existing anesthesia intensive care units, we chose a modified Delphi approach to determine the degree of consensus., Results: The panel consisted of 24 experts from 21 institutions. The group put forward 175 recommendations on 8 sections, including 129 with strong consensus and 46 with weak consensus., Conclusions: The SCI-SEDAR has established a series of structural recommendations that should be used when renovating or creating new anesthesia intensive care units., (Copyright © 2019 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety was launched in 2010 by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and the European Board of Anaesthesiology. It is not clear how widely its vision and standards have been adopted., Objective: To explore the role of the Helsinki Declaration in promoting and maintaining patient safety in European anaesthesiology., Design: Online survey., Setting: A total of 38 countries within Europe., Participants: Members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology who responded to an invitation to take part by electronic mail., Main Outcome Measures: Responses from a 16-item online survey to explore each member anaesthesiologist's understanding of the Declaration and compliance with its standards., Results: We received 1589 responses (33.4% response rate), with members from all countries responding. The median [IQR] response rate of members was 20.5% [11.7 to 37.0] per country. There were many commonalities across Europe. There were very high levels of use of monitoring (pulse oximetry: 99.6%, blood pressure: 99.4%; ECG: 98.1% and capnography: 96.0%). Protocols and guidelines were also widely used, with those for pre-operative assessment, and difficult and failed intubation being particularly popular (mentioned by 93.4% and 88.9% of respondents, respectively). There was evidence of widespread use of the WHO Safe Surgery checklist, with only 93 respondents (6.0%) suggesting that they never used it. Annual reports of measures taken to improve patient safety, and of morbidity and mortality, were produced in the hospitals of 588 (37.3%) and 876 (55.7%) respondents, respectively. Around three-quarters of respondents, 1216, (78.7%) stated that their hospital used a critical incident reporting system. Respondents suggested that measures to promote implementation of the Declaration, such as a formal set of checklist items for day-to-day practice, publicity, translation and simulation training, would currently be more important than possible changes to its content., Conclusion: Many patient safety practices encouraged by the Declaration are well embedded in many European countries. The data have highlighted areas where there is still room for improvement.

Background: The 'cannot intubate cannot oxygenate' (CICO) emergency requires urgent front of neck airway (FONA) access to prevent death. In cases reported to the 4th National Audit Project, the most successful FONA was a surgical technique, almost all of which were performed by surgeons. Subsequently, UK guidelines adopted surgical cricothyroidotomy as the preferred emergency surgical FONA technique. Despite regular skills-based training, anaesthetists may still be unwilling to perform an emergency surgical FONA. Consultant anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons, and general surgeons were compared in a high-fidelity simulated emergency. We hypothesised that head and neck surgeons would successfully execute emergency surgical FONA faster than anaesthetists and general surgeons., Methods: We recruited 15 consultants from each specialty (total of 45) at a single tertiary care hospital in the UK. All agreed to participate in an in situ high-fidelity simulation of an 'anaesthetic emergency'. Participants were not told in advance that this would be a CICO scenario., Results: There were no significant differences in total time to successful ventilation between anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons and general surgeons (median 86 vs 98 vs 126 s, respectively, P=0.078). Anaesthetists completed the emergency surgical FONA procedure significantly faster than general surgeons (median 50 vs 86 s, P=0.018). Despite this strong performance, qualitative data suggested some anaesthetists still believed 'surgeons' best placed to perform emergency surgical FONA in a genuine CICO situation., Conclusion: Anaesthetists regularly trained in emergency surgical FONA function at levels comparable with head and neck surgeons and should feel empowered to lead this procedure in the event of a CICO emergency., (Copyright © 2019 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: While increased surgical-provider volume has been associated with improved outcomes, research regarding volume-outcome relationships within high-volume institutions and the role of anaesthesiologists is limited. Further, the effect of anaesthesia-care-team composition remains understudied. This analysis aimed to identify the impact of anaesthesiologist and surgeon volume on adverse events after total joint arthroplasties., Methods: We retrospectively identified 40 437 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasties at a high-volume institution from 2005 to 2014. The main effects of interest were anaesthesiologist and surgeon volume and experience along with anaesthesia-care-team composition. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate three outcomes: any complication, cardiopulmonary complication, and length of stay (>5 days). Odds ratios (ORs) and 99.75% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported., Results: Across all three models, anaesthesiologist volume and experience, and anaesthesia-care-team composition were not significant predictors. Surgeon annual case volume >50 was associated with significantly reduced odds of any complication (annual case volume: 50-149; OR: 0.80; CI: 0.66-0.98) and prolonged length of stay (OR: 0.69; CI: 0.60-0.80). Surgeon experience >20 yr was associated with significantly reduced odds of prolonged length of stay (OR: 0.85; CI: 0.75-0.95)., Conclusions: Anaesthesiologist volume and experience, and anaesthesia-care-team composition did not impact the odds of an adverse outcome, although a higher surgeon volume was associated with decreased odds of complications and prolonged length of stay. Further study is necessary to determine if these findings can be extrapolated to less specialised, lower volume surgical settings., (Copyright © 2019 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

During surgery, one of the primary functions of the anesthesiologist is to monitor the patient and ensure safe and effective conduct of anesthesia to provide the optimum operating conditions. Standard guidelines for perioperative monitoring have been firmly established by the American Society of Anesthesiologists. However, in recent years, new advances in technology has led to the development of many new monitoring modalities, especially involving the neurologic and cardiovascular systems. This article presents a targeted review to discuss the functions and limitations of these new monitors and how they are applied in the modern operating room setting., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The clinical practice of anesthesia continues to evolve and grow toward increasing quality and safety while improving the patient and family perioperative experience. Within the realm of pediatric anesthesia, advances in regional anesthesia techniques are important part in this aim., Recent Findings: The aim of this review is to provide an update on recent advances in pediatric regional anesthesia. This includes an emphasis on safety data from large datasets that previously were not available. In addition, novel blocks within pediatric regional anesthesia will be described., Summary: Large data sets have given clinical providers information into the practice of regional anesthesia. It has confirmed the safety of common regional anesthetic techniques in addition to providing guidance to improving outcomes for children.