Dataset Information

Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: a narrative review and appraisal.

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.

SUBMITTER: Ong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7714635 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: a narrative review and appraisal.

Ong Sharon S Lim Wan Yen WY Ong John J Kam Peter P

Korean journal of anesthesiology 20200716 6

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases w ...[more]

PMID: 32668835

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified as the cause of an acute respiratory disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the lack of validated treatments, there is an urgent need for a high-quality management of COVID-19. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are one tool that healthcare providers may use to enhance patient care. As such, it is necessary that they have access to high-quality evidence-based CPGs upon which they may base decisions regarding the management and use of therapeutic interventions (TI) for COVID-19. The purpose of the proposed study is to assess the quality of CPGs that make management or TI recommendations for COVID-19 using the AGREE II instrument.MethodsThe proposed systematic review will identify CPGs for TI use and/or the management of COVID-19. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases, as well as the Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the World Health Organization websites, will be searched from December 2019 onwards. The primary outcome of this study is the assessed quality of the CPGs. The quality of eligible CPGs will be assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Descriptive statistics will be used to quantify the quality of the CPGs. The secondary outcomes of this study are the types of management and/or TI recommendations made. Inconsistent and duplicate TI and/or management recommendations made between CPGs will be compared across guidelines. To summarize and explain the findings related to the included CPGs, a narrative synthesis will also be provided.DiscussionThe results of this study will be of utmost importance to enhancing clinical decision-making among healthcare providers caring for patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the results of this study will be relevant to guideline developers in the creation of CPGs or improvement of existing ones, researchers who want to identify gaps in knowledge, and policy-makers looking to encourage and endorse the adoption of CPGs into clinical practice. The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)- CRD42020219944.

Project description:Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

Dataset Information

Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: a narrative review and appraisal.

Publications

Anesthesia guidelines for COVID-19 patients: a narrative review and appraisal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets