Anaesthesia
-
What did they find?
This review by Patel, Robertson & McConachie identified 21 published cases of inadvertent spinal TXA administration. Notably 10 patients died, and almost all suffered life-threatening side effects.
What are the common signs?
- Block failure.
- Severe back and buttock pain (universal).
- Seizures.
- HT, tachycardia, arrhythmias, CVS collapse.
How should it be managed?
There are three components to managing intrathecal TXA:
- Treating TXA-induced seizures with anticonvulsants: magnesium; benzodiazepines; barbiturates (thiopentone); phenytoin; possibly propofol. Thiopentone infusion was frequently required to terminate seizures.
- Mitigate TXA neurotoxic effects: maintain head-up; CSF lavage to dilute TXA, infusing crystalloid at an interspace higher than an IT needle draining CSF, 10mL for 10mL, repeated up to 4 times.
- Haemodynamic monitoring & support
How does this happen?
In almost all cases ampoule identification error was the primary cause.
Human factor contributions identified were:
- Failure to check ampoule label.
- Similar ampoule appearance.
- Spinal catheter mistaken for IV (1).
- Lack of drug handling and storage policies.
- Storage of tranexamic acid with LA or lack of physical separation.
- Underestimating potential for error.
"All errors could have been prevented..."
-
Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre-specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. ⋯ For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95%CI) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45-0.83) and 0.92 (0.86-0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95%CI) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13-0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95%CI) at 0.51 (0.40-0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16-0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12-0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed.
-
Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre-specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. ⋯ For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95%CI) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45-0.83) and 0.92 (0.86-0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95%CI) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13-0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95%CI) at 0.51 (0.40-0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16-0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12-0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed.