Article Notes
And surprising to no obstetric anaesthesiologists... 🤔🙄
"...we have a case in our series in which a woman suffering from postpartum paraesthesia attempted a claim against the anaesthetist although she had received neither epidural nor spinal anaesthesia!
It is often only when an anaesthetic medicolegal opinion is sought that the obstetric nature of the injury is appreciated."
What is automatic tube compensation? Glad you asked!
"Automatic tube compensation (ATC) is a new option to compensate for the non-linearly flow-dependent pressure drop across an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube (ETT) during inspiration and expiration. ATC is based on a closed-loop working principle. ATC is not a true ventilatory mode but rather a new option which can be combined with all conventional ventilatory modes."
While the reliability of this simple formula is interesting, the authors note the wide variability in nasal tubes from different manufacturers, particularly in length and guide markings for the same-sized tube. Thus although interesting, there is questionable utility in this formula.
Correct ETT depth is probably better determined clinically: visually observing the cuff pass the laryngeal inlet and cords, and auscultation to exclude endobronchial intubation. At best, a predictive-depth formula is a useful sanity-check.
Though these findings are in stark contrast to Kheterpal’s (2020) massive 45,000 subject matched cohort study that did show sugammadex reduced postop respiratory complications.
Also relevant to read is Duggan's 2019 CJA editorial: The MacGyver bias and attraction of homemade devices in healthcare
Leff & Finucane's (JAMA 2008) 'gizmo idolatry' commentary is also related, and well worth a read. The human love of bells and whistles...
When considering whether COVID could have significant airborne transmission, note that during the SARS pandemic at least one large Hong Kong outbreak (187 cases) was very likely due to airborne infection: Yu 2004 (NEJM).
Acknowledging the difficulty of balancing PPE supply and demand, the tone of this review tends to be biased toward hopeful but unproven assumptions that airborne transmission is not significant. There is considerable concern that this is in fact not true.
When infection of a potentially fatal disease is occurring among frontline healthcare workers, a more cautious posture is warranted, along with greater acknowledgement of the uncertainty inherent in these recommendations.
Public Health England's 'New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG)' concluded:
It is biologically plausible that chest compressions could generate an aerosol, but only in the same way that an exhalation breath would do. No other mechanism exists to generate an aerosol other than compressing the chest and an expiration breath, much like a cough, is not currently recognised as a high-risk event or an AGP.” NERVTAG also stated that it “does not consider that the evidence supports chest compressions or defibrillation being procedures that are associated with a significantly increased risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections.”
Also worth considering, is the impact that CPR and external compressions may have on undermining the effective protection of PPE, given that CPR is a uniquely dynamic and physical activity compared to most medical procedures.
Using simulation studies, Hwang et al. have already brought into question the effectiveness of N95 masks during CPR:
N95 respirator masks may not provide adequate protection during chest compressions, even when resuscitators have passed quantitative fit testing.