Dataset Information

Current practice of thoracic anaesthesia in Europe – a survey by the European Society of Anaesthesiology Part I – airway management and regional anaesthesia techniques

ABSTRACT:

Background

The scientific working group for “Anaesthesia in thoracic surgery” of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) has performed an online survey to assess the current standards of care and structural properties of anaesthesia workstations in thoracic surgery.

Methods

All members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) were invited to participate in the study.

Results

Thoracic anaesthesia was most commonly performed by specialists/board-certified anaesthetists and/or senior/attending physicians. Across Europe, the double lumen tube (DLT) was most commonly chosen as the primary device for lung separation (461/ 97.3%). Bronchial blockers were chosen less frequently (9/ 1.9%). Throughout Europe, bronchoscopy was not consistently used to confirm correct double lumen tube positioning. Respondents from Eastern Europe (32/ 57.1%) frequently stated that there were not enough bronchoscopes available for every intrathoracic operation. A specific algorithm for difficult airway management in thoracic anaesthesia was available to only 18.6% (n = 88) of the respondents. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the most commonly used form of regional analgesia for thoracic surgery in Europe. Ultrasonography was widely available 93,8% (n = 412) throughout Europe and was predominantly used for central line placement and lung diagnostics.

Conclusions

While certain „gold standards “are widely met, there are also aspects of care requiring substantial improvement in thoracic anaesthesia throughout Europe. Our data suggest that algorithms and standard operating procedures for difficult airway management in thoracic anaesthesia need to be established. A European recommendation for the basic requirements of an anaesthesia workstation for thoracic anaesthesia is expedient and desirable, to improve structural quality and patient safety.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01480-w.

SUBMITTER: Defosse J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8558093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOxygen is one of the most commonly used drugs by anesthesiologists. The World Health Organization (WHO) gave recommendations regarding perioperative oxygen administration, but the practice of oxygen use in anesthesia, critical emergency, and intensive care medicine remains unclear.MethodsWe conducted an online survey among members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). The questionnaire consisted of 46 queries appraising the perioperative period, emergency medicine and in the intensive care, knowledge about current recommendations by the WHO, oxygen toxicity, and devices for supplemental oxygen therapy.ResultsSeven hundred ninety-eight ESAIC members (2.1% of all ESAIC members) completed the survey. Most respondents were board-certified and worked in hospitals with > 500 beds. The majority affirmed that they do not use specific protocols for oxygen administration. WHO recommendations are unknown to 42% of respondents, known but not followed by 14%, and known and followed by 24% of them. Respondents prefer inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2) ≥80% during induction and emergence from anesthesia, but intraoperatively < 60% for maintenance, and higher FiO2 in patients with diseased than non-diseased lungs. Postoperative oxygen therapy is prescribed more commonly according to peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), but shortage of devices still limits monitoring. When monitoring is used, SpO2 ≤ 95% is often targeted. In critical emergency medicine, oxygen is used frequently in patients aged ≥80 years, or presenting with respiratory distress, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. In the intensive care unit, oxygen is mostly targeted at 96%, especially in patients with pulmonary diseases.ConclusionsThe current practice of perioperative oxygen therapy among respondents does not follow WHO recommendations or current evidence, and access to postoperative monitoring devices impairs the individualization of oxygen therapy. Further research and additional teaching about use of oxygen are necessary.

Project description:BackgroundInternational guidelines define severe uncontrolled asthma. Biologics or bronchial thermoplasty (Bio/BT) are recommended for such patients.ObjectivesTo determine which definitions of severe uncontrolled asthma are associated with an additional Bio/BT treatment in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.MethodsConsecutive 107 asthmatics (including 15 patients for whom Bio/BT was introduced within 3 months after examination), classified as treatment step 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma 2015 guideline, were eligible for this analysis. Patients were assessed using the European Thoracic Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) severe uncontrolled asthma guideline as defined by these 4 characteristics: poor control (ACT < 20), frequent exacerbations (≥2/yr), admissions (≥1/yr), and airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second < 80% of predicted), along with comorbidities, and biomarkers, including blood granulocytes, fractional nitric oxide, and capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity (C-CS). These indices were compared between patients with and without Bio/BT introduction, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the association of the 4 definitions with treatment needs for Bio/BT.ResultsPatients who were introduced to Bio/BT had heightened C-CS, heavier smoking history, and a greater prevalence of diabetes mellitus than those without (p < 0.05). Poor asthma control (ACT < 20), frequent exacerbations (≥2/yr), and admissions (≥1/yr) were relevant to the future use of Bio/BT in the multivariate regression analysis. Type 2-related biomarkers including absolute eosinophil counts were higher in patients in the Bio introduction group than in the BT introduction group. Meanwhile, there was no significant difference of the 4 characteristics of severe uncontrolled asthma definition between patients in the Bio and those in the BT groups.ConclusionAlthough multiple factors such as treatment cost and asthma phenotypes affect treatment decision-making, the definition of poor asthma control, frequent exacerbations and admission by the ERS/ATS guidelines were important factors for an additional intensive treatment for severe uncontrolled asthma.Trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000024734.

Project description:Rationale: Workplace inhalational hazards remain common worldwide, even though they are ameliorable. Previous American Thoracic Society documents have assessed the contribution of workplace exposures to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on a population level, but not to other chronic respiratory diseases. The goal of this document is to report an in-depth literature review and data synthesis of the occupational contribution to the burden of the major nonmalignant respiratory diseases, including airway diseases; interstitial fibrosis; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; other noninfectious granulomatous lung diseases, including sarcoidosis; and selected respiratory infections. Methods: Relevant literature was identified for each respiratory condition. The occupational population attributable fraction (PAF) was estimated for those conditions for which there were sufficient population-based studies to allow pooled estimates. For the other conditions, the occupational burden of disease was estimated on the basis of attribution in case series, incidence rate ratios, or attributable fraction within an exposed group. Results: Workplace exposures contribute substantially to the burden of multiple chronic respiratory diseases, including asthma (PAF, 16%); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PAF, 14%); chronic bronchitis (PAF, 13%); idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (PAF, 26%); hypersensitivity pneumonitis (occupational burden, 19%); other granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis (occupational burden, 30%); pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (occupational burden, 29%); tuberculosis (occupational burden, 2.3% in silica-exposed workers and 1% in healthcare workers); and community-acquired pneumonia in working-age adults (PAF, 10%). Conclusions: Workplace exposures contribute to the burden of disease across a range of nonmalignant lung conditions in adults (in addition to the 100% burden for the classic occupational pneumoconioses). This burden has important clinical, research, and policy implications. There is a pressing need to improve clinical recognition and public health awareness of the contribution of occupational factors across a range of nonmalignant respiratory diseases.