Author: theanaesthesia.blog

Detecting false data presents reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and readers with many problems. Manuscripts alone, which are submitted to journals for peer review and consideration for publication, are seldom enough to make an informed judgment on the truth of included data. In this new study, John Carlisle reports his analysis of 153 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia for which he requested authors supply individual patient data spreadsheets (Fig. 1). He detected false data in almost half of these spreadsheets, which likely translates to around a quarter of all randomised controlled trials submitted to the journal. He concludes that journals and editors should ask more questions about data on which submitted trials are based, rather than relying on summary statistics alone, which may not contain vital clues about data trustworthiness. In the accompanying editorial, Ioannidis looks at the nature and scale of the problem, as well as what can be done. The solutions are far from perfect, but include: more widespread use of individual patient data spreadsheets during review processes; a new focus on methods to interrogate other designs, such as observational studies; incorporation of the likelihood of false data into the design of systematic reviews; and promotion of transparency by funders and regulators. 

We have a number of important papers this month that each have an associated podcast, which can be accessed for free on Podbean, Spotify and iTunes. First, Odor et al. report the results from DREAMY in relation to general anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England. They find that propofol and, to a lesser extent, rocuronium are now being used more frequently. The associated editorial from Wilson and Wrench suggests the UK is currently lagging the adoption of change, rather than leading it. Cook and Farrar, in our second most popular paper on social media, ever, discuss everything to do with COVID-19 vaccines, including the many implications for peri-operative practice as well as other wider issues for society (Fig. 2).

We were also delighted to publish this new consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients by Levy et al. The document allows for all healthcare professionals to be aware of the risks and benefits of peri-operative opioid use, which will hopefully lead to better informed patients.

In 2008, it was predicted that there would be no publications in relation to peri-operative practice from UK authors by the year 2020. This new analysis from Ratnayake et al. provides and updated perspective, with ~124 papers per year published by UK groups in indexed journals. A worrying feature is the predominance of secondary research (for example, reviews) as compared with primary research (for example, clinical trials). Overall, the trend identified by Feneck et al. in 2008 seems to have been halted but not yet reversed. Paul Myles offers some insights and reminds us that the studies by Feneck et al. and Ratanayake et al. provide a UK-centric view, and that most peri-operative medicine journals across the world have improved in quality over the last ten years. Moreover, there are now more many more studies in high-impact general medical journals led or contributed to by UK anaesthetists, which is great progress. Yeung and Shelton argue that academic anaesthesia does not belong to the elite, as it belongs to us all. Perhaps where the real work is needed is advocacy, to encourage recognition of how and why research is fundamental to high-quality patient care. 

Each month, we are taking a look back through our archives at important papers from each decade, since the first issue of the journal was published 75 years ago. This month, Laycock and Harrop-Griffiths tackle the assessment of pain with reference to a key paper from 1976 by Revill et al. Note that the ‘assessment’ of pain and not its measurement is discussed, the importance of which is thoughtfully discussed. They argue that what perhaps is even more important than the assessment or measurement of pain is how we respond to its occurrence. 

Elsewhere we have: a systematic review of intra-articular infiltration analgesia for arthroscopic surgery; two prospective observational studies of alternative devices for postoperative patient temperature measurement;an ethnographic study of decision-making around admission to intensive care; and a feasibility study of the effect of advanced recovery room care on postoperative outcomes in moderate-risk surgical patients. 

• 

• 

Finally, we are looking for new Assistant Editors (deadline March 31^st) and a new Trainee Fellow (deadline May 31^st). Both adverts and all the details are provided here, on the journal webpage, on Twitter, in this month’s Anaesthesia News and via the Association of Anaesthetists. Join us!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

The phone rings. The pager bleeps. A colleague drops into the theatre to talk. Another message passes over the intercom. Each day, we run a gauntlet of distractions in the operating theatre. In the March issue of Anaesthesia, Van Harten et al. report their observations of 64 staff members lasting 148 hours in an effort at quantifying case-irrelevant verbal communication, smartphone usage and other distractions in the operating theatre. Qualitative research was performed with the collation of vignettes and by obtaining the perspective of participants on the importance of disruptions. In the accompanying editorial by Shelton and Smith, the double-edged sword of the smartphone in daily practice is discussed. Used optimally, the device may be more of an enabler of safety than a threat to it. The outcome is in our own hands – literally.

How has this pandemic affected our learning as anaesthetists? Fawcett et al. look at the challenges faced in the dissemination of scientific knowledge during the COVID pandemic. During the past 12 months, the need for timely peer review and release of educational materials has coincided with a threat to some of our most trusted methods of accessing them. From challenges with journal printing and distribution to the cancellation of scientific meetings, novel and additional efforts have had to be made to place the journal’s offerings in the hands of its readers. Have we found better ways of doing things that should remain long-term? This journal has increased its use of twitter and podcasting. More recently, we have added live broadcasting to our armamentarium. Our enhanced social media presence was accelerated by the pandemic but we do not envisage this as a short-term effort. Instead, we expect twitter, podcasting and live broadcasting to become permanent fixtures of the broader conversation with our readers. 

COVID-related research continues to feature prominently in this journal. At the onset of the pandemic, concerns regarding occupational COVID-19 risk were greatest for anaesthesia and intensive care staff, and in particular their proximity to aerosol-generating procedures and patients utilising respiratory support devices. An editorial by Cook and Lennane explores this area by comparing expected and actual mortality and the implications of the findings on staff and patient safety. This pandemic has resulted in a re-appraisal of the risks of benefits of regional and general anaesthesia in some scenarios. Bhatia et al. examine the impact of COVID-19 on general anaesthesia rates for caesarean section across six maternity units in the north-west of England and hypothesise as to why this pandemic could influence our decision-making processes. With respect to critically ill patients with COVID-19, this journal issue contains two retrospective reviews on the impact of renal impairment and of high-intensity pharmacological thromboprophylaxis on clinical outcomes in this setting. As each month passes, our COVID-19 knowledge base grows, but as some uncertainties resolve, others arise.

Irrespective of any pandemic, the access of surgical patients to critical care units for postoperative care has always faced challenges. Understanding them has perhaps never been more important. Which patients should be admitted to critical care post-operatively and who should be managed at ward level? What are the main benefits of peri-operative critical care admission and what are the challenges faced in the provision of this care?

The answers to these questions were amongst those sought as part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the survey responses of 10,383 clinicians from 237 hospitals across the UK are reported in this month’s issue of the journal. The decision-making process is complex and coloured by experience. Clinicians face real pressures to deviate from their preferred care pathways when the ability to perform surgery is threatened by limitations in critical care provision. 

Perhaps second only to sugammadex, dexmedetomidine is the pharmacological agent that has seen greatest acceleration of use in anaesthesia practice this past decade. In a previous issue of Anaesthesia, Lee-Archer et al. examined the impact of dexmedetomidine on post-operative behavioural changes in children. An accompanying editorial by Bailey explores the broader evidence base for this alpha-2 agonist in paediatric anaesthesia, placed in the context of real-world considerations such as cost and pharmacological alternatives. Should dexmedetomidine become a staple of the day-case surgery routine or is the evidence base lacking for further expansions in use?

Regional anaesthesia – old and new – also features in this issue. In celebration of the 75^th anniversary of Anaesthesia, we continue our look at some of the journal’s seminal papers in our Contemporary Classics series. This month, we have selected an article from the 1960s – an analysis by Dawkins on epidural complications. In their review, Collins and Yentis explore how both neuraxial blockade and the make-up of scientific publications have changed over the last fifty years. Whether it relates to indications, technique, equipment, dosing or awareness of complications, clinical practice has certainly evolved! Meanwhile, two systematic reviews and meta-analyses examine the evidence for fascial plane blocks. El-Boghdadly et al. compare quadratus lumborum and transversus abdominis plan blocks for caesarean delivery, while Leong et al. examine the efficacy of erector spinae blocks in breast surgery. 

Clotting is another area of focus in this month’s journal. What is the role of four factor prothrombin complex concentrate in haemostatic resuscitation during surgical procedures? Members of the Transfusion and Haemostasis Subcommittee of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology summarise the available evidence for dosing, efficacy, drug safety and monitoring in different scenarios and issue a consensus statement on the use of this agent. Meanwhile, Oberladstätter et al pubish a prospective observational study of the rapid detection of clinically relevant plasma direct oral anticoagulant levels following acute traumatic injury.

Elsewhere, Blackburn et al. compare CT scans and ruler measurements of three commonly used manikins with human CT scans. The translatability of airway manikin research into clinical practice has always been a contentious matter, with the most fundamental concern being the anatomic accuracy of manikins. Also, Trentino et al. perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the screening and treatment of suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery. The great iron debate rolls on!

Keep an eye on our twitter feed for the latest journal article releases, links to new podcasts and future live broadcasts. We hope you’ll find them to be positive distractions!

• 

• 

Craig Lyons and Andrew Klein

In the February issue, we are delighted to publish the articles by Brown et al., Dhillon et al. and the associated editorial by Nestor et al. Brown et al. report that both tracheal intubation and extubation sequences produce less aerosol than voluntary coughing (Fig. 1). On the other hand, Dhillon et al. find that tracheal intubation and extubation are aerosol generating procedures (Fig. 1) Who is right? The answer is probably that neither group is right or wrong, and differences in the experimental methods used might instead account for their different findings. This is all summed up nicely in the associated editorial and podcast.

When we use local anaesthetic agents in clinical practice, we usually go to great lengths to avoid local anaesthetic systemic toxicity, so injecting local anaesthetic agents intravenously might seem counterintuitive. That said, any anaesthetist who has used intravenous lidocaine as part of their peri-operative analgesic strategy will no doubt stand by the safety and efficacy of its use. This new guideline is the first of its kind, which is surprising as the use of intravenous lidocaine for analgesia seems to be widespread. It will hopefully provide a framework for hospitals and departments to write their own protocols, as well as standardising practices more generally. In the associated editorial, Pandit and McGuire discuss the evidence as well as the issues raised by using intravenous lidocaine as an unlicensed medication. They instead provide ‘a license to stop an infusion’ if a clinician encounters a patient in their care and they do not believe the drug to be efficacious. You can listen to both groups of authors debate the arguments for and against on the relevant podcast.

Which is best for patients with hip fracture, spinal or general anaesthesia? Thankfully, and although anaesthetists might always see this as an interesting talking point, guidance and expert opinion have moved beyond the debate of superiority of one mode of anaesthesia over another. Instead, and 11 years since the last iteration, this new guideline shifts focus onto areas such as anaemia, anticoagulation and getting patients to theatre in a timely manner. Direct oral anticoagulant agents seem to be the new major issue facing anaesthetists, and many will be pleased to see something on this topic written down. Again, the paper also has an excellent podcast where you can listen to Iain Moppett and Ciara O’Donnell take us through all the peri-operative considerations and controversies.

Constipation is common in critically unwell adults and this new study from Launey et al. suggests some associations and clinical implications. The associated editorial from Charlesworth and Ashworth discusses the many limitations of research in this area more generally and compares it with something more widely studied and understood – delirium. On the back of the recent regional anaesthesia supplement, Mariano, El-Boghdadly and Ilfeld present their thoughts this month in an editorial about postoperative pain trajectories and personalised pain medicine. They argue that If we knew the typical pain trajectories and patterns of postoperative pain regression and resolution for common surgical procedures, the data could guide our approaches to regional analgesia. Is it time to put the horse back in front of the cart? We think so! Few diseases in healthcare are as controversial and emotive as obesity. This new editorial from Selak and Selak has generated a lot of interest on social media as well as several items of correspondence. They argue that an empathetic approach to all patients, including those with obesity, may in fact be more patient‐centred and also protect against litigation.

Last but by no means least we have three excellent reviews this month which have all been extremely popular on Twitter. First, this airway management guidance document for the endemic phase of COVID-19 sensibly points out that current evidence does not support or necessitate dramatic changes to choices for anaesthetic airway management (Fig. 2). Second, this systematic review from Koyuncu et al. finds that trials on postoperative pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty reported numerous outcome measures with heterogeneous timing of outcome assessment. Finally, Mallama et al. find that the peri‐operative route of paracetamol administration, intravenous vs. oral, did not affect pain or any other postoperative outcome. There was simply insufficient evidence to exclude important clinical effects and the quality of evidence overall was poor.

To celebrate our 75^th anniversary each month there will be a brand-new article looking at a seminal paper from a different decade. This month it is the 1950s, and Aitkenhead and Irwin take on the topic of deaths associated with anaesthesia. A striking feature is the difference between anaesthetic practice during the study period and modern anaesthesia. More than 10% of the deaths were categorised as “circulatory failure immediately following intravenous barbiturate injection”. You can read the full paper for free, forever! Elsewhere we have: a study of ultrasound-activated needle tip tracker technology; a randomised controlled trial of intra-operative methadone vs. morphine on quality of recovery following laparoscopic gastroplasty; and a study looking at the effect of intra-operative intravenous lidocaine on opioid consumption after bariatric surgery. You can also check out what is new in Anaesthesia Reports, who recently advertised for a new Executive Editor, by going over to their homepage or Twitter account. 

We have recently published five live broadcasts, with topics including COVID-19 vaccines, regional anaesthesia, obstetric anaesthesia and critical care outcomes. We plan to keep refining these events and if you have any feedback for us, please let us know! In total, these have now received nearly 30k views!

Make sure you also check this new special issue of COVID-19 correspondence that was published just last week.

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

Since 2009, Anaesthesia has published annual special issues focusing on novel and clinically-important topics in peri-operative medicine, critical care and pain. This year, for the first time, we are revisiting a subject that was previously featured in 2009: regional anaesthesia. This is an acknowledgement, not only of widespread public interest, but also the fundamental importance of this field in modern anaesthetic practice, and the pace of innovation in recent years. The special issue was launched on 11 January 2021 with another first: a live video discussion involving 15 of the authors to give readers  their personal insights into the key concepts in each paper (see here and here).

The accompanying editorial highlights what we believe is the next frontier: increasing patient access to safe and effective regional anaesthesia. The evolution of regional anaesthesia is marked by multiple pivotal innovations that have driven its rise in popularity within our specialty (Fig. 1). These have transformed it from an arcane art practiced only by enthusiasts to a core skillset taught to all trainees. This, however, has also been accompanied by an increased complexity in scope that threatens to overwhelm the general practitioner. There is thus a need to refine, and even simplify, our techniques to maximise provider uptake and in turn, patient benefit. 

Four key themes run through the supplement: safety, efficacy, quality and innovation.

Safety

Nerve localisation has traditionally been based on landmark or peripheral nerve stimulator-guided techniques. Not surprisingly, this has declined in recent years with the advent of ultrasound-guided approaches. However, rather than abandoning the use of nerve stimulation entirely, Dr Gadsden recommends that we reframe its purpose. Instead of using it to tell us when we are ‘close enough’ (a tool for efficacy), we should use it in combination with ultrasound visualisation of the needle tip to tell us when we are ‘too close’ (a tool for safety). As he states in a clever analogy, why choose between seatbelts or airbags when you can have both?

Macfarlane et al. delve further into the safety of regional anaesthesia, providing an up-to-date understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). This is still a highly-relevant complication even in the era of ultrasound-guidance, and there have been important changes in the typical clinical presentation thanks to the current enthusiasm for fascial plane blocks, intravenous lidocaine infusions and high-dose local anaesthetic infiltration techniques by non-anaesthetists. The authors highlight the considerations pertinent to modern anaesthetic practice and also describe a management algorithm that incorporates technique- and patient-related risk factors (Fig. 2). We would consider this paper essential reading for any clinician using local anaesthetics in their practice.

A final paper focusing on safety comes from Levy and Lirk, who describe the challenges and considerations for regional anaesthesia in patients with diabetes. Key characteristics of this patient population, include a higher current threshold for peripheral nerve stimulation; a tendency to prolonged conduction blockade; and lower local anaesthetic dose requirements. There is also concern over a higher risk of infection with both central and peripheral nerve blocks, emphasising the need for strict adherence to aseptic precautions.

Efficacy

The contributions of regional anaesthesia to improved care in specific patient populations is highlighted in several articles. Regional anaesthesia has been relatively under-utilised in paediatric practice, but several factors have driven a recent resurgence, including concerns over the effects of general anesthesia on cognitive development in younger children. Heydinger et al. also point to several innovations that have improved efficacy in this setting, including fascial plane techniques such as quadratus lumborum and erector spinae plane blocks. 

In contrast, regional anaesthesia is well-established in the obstetric setting, but there continues to be debate over the role of fascial plane blocks versus intrathecal opioids in post-caesarean analgesia.  Sultan et al.summarise the latest evidence and offer suggestions on how we can rationally incorporate peripheral nerve blocks into our daily practice. 

In another article, Dockrell and Buggy describe the current role of regional anaesthesia within the context of onco-anaesthesia. The pathophysiology of cancer recurrence is incredibly complex and multi-faceted, which makes it difficult to tease out the specific contribution of any one factor in peri-operative care. The evidence is just starting to accumulate and, in the meantime,, the authors point to the other advantages that regional anaesthesia may have on enhancing patient recovery and make a good case for its continued investigation and use.

Regional anaesthesia may also have an impact on chronic postoperative pain, a condition that affects between 5–50% of patients. Like cancer recurrence, the aetiology of chronic postoperative pain is complex and incompletely understood (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, as Chen et al. point out, regional anaesthesia remains an essential component of the “multimodal analgesic toolbox”. Procedure, patient or technique-specific approaches to peri-operative care may be required to have a real impact, but further evidence is needed before definitive recommendations can be made.

Quality

One of the challenges of regional anaesthesia is determining its overall benefit to healthcare. Johnston and Turbitt argue that successful regional anaesthesia should be judged in four domains : patient‐centred, population‐centred, healthcare‐centred and training‐centred outcomes. Each of these contain several metrics that must be quantified, analysed and improved upon for patient benefit. This landmark paper serves to refocus our exploration of regional anaesthesia on outcomes that matter, with implications for both research activity and clinical implementation.

With respect to healthcare- and population-centred outcomes, Hamilton et al. report the results of a systematic review of the quality indicators that have been used in regional anaesthesia studies. Using a Donabedian framework, they sought structure (administrative settings supporting care provision), process (the act of providing care) and outcome (patient recovery, restoration of function or survival) indicators. Predictably, the latter was most commonly reported, with only 6% and 18% of studies reporting structure or process indicators, respectively.

The importance of imparting regional anaesthesia skills to all trainees has already been mentioned. Ramlogan et al. highlight contemporary training methods in regional anaesthesia, in particular the use of modern technologies such as web-based learning, wearable devices and virtual reality systems. The effectiveness of these novel methods must be tracked using the appropriate training-centred outcomes.

Finally, McCombe and Bogod tackle the challenging subject of risk, consent and complications in regional anaesthesia. The significance of how we communicate risk is described, and how this communication leads to appropriate and legally sound consent, particularly in the post-Montgomery era.

Innovations

Both clinical and technological innovations share the spotlight in this issue. One of the foremost clinical innovations in recent years is the development of chest wall blocks. The current state of the art and future directions for this class of blocks are summarised by Chin et al. Pharmacological adjuncts for peripheral and central neuraxial blocks have also been an area of intense clinical and research interest. Desai et al. conduct a deep dive into these adjuncts that among other things, may leave many readers convinced that intravenous dexamethasone has effects beyond anti-emesis and therapy for COVID-19. 

The rapid pace of technological advancement and its application to regional anaesthesia are described in a complementary pair of articles. McKendrick et al. provide fascinating insights on how artificial intelligence and robotics will not only support clinical practice but potentially be the standard of practice in their own right. Finally, safe and successful regional anaesthesia has been described as primarily a matter of “getting the right drug into the right place”. Dr McLeod describes the exciting prospects for solving this perennial problem with technologically-enhanced needle-tip tracking  in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia.

Conclusion

The papers in this special issue provide a broad overview of the current state of regional anaesthesia. The hope is that all anaesthetists, and not just the enthusiasts, will find value in the content. More importantly, we hope that it will spur the continued expansion in provision of regional anaesthesia to our patients. There is a tremendous opportunity to improve delivery of healthcare and patient outcome, and we invite readers to join us as we take the next step forward on the path to regional anaesthesia excellence and access for all.

• 

Ki-Jinn Chin, Kariem El-Boghdadly and Edward R. Mariano

We begin 2021, the year of our 75^th anniversary, with a special commentary on our first ever original article, which was published in 1946 and was all about initial experiences with curare. This is the first in a new limited monthly series of articles we have called ‘Contemporary Classics’, and each looks at a popular paper from a subsequent decade. This month’s offering reminds us of three important areas for future research: studying the effects of deep intra‐operative neuromuscular blockade on patient‐centred outcomes; the implementation of quantitative neuromuscular blocking monitoring into widespread clinical practice; and the need for an ideal neuromuscular blocking drug that can be readily switched on and off. Next month, we tackle the subject of deaths associated with anaesthesia, and the index paper from the 1950s shows just how far clinical governance and audit have come in 60 or so years. We hope you enjoy these articles and all that the Association of Anaesthetists have planned to celebrate the occasion throughout the year.

Resternotomy following cardiac surgery has always been suspected to be associated with poor outcomes, and this new national audit from Agarwal et al. seems to confirm these suspicions. They were able to pool data from 23 UK centres and found that the mortality in these patients was 15%, with ~90% requiring transfusion of red cells and ~23% requiring renal replacement therapy (Fig. 1). Kendall and O’Keeffe list strategies that may one day enable us to eradicate resternotomy from clinical practice, and provide a discussion of the associated historical context. In October 2020, the PREVENTT trial of pre-operative intravenous iron to treat anaemia before major abdominal surgery was published in The Lancet. A summary of the methods, results and clinical implications is provided this month by Lachlan Miles, who suggests we should now all re-evaluate our practice but also that the story of intravenous iron in the pre-operative period is by no means over. In their editorial, Sharma et al. discuss the role of routine postoperative troponin measurement in the diagnosis and management of myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery. They argue there should now be a shift to the use of pre-operative biochemical marker measurements instead of tools such as the modified revised cardiac risk index to risk stratify patients before surgery. 

Last year, Khan et al. published their secondary analysis showing that fluid optimisation before induction of general anaesthesia did not significantly affect the occurrence or degree of haemodynamic instability during induction. This month, Wong and Irwin discuss the implications, including the limitations of the study by Khan et al., and conclude it is not possible to determine from the available data whether modest fluid administration, presumably to compensate for fasting, can indisputably prevent post‐induction hypotension. Do you agree? Send us a letter and there is a good chance we will publish it! There is reasonable evidence to suggest there is an increase in positive airway pressure in spontaneously breathing patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen, but what about when it is used for apnoeic oxygenation? This new randomised controlled trial from Riva et al.finds that high flow nasal oxygen generates positive airway pressures during apnoea when the mouth is closed. The airway pressures depend on flow rate, but remained < 10 cmH₂O despite flow rates of up to 80 l.min⁻¹. They conclude that maintenance of high oxygen concentration appears to be of greater importance than flow rate and airway pressure (Fig. 2).

The environmental impact of our work has been in the spotlight again recently, and this new cohort study from Zucco et al. suggests that desflurane is not associated with reduced risk of postoperative respiratory complications as compared with sevoflurane. This new piece of evidence might help organisations make decisions about the use of desflurane in their operating theatres. A more surprising result was reported in this randomised controlled trial from Albrecht et al. on the impact of short-acting vs. standard anaesthetic agents on obstructive sleep apnoea. They found that agents such as desflurane and remifentanil did not reduce obstructive sleep apnoea on postoperative nights one and three compared with standard agents (Fig. 3).

An accurate, non‐invasive and economical method of pre‐operative anaemia screening would help with early diagnosis and hence expedite further investigations into its aetiology. This new study by Ke et al. finds that the Rad‐67 Rainbow was found to be inadequate for estimating actual haemoglobin levels and insensitive for detecting pre‐operative anaemia. Elsewhere, we have: a review of fit testing N95, FFP2 and FFP3 masks; a review of apnoeic oxygenation in paediatric anaesthesia; a randomised controlled trial of trimodal prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery; a comparison of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in severe osteoarthritis; and a population based study of gestational anaemia and severe acute maternal morbidity. Finally, will this new systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis by Desai et al. finally settle the question of epidural vs. transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for abdominal surgery? They find that epidural analgesia was statistically superior to TAP block in the postoperative pain score at rest at 12 h and the need for intravenous morphine‐equivalent consumption at the 0–24 h interval, but these differences were not clinically important. They suggest clinicians should balance the risks against the benefits for individual patients and decide on that basis.

We hope you enjoyed our first live broadcast all about a new paper on COVID-19 vaccines by Professor Sir Jeremy Farrar and Professor Tim Cook, which has now been viewed > 10k times! We are planning a special live Twitter broadcast on the 11^th of January to launch our new 2020 regional anaesthesia supplement with our editors, authors and you! Chairing the sessions will be Kariem El-Boghdadly, Ed Mariano, Ki Jinn Chin and Laura Duggan.

See you there!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

This month, we are delighted to publish the concept and methods for the Project for Universal Management of Airways (PUMA) (Fig. 1). This extraordinary project aims to develop a single set of airway management guidelines that can be applied across various domains to improve implementation, promote standardisation and facilitate collaboration. Ahmad and Smith provide the accompanying editorial and ask, is there justification for yet another airway management guideline? They highlight how the methods used by Chrimes et al. are unique as well as highlighting issues which will need to be addressed by the authors in the forthcoming guidance. We simply cannot wait to see them!

Last month, we brought together the authors of two papers with seemingly contradictory conclusions as well as an expert in aerobiology for #TheGreatAirwayDebate. The podcast has now been downloaded over a thousand times! We have a number of related papers this month, including this simulation study by Simpson et al., which shows that devices such as the aerosol box confer minimal to no benefit in containing aerosols during tracheal intubation. In their editorial, Turner et al. propose a framework for the safer adoption of a ‘McGyvered’ device, which includes a recommendation to not adopt, publish, endorse or disseminate via social media such devices without data to support safety. That said, social media was no doubt very useful during the early part of the pandemic for rapid knowledge transfer, as demonstrated by this editorial by Chan et al. along with their now famous infographic. Thankfully, we did not see any such devices attempting to solve the various issues associated with tracheostomy insertion, and instead this new guideline from McGrath et al. provides some sensible evidence-based practice recommendations. It will no doubt become very relevant once again for the second surge and beyond.

What are the additional risks during the peri-operative period attributable to new ways of working during the pandemic? Kane et al. report their retrospective observational cohort study and conclude there are low rates of COVID-19 infection in elective surgical patients despite a high burden of disease in the community. It seems the current bundles of peri-operative care along with stratified pathways work (Fig. 2). Should we be re-starting elective surgery? Well we obviously have and did so the short answer is yes, as safe surgery is essential for the management of non-communicable diseases and underpins good health and wellbeing. Efforts to ensure this can be done safely present us with enormous challenges that we are fighting collectively. This observational study by Okonkwo et al. is an excellent example demonstrating how it was done for paediatric surgery in north-west England. 

We published recently an international multidisciplinary consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients, and this new editorial by Bowen et al. calls for current ‘track and trigger’ tools to be updated to reduce opioid-induced ventilatory harm. They discuss risk factors, incidence, detection, sedation scores and track and trigger systems. Opioid-induced ventilatory impairment is a preventable iatrogenic harm, yet some patients have no identifiable risk factors. Is it time we monitored all patients receiving opioids for acute pain with a better designed track and trigger tool? The authors suggest so. 

When anaesthesia is maintained with intravenous drug infusions, real time analysis of the achieved concentrations is not routinely available. This new prospective observational study from Van Hese et al. finds that although target-controlled administration of propofol and remifentanil using the Marsh and Minto models allows clinically safe and stable conduct of anaesthesia, there were significant inaccuracies in both plasma and brain concentration predictions of these models. The Minto pharmacokinetic parameter set resulted in an underprediction of the plasma remifentanil concentrations by 72% and an overprediction of brain tissue remifentanil by 14%. Furthermore, the Marsh model showed an overall underprediction in both plasma and the brain by 12% and 81%, respectively, meaning that the measured brain tissue concentration was 81% higher than the effect‐site concentration predicted by the Marsh model (Fig 3). Irwin et al. suggest that some of the assumptions on which we base our models may be incorrect, and go into detail about what these models and assumptions are as well as their accuracy. They suggest that the issue of effect‐site concentrations probably exists for all anaesthetic drugs as a result of complex interactions with the blood brain barrier, including inhalational anaesthesia. After all, what we are measuring is the end tidal concentration and not the concentration of drug at the effect site in the brain. 

Elsewhere we have: a review of COVID-19 infection risk during elective peri-operative care; a statistical take on R0 (or more precisely, R_E); a randomised study of programmed intermittent epidural bolus vs. patient centred epidural analgesia for maintenance of labour analgesia; and a study of the association of lung ultrasound images with COVID-19 infection in an emergency room cohort. Over in Anaesthesia Reports we have reports of: the use of the erector spinae block in obstetrics; acute pulmonary oedema and hyperchloraemic metabolic acidosis following operative hysteroscopy using sodium chloride 0.9%; apnoeic ventilation for shared airway surgery; and a novice anaesthetist working and living with malignant hyperthermia.

Finally, we will soon be publishing our 2021 supplement issue which is all about regional anaesthesia. Watch this space for some exciting news about how we aim to bring some of the great content to you in a new digitally immersive and interactive format! 

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

The second surge is upon us and we need to act, but as we do it is also worth reflecting on what we have learnt in the last 8 months. It can reassure us that we have done this before, that we know how to respond, to reflect on how much we know now compared to March and how much care for patients with COVID-19 and their outcomes have improved. There is much to celebrate. At the same time we need to be cautious to avoid complacency, to acknowledge the harm done to many by the first surge and to understand how the response and challenges will differ this time. Here we focus on positive reflection, in part two we will consider the challenges.

In March we wrote a blog highlighting the potential impact of the coming SARS-CoV-2 infection and the need to actively prepare for an influx of ill and critically ill patients. What has happened since is, as they say, ‘history’ and will remain so for decades to come.

Casting our minds back to March, it is difficult to remember quite what turmoil we were in. One of us works in a central London teaching hospital, which like many was intensely busy. The other, who was shielded from frontline work for several months, works in a district general hospital in the south west where the pandemic was considerably less severe, yet hospital services were still restructured, stretched and pressurised. In both hospitals critical care units were expanded, staff retrained and redeployed and the NHS came together as one to meet the coming challenge. During this period what both of us remember most clearly is uncertainty and fear. That fear was, in part, borne of the uncertainty – relating to personal, colleague and family safety, the unmanageable estimates of clinical activity, concerns over our ability to cope with the rigours of work and of what would follow. 

It is important to remember and acknowledge those fears. Also, to remember the acute physical and emotional exhaustion most experienced, due to increased duration, moral burden and acuity of work, compounded by information overload as we planned for and learnt daily about the pandemic response. For many, the impact of spring 2020 will be with them forever, through family loss, moral injury or unexpected and unwelcome experiences that have left shadows that will not lift. At home, the lockdown was unfamiliar, unwelcome and inexorable. For the fortunate, the shadows did pass and summer gave some respite: there was a rather brief period of release from lockdowns and overwhelming work, and perhaps some optimism and time to rest.

It is now clear that we are amid a significant second surge. Much of the country is in some form of local lockdown. We can only hope the government will not demur again over the implementation of significant and effective rules to control community viral transmission and regain control, but popular and professional confidence is not high. A tiered system of local lockdown is to be welcomed, but why it has been created seemingly on the hoof in the midst of an exponential rise in cases, admissions and deaths, rather than planned and announced in the summer months is difficult to fathom. Many are concerned these measures will not be enough and tougher ones will soon follow.

Lessons learnt in the first surge

Despite these many concerns, there are also many reasons to be positive.

We are better prepared 

Our preparation in terms of knowledge of the virus and how to respond to it is immeasurably advanced from 8 months ago. Hospital infrastructure is such that separation of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pathways should not need to be hastily constructed, oxygen supplies are established and should not be at risk of exhaustion. The stress of shortages of PPE and drugs should not be repeated. The plans for expansion of critical care services are well developed, and skills acquired by many colleagues in the spring will have been retained and can be rapidly redeployed.

We are more agile

In a short time, we have transformed the way we work and communicate. Video conferencing, virtual patient consultations and working from home have transitioned from ‘not possible’, through ‘possible’ to ‘essential’ and now become embedded in everyday medical life. Lines of communication between frontline clinicians and senior management have become necessarily more open and we have learnt the importance and value of direct contact with colleagues in business modelling, estates and housekeeping, to mention only a few. Clinical networks, most particularly for critical care, have been reinvigorated and have become central to planning for and responding to challenges on a regional or national level, rather than as single hospitals. These new, established ways of working provide an opportunity for more inclusive but leaner and more agile communication and decision-making. 

We are treating COVID-19 more effectively

Early strategies of fluid restriction, avoidance of non-invasive ventilation, early tracheal intubation and high levels of PEEP were, in retrospect, not optimal. These have been replaced by fluid restoration to improve ventilation-perfusion mismatch, improve gas exchange and reduce risk of acute kidney injury, pragmatic use of non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen, prone positioning (both awake and once intubated), timely tracheal intubation and enhanced anticoagulation strategies. 

Mortality in our hospitals has reduced and over 3 months ICU mortality  fell from 60% to 42% globally and in the UK from 44% to 34%. We have benefitted from pragmatic, rapidly deployed and extensively adopted research, much of which has centred on the UK including the RECOVERY, REMAP-CAP and genomicc studies. We now know that dexamethasone saves lives once patients require oxygen and that remdesivir may shorten illness in milder hospitalised cases but does not save lives. Importantly we also know that the antiviral combination lopinavir with ritonavir has no effect, that hydroxychloroquine is an ineffective treatment and that in combination with azithromycin it is likely harmful. This important knowledge enables clinicians to focus on what does work and to continue with research to determine the role, if any, of treatments such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies such as tocilizumab, the cocktail produced by Regeneron and other small molecules. The importance of these speedily conducted, high quality, large scale randomised controlled trials cannot be overstated and should not be underestimated. These studies have provided clear and definitive answers to what we should and should not do and have been the only brake to scientific misinformation arising from small, poorly conducted or even occasionally fraudulent research. In the aftermath of the pandemic, one of the key actions must surely be to re-examine how research is undertaken in the UK – to break down the excessive regulatory barriers and re-enable democratic involvement in large scale clinical studies without the current bloated burdens to patients, clinicians and researchers. 

We are better protected

In the early stages of the pandemic, uncertainly regarding the selection of appropriate PPE and concerns over shortages were a major concern. Frequent changes in guidance from public health bodies and poor communication increased anxiety and decreased confidence. At its heart, PPE strategy is simple – provided you know which mode of transmission you wish PPE precautions to protect against, the choice of PPE is rather simple. However, much doubt has arisen because of a lack of clarity over which modes of transmission should be protected against. The mainstream advice was that SARS-CoV-2 transmission in healthcare settings is via droplet and contact transmission, except during the conduct of a select group of interventions –aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). However, a wealth of data shows that coughing and sneezing, as well as loud talking and singing, create aerosols. Patient-facing healthcare workers have an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and harm or death. Amongst healthcare workers, there is an association between those who perform tracheal intubation and subsequent COVID-19 symptoms, but amongst anaesthetists and intensivists as a group, there is a relatively reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 or death from COVID-19. There is emerging evidence that some AGPs may not be aerosol generating, including airway management during tracheal intubation and extubation and use of non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen. Whether the safety of anaesthetists and intensivists (and those they work with) is due to higher level PPE, safer infection control behaviour, diminished viral secretion at the peak of illness or because AGPs are not AGPs remains an open question. 

Overall therefore we can reflect in many ways on progress, work well done throughout the community, hospitals and by researchers. These are, in a year of gloom, reasons to be optimistic.

• 

• 

Tim Cook and Kariem El-Boghdadly

This month, we were delighted to publish two contrasting articles on aerosolisation during tracheal intubation. The first by Brown et al. was published on the 6^th of October, and has since become our fourth most popular paper on social media, ever! They conducted an experiment involving quantitative aerosol measurements during tracheal intubation and extubation in real-time in ultraclean ventilation operating theatres. They found that tracheal intubation produces a barely recordable increase in aerosol, which is at odds with previous retrospective evidence that was used to designate tracheal intubation as an aerosol generating procedure. Remarkably, this was followed only a few days later by a study from Dhillon et al. which seems to suggest the opposite. They found that face-mask ventilation, tracheal tube insertion and cuff inflation generated small particles 30-300 times above background noise that remained suspended in airflows and spread from the patient’s facial region throughout the confines of the operating theatre. This all begs the questions, who was right? We are looking forward to the associated editorial and we hope to bring both groups of authors together to discuss the many complicated issues at play. We are, however, thrilled that we are now beginning to see the science tackle some of the key clinical questions which affect practice as we enter what seems to be the second wave of COVID-19 in Europe. 

Turning attention back to the November issue, aerosol generation and airway management remain key topics. This prospective international multicentre cohort study from El-Boghdadly et al. was first published four months ago and is the first output from the IntubateCOVID registry (Fig. 1). They found that around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 subsequently reported a COVID-19 outcome. When interpreting these data, it is worth remembering the limited availability of tests for healthcare staff and members of the public alike at the time data were collected. This and many other aspects of the study are discussed in the paper and have been commented on by others in associated correspondence. Kakodkar et al. undertakes some mathematical manipulations to estimate a baseline risk after a COVID-positive aerosol-generating procedure, which is generally reassuring for those treating ‘green’ pathway patients. Crawley and Maguire likewise discuss airway management in the COVID-19 era, oxygenation, videolaryngoscopy, risk to healthcare staff and future directions, considering the findings of El-Boghdadly et al. 

Figure 1 Symptoms reported in the 184 participants meeting the primary endpoint.

Another risk to healthcare staff is of the future legal implications of decisions taken during the present time.This new review from Coghlan et al. outlines the broad framework within which we can consider the medicolegal and ethical aspects of some of the more readily identified issues experienced during the surge in demand for critical care. In particular: legal aspects of care and the legal and ethical aspects of rationing critical care. The associated editorial from Ferguson and Johnston provides some commentary, and call for us all to move ahead collectively, learning lessons and effecting changes that provide long-term benefit. How frequently does anaphylaxis occur during pregnancy, what are the causative agents and how is it managed? This new population-based multinational European study by McCall et al. finds a similar incidence across five European countries of 1.5 per 100,000 women among almost 4.5 million births. Most reactions happen around the time of birth, and there are wide variations in management strategies. Savic and Lucas argue that although this may seem reassuring at first, there is a risk of underreporting and there is a need not to overlook this important differential when an obstetric patient deteriorates unexpectedly. 

Figure 2 Video calls between ICU patients and their family: data protection issues. GDPR, General Data Protection Regulation; MCA, Mental Capacity Act.

How well do you understand the COVID-19 coagulopathy spectrum? This new editorial from Thachil and Agarwal describes immunothrombosis, localised pulmonary and systemic coagulopathy antithrombotic management, the role of viscoelastic testing, bleeding and future directions in the area. Although outcomes may improve as our understanding of the coagulopathy spectrum increases, how can we better assess the risk to our own health that COVID-19 poses? This new review from Tim Cook is a must read for all, as it brings together all the relevant evidence to remind us that age is the chief risk factor. Furthermore, absolute rather than relative risk is more important and dynamic, particularly in the context of healthcare workers. The paper includes an excellent risk assessment tool, and we encourage organisations to consider the interaction between personal and environmental risk, as well as mitigation measures, rather than just personal risk alone. Finally, Thornton et al. present recommendations for management of the airway and lung isolation for thoracic surgical patients during the pandemic. Their paper has generated much discussion already and we hope its publication has kept healthcare staff safe, at a time where thoracic surgery continued for patients with lung cancer.

Figure 3 Antithrombotic management of COVID‐19 coagulopathy based on D‐dimers and platelet counts.

Elsewhere we have: a narrative review of tracheal tube size in adults undergoing elective surgery; a randomised trial of fibrinogen concentrate during scoliosis surgery; a randomised controlled trial of intra-operative dexmedetomidine in children; and a randomised trial of intravenous dexamethasone after volar plate surgery. Over in Anaesthesia Reports, we have reports of: extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in a patient with COVID-19; surgery for tracheal obstruction due to a tumour; an emergency caesarean section in a patient with pre-eclampsia and multifactorial thrombocytopenia; mallet finger in an anaesthetist; and many other interesting cases. Finally, make sure you book your place at #WSMLondon21, as we go virtual! Our new Editor Ed Mariano is speaking about lessons learned from the US opioid epidemic, and speakers at the journal session on Thursday morning include Seema Agarwal and Laura Duggan. 

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein

This month, we are beginning to see what many think may be the second surge of COVID-19 across Europe and elsewhere. Although some of the papers in this month’s issue were written and published during the first surge, they are now arguably more important than ever. First, Cook and Harrop-Griffiths discuss the many challenges of planned surgery, which includes time-critical and wholly elective procedures, in the context of the many issues affecting hospitals and the services they offer. We need to: manage the increased ICU activity associated with COVID-19; make hospitals safe places for staff, patients and relatives; ensure all patients are treated fairly; and look after our most important resource, our staff. Again, the challenges back in May are the same as those we face now and there are no easy answers. Professor Pandit suggests modelling might play a role when efforts are made to match demand and capacity (Fig. 1). Key questions include: how to set capacity; how to fund increased capacity; how to manage COVID-19 pathways; and how to manage demand. The current situation has forced us to increase capacity in the NHS and encouraged us to ask difficult questions about how we manage demand. As anaesthetists, we are well placed to influence the national agenda, which is what is needed to help us to learn to live with COVID-19.

Figure 1 Demand (which can be measured variously; horizontal black line) is constant over time so optimal capacity (red line 1) is easy to estimate. For varying demands shown, although mean demand is identical to the horizontal black line, the optimal capacities required to meet all the demand all the time increase (from dotted red line 2 to solid red line 3) as variation increases. However, this results in wasted capacity when demand falls to less than the peak. 

Should we routinely use hyperoxgenation in adult surgical patients whose tracheas are intubated? Weenink et al. argue that we should, and cite beneficial effects including: less surgical site infections; reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting; improved safety margins; and the use of hyperbaric oxygenation. These, they argue, outweigh any adverse effects, and they recommend the intra-operative administration of 0.80 fraction of inspired oxygen to non-critically ill adults whose tracheas are intubated. On the other hand, Sperna Weiland et al. go into more detail on the potential harms of hyperoxia, and argue its use to prevent surgical site infections is not supported by existing evidence. Where do you stand? Let us know over on Twitter!

This new randomised, crossover, simulation study from Schumacher et al. is the first to compare the use of modern respirators and powered respirators during advanced airway management procedures (Fig. 2). They found that videolaryngoscopy proved to have certain advantages whilst wearing respiratory protection, regardless of the type of protection used. When flexible bronchoscopic intubation was attempted, the use of protection did not significantly prolong attempts. Participants 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.

• 

• 

Figure 2 Powered air‐purifying respirator with hood (left) and Standard air‐purifying respirator (right).

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies from Armstrong et al. has an Altmetric score of 1148, which makes it our second most popular paper on social media, ever! It provides a message of hope for all of us facing a potential second wave, and shows how we have been able to adapt and improve outcomes for critically unwell patients with COVID-19 as our experience grows and learning accelerates. It is essential reading for all. Important also is this review of resilience strategies to manage psychological distress among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, which builds on experiences from the SARS-CoV-1 and Ebola outbreaks. This new review from Sidebotham is a thought-provoking piece for many reasons, as it challenges everything we think we know about evidence-based medicine in peri-operative medicine and critical care. He concludes that, with the use of Bayes’ theorem, small underpowered randomised trials reporting weakly significant p values have a false positive risk of at least 50%. Likewise, large multicentre trials in critical care appear to have a high false negative risk. Is most of the evidence that underpins our clinical practice wrong? Charlesworth and Pandit outline some possible explanations and solutions, though the thought that every trial ever performed might need to be continuously repeated might be too much for some. Although such statistics may seem complex and inaccessible for most, they argue the way in which clinicians treat patients (and interpret clinical trials) is in fact Bayesian (Fig 3). 

Figure 3 The relationship between prior knowledge, clinical evidence and posterior knowledge from Bayes’ theorem are shown, for an example where the trial result (clinical evidence) shifts our final belief (posterior) towards accepting the intervention. Note that the precision (reflected in the width of the bell curves) of the posterior knowledge is tighter than prior knowledge and clinical evidence. The trial result (clinical evidence) may indicate a high probability of success of intervention, but our final belief will be tempered in a Bayesian framework: we do not accept this blindly. The distance between the distributions, their position and their precision arguably tell us more about the probability of success of an intervention than simply setting out to prove that something is true or false.

Elsewhere this month we have: a mixed methods analysis of factors influencing change in clinical behaviours of non-physician anaesthetists in Kenya following obstetric anaesthesia training; a study of surgical cancellation rates due to peri-operative hypertension; a study of the clinical validation of bioreactance for the measurement of cardiac output in pregnancy; a review of neuraxial anaesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks during the COVID-19 pandemic; and a qualitative systematic review of the role of serratus anterior plane and pectoral nerve blocks in cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery and trauma. Over in Anaesthesia Reports, we have a report of extraconal orbital emphysema secondary to barotrauma in a ventilated patient with COVID-19 and a persistent left superior vena cava with partial anomalous venous return in a liver transplant patient. We are delighted to have appointed four new Editors to the Anaesthesia and three new Assistant Editors to Anaesthesia Reports. They are: Ed Mariano; Louise Savic; Iain Moppett; Ben Morton; Maryann Turner; Rose Kearsley; and Lachlan Miles. In addition, we are delighted to announce that our new trainee fellow for 20/21 will be Craig Lyons from Dublin. Congratulations!

Finally, make sure you join us for our webinar on Saturday morning to find out who has won paper of the year together with some excellent presentations on the best peri-operative medicine research around in 2020! 

See you on Saturday!

• 

• 

Mike Charlesworth and Andrew Klein