Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Carbetocin at elective caesarean section: a sequential allocation trial to determine the minimum effective dose in obese women.
Postpartum haemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal death during childbirth. There is an increasing incidence of atonic postpartum haemorrhage in developed countries, and maternal obesity has been proposed as a contributing factor. The dose-response relationship of carbetocin in obese women has not yet been determined. ⋯ The estimated blood loss was 880 (621-1178 [75-2442]) ml. The overall rates of hypotension and hypertension after delivery were 40% and 6.7%, respectively, while nausea occurred in 26.7% of women. The ED90 for carbetocin in obese women at elective caesarean section is lower than the dose of 100 μg currently recommended by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, but is approximately four times higher than the previously demonstrated ED90 of 14.8 μg in women with body mass index < 40 kg.m-2 .
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Quadratus lumborum block for analgesia after caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial.
Quadratus lumborum block has been shown to provide satisfactory analgesia after caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia. However, its efficacy has not been demonstrated in patients who have received intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of quadratus lumborum block as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen including intrathecal morphine. ⋯ There was a reduction in median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scale pain scores at 6 h with quadratus lumborum block compared with sham block both at rest (6 (0-14 [0-98]) mm vs. 14 (3-23 [0-64]) mm (p = 0.019); and on movement: 23 (10-51 [0-99]) mm vs. 44 (27-61 [2-94]) mm; (p = 0.014)). There was no difference in pain scores at any other time-point up to 48 h. When used in conjunction with intrathecal morphine and spinal anaesthesia, bilateral quadratus lumborum block does not reduce 24-h morphine consumption after caesarean section.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.
The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. ⋯ Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented challenge for the provision of critical care. Anticipating an unsustainable burden on the health service, the UK Government introduced numerous legislative measures culminating in the Coronavirus Act, which interfere with existing legislation and rights. However, the existing standards and legal frameworks relevant to critical care clinicians are not extinguished, but anticipated to adapt to a new context. ⋯ Such a policy should be medically coherent, legally robust and ethically justified. The current crisis poses numerous challenges for clinicians aspiring to remain faithful to medicolegal and human rights principles developed over many decades, especially when such principles could easily be dismissed. However, it is exactly at such times that these principles are needed the most and clinicians play a disproportionate role in safeguarding them for the most vulnerable.
-
The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri-operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single-use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross-contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. ⋯ The cost per use of a single-use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single-use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross-contamination and resource utilisation.