Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Programmed intermittent epidural bolus vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia for maintenance of labour analgesia: a two-centre, double-blind, randomised study.
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. ⋯ The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the production of novel devices intended to protect airway managers during the aerosol-generating procedure of tracheal intubation. Using an in-situ simulation model, we evaluated laryngoscopist exposure of airborne particles sized 0.3 - 5.0 microns using five aerosol containment devices (aerosol box; sealed box with and without suction; vertical drape; and horizontal drape) compared with no aerosol containment device. Nebulised saline was used as the aerosol-generating model for 300 s, at which point, the devices were removed to assess particle spread. ⋯ Compared with no device use, neither horizontal nor vertical drapes showed any difference in any particle size exposure at any time. Finally, when the patient coughed, use of the aerosol box resulted in a marked increase in airborne particle exposure compared with other devices or no device use. In conclusion, novel devices intended to protect the laryngoscopist require objective testing to ensure they are fit for purpose and do not result in increased airborne particle exposure.
-
The protection of healthcare workers from the risk of nosocomial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a paramount concern. SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain endemic and measures to protect healthcare workers against nosocomial infection will need to be maintained. ⋯ In the absence of data specifically related to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the peri-operative setting, we explore the evidence-base that exists regarding modes of viral transmission, historical evidence for the risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures and contemporaneous data from the COVID-19 pandemic. We identify a significant lack of data regarding the risk of transmission in the management of elective surgical patients, highlighting the urgent need for further research.
-
Comparative Study Observational Study
Comparison of predicted and real propofol and remifentanil concentrations in plasma and brain tissue during target-controlled infusion: a prospective observational study.
Target-controlled infusion systems are increasingly used to administer intravenous anaesthetic drugs to achieve a user-specified plasma or effect-site target concentration. While several studies have investigated the ability of the underlying pharmacokinetic-dynamic models to predict plasma concentrations, there are no data on their performance in predicting drug concentrations in the human brain. We assessed the predictive performance of the Marsh propofol model and Minto remifentanil model for plasma and brain tissue concentrations. ⋯ For the Marsh model (five patients), the median prediction errors for plasma and brain tissue concentrations were 12% and 81%, respectively. However, when the data from all blood propofol assays (36 patients) were analysed, the median prediction error was 11%, with overprediction in 15 (42%) patients and underprediction in 21 (58%). These findings confirm earlier reports demonstrating inaccuracy for commonly used pharmacokinetic-dynamic models for plasma concentrations and extend these findings to the prediction of effect-site concentrations.