Dataset Information

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:The group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/risk and patient information; (3) preoperative assessment and decision on intervention; (4) modalities of the preanaesthesia consultation; (5) specificity of anaesthesia and analgesia; (6) dedicated circuits and (7) containment exit type of interventions. RESULTS:The SFAR Guideline panel provides 51 statements on anaesthesia management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. After one round of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations and algorithms. CONCLUSION:We present suggestions for how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists can be minimised and how personal protective equipment policies relate to COVID-19 pandemic context.

SUBMITTER: Velly L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7274119 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Velly Lionel L Gayat Etienne E Quintard Hervé H Weiss Emmanuel E De Jong Audrey A Cuvillon Philippe P Audibert Gérard G Amour Julien J Beaussier Marc M Biais Matthieu M Bloc Sébastien S Bonnet Marie Pierre MP Bouzat Pierre P Brezac Gilles G Dahyot-Fizelier Claire C Dahmani Souhayl S de Queiroz Mathilde M Di Maria Sophie S Ecoffey Claude C Futier Emmanuel E Geeraerts Thomas T Jaber Haithem H Heyer Laurent L Hoteit Rim R Joannes-Boyau Olivier O Kern Delphine D Langeron Olivier O Lasocki Sigismond S Launey Yoan Y le Saché Frederic F Lukaszewicz Anne Claire AC Maurice-Szamburski Axel A Mayeur Nicolas N Michel Fabrice F Minville Vincent V Mirek Sébastien S Montravers Philippe P Morau Estelle E Muller Laurent L Muret Jane J Nouette-Gaulain Karine K Orban Jean Christophe JC Orliaguet Gilles G Perrigault Pierre François PF Plantet Florence F Pottecher Julien J Quesnel Christophe C Reubrecht Vanessa V Rozec Bertrand B Tavernier Benoit B Veber Benoit B Veyckmans Francis F Charbonneau Hélène H Constant Isabelle I Frasca Denis D Fischer Marc-Olivier MO Huraux Catherine C Blet Alice A Garnier Marc M

Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine 20200605 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>The group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/r ...[more]

PMID: 32512197

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: One of the major ethical challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic comes in the form of fair triage decisions for critically ill patients in situations where life-saving resources are limited. In Spring 2020, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) issued specific guidelines on triage for intensive-care treatment in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. While evidence has shown that the capacities of intensive care medicine throughout Switzerland were sufficient to take care of all critically ill patients during the first wave of the outbreak, no evidence is available regarding the acceptance of these guidelines by ICU staff. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the acceptance and perceived implementation of the SAMS guidelines among a sample of senior physicians involved in the care of Covid-19 patients in the Canton of Ticino. Specific objectives included capturing and describing physicians' attitudes toward the guidelines, any challenges experienced in their application, and any perceived factors that facilitated or would facilitate their application. Methods: We conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with a purposive sample of nine senior physicians employed as either head of unity, deputy-head of unit, or medical director in either one of the two Covid-19 hospitals in the Canton of Ticino during the peak of the outbreak. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using an inductive approach. Results: We found that participants held different views regarding the nature of the guidelines, saw decisions on admission as a matter of collective responsibility, argued that decisions should be based on a medical futility principle rather than an age criterion, and found that difficulties to address end-of-life issues led to a comeback of paternalism. Conclusions: Results highlight the importance of clarifying the nature of the guidelines, establishing authority, and responsibility during triaging decisions, recognizing and addressing sources of interference with patients' autonomy, and the need of a cultural shift in timely and efficiently addressing end-of-life issues.

Project description:AimsIndividuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria.ResultsTwenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines (n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from 'very low' to 'moderate'. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk-benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients.DiscussionClinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The various epidemiological indicators used to communicate the impact of COVID-19 have different strengths and limitations. METHODS:We conducted a selective literature review to identify the indicators used and to derive appropriate definitions. We calculated crude and age-adjusted indicators for selected countries. RESULTS:The proportion of deaths (case fatality proportion [CFP]; number of deaths/ total number of cases) is commonly used to estimate the severity of a disease. If the CFP is used for purposes of comparison, the existence of heterogeneity in the detection and registration of cases and deaths has to be taken into account. In the early phase of an epidemic, when case numbers rise rapidly, the CFP suffers from bias. For these reasons, variants have been proposed: the "confirmed CFP" (number of deaths/total number of confirmed cases), and the "delay-adjusted CFP," which considers the delay between infection with the disease and death from the disease. The indicator mortality (number of deaths/total population) has at first sight the advantage of being based on a defined denominator, the total population. During the outbreak of a disease, however, the cumulative deaths rise while the total population remains stable. The phase of the epidemic therefore has to be considered when using this indicator. In this context, R0 and R(t) are important indicators. R0 estimates the maximum rate of spread of a disease in a population, while R(t) describes the dynamics of the epidemic at a given time. Age-adjusted analysis of the CFP shows that the differences between countries decrease but do not dis - appear completely. If the test strategies depend on age or symptom severity, however, the bias cannot be entirely eliminated. CONCLUSION:Various indicators of the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at population level are used in daily communication. Considering the relevance of the pandemic and the importance of relevant communications, however, the strengths and the limitations of each parameter must be considered carefully.

Dataset Information

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Publications

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets