Interventional Procedures Outside of the Operating Room: Results From the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry

Place of high-flow nasal oxygen in nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to assess the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of procedural interventions under deep sedation in NORA is still increasing. Administration of oxygen is recommended to prevent hypoxemia and is usually delivered with standard oxygen through nasal cannula or a face mask. HFNO is a simple alternative with a high warmed humidified flow (ranging from 30 to 70 l/min) with a precise fraction inspired of oxygen (ranging from 21 to 100%). Compared to standard oxygen, HFNO has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and the need for airway maneuvers. Research on HFNO has primarily focused on its application in gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Yet, it has also shown promising results in various other procedural interventions including bronchoscopy, cardiology, and endovascular procedures. However, the adoption of HFNO prompted considerations regarding cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.

SUMMARY

HFNO emerges as a compelling alternative to conventional oxygen delivery methods for preventing hypoxemia during procedural interventions in NORA. However, its utilization should be reserved for patients at moderate-to-high risk to mitigate the impact of cost and environmental factors.

Patient selection for nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the rapid growth of nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) in recent years, it is essential to review its unique challenges as well as strategies for patient selection and care optimization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent investigations have uncovered an increasing prevalence of older and higher ASA physical status patients in NORA settings. Although closed claim data regarding patient injury demonstrate a lower proportion of NORA cases resulting in a claim than traditional operating room cases, NORA cases have an increased risk of claim for death. Challenges within NORA include site-specific differences, limitations in ergonomic design, and increased stress among anesthesia providers. Several authors have thus proposed strategies focusing on standardizing processes, site-specific protocols, and ergonomic improvements to mitigate risks.

SUMMARY

Considering the unique challenges of NORA settings, meticulous patient selection, risk stratification, and preoperative optimization are crucial. Embracing data-driven strategies and leveraging technological innovations (such as artificial intelligence) is imperative to refine quality control methods in targeted areas. Collaborative efforts led by anesthesia providers will ensure personalized, well tolerated, and improved patient outcomes across all phases of NORA care.

Team Relations and Role Perceptions During Anesthesia Crisis Management in Magnetic-Resonance Imaging Settings: A Mixed Methods Exploration

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of procedures are performed in non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) settings, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suites. Patient care in NORA is accomplished by interprofessional ad hoc teams (anesthesia clinicians, imaging technologists, and others), who do not regularly work together otherwise. The authors aimed to explore team relations and role perceptions during crisis situations in MRI settings among such ad hoc teams.

METHODS

This mixed methods study used a convergent parallel design: The Relational Coordination Index (RCI) and a survey about role perceptions were administered to anesthesia and non-anesthesia personnel working in MRI settings, and semistructured interviews were conducted among a purposive sample. After descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, the authors integrated quantitative and qualitative findings to identify and describe overlapping and mismatched perceptions between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 67 surveys (response rate 74.4%) and 17 interviews were analyzed. RCI ratings revealed moderate relational coordination between the anesthesia and non-anesthesia groups. Anesthesia and non-anesthesia respondents agreed that the anesthesia clinician assumes leadership during crisis management while non-anesthesia personnel assist. There were nuanced differences in expectations about the role of non-anesthesia personnel in calling for help, understanding specific equipment needs, and performing patient care actions. Many anesthesia clinicians felt unsure about crisis-relevant skills of their non-anesthesia colleagues. MRI technologists emphasized attention to magnetic safety as integral to their role, which was infrequently mentioned by anesthesia personnel.

CONCLUSION

Nuanced mismatches in role expectations within the interprofessional care team exist, which may hinder effective crisis management in MRI settings.

Anesthetic Management for Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The authors analyzed anesthetic management trends during ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, hypothesizing that (1) monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is more commonly used than general anesthesia (GA); (2) MAC uses significantly increased after release of the 2019 Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias; and (3) anesthetic approach varies based on patient and hospital characteristics.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients 18 years or older who underwent elective VT ablation between 2013 and 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models, and interrupted time-series analysis was performed. Of the 15,505 patients who underwent VT ablation between 2013 and 2021, 9,790 (63.1%) received GA. After the 2019 Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias supported avoidance of GA in idiopathic VT, no statistically significant increase in MAC was evident (immediate change in intercept post-consensus statement release adjusted odds ratio 1.41, p = 0.1629; change in slope post-consensus statement release adjusted odds ratio 1.06 per quarter, p = 0.1591). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, age, and geographic location were statistically significantly associated with the anesthetic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

GA has remained the primary anesthetic type for VT ablation despite the 2019 Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias suggested its avoidance in idiopathic VT. Achieving widespread clinical practice change is an ongoing challenge in medicine, emphasizing the importance of developing effective implementation strategies to facilitate awareness of guideline release and subsequent adherence to and adoption of recommendations.

Anesthetic Choice for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Placement and Lead Removal: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated the anesthetic approach for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) placement and transvenous lead removal, hypothesizing that monitored anesthesia care is used more frequently than general anesthesia.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent CIED (permanent cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) placement or transvenous lead removal between 2010 and 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to assess predictors of anesthetic type. A total of 87,530 patients underwent pacemaker placement, 76,140 had ICD placement, 2,568 had pacemaker transvenous lead removal, and 4,861 had ICD transvenous lead extraction; 51.2%, 45.64%, 16.82%, and 45.64% received monitored anesthesia care, respectively. A 2%, 1% (both p < 0.0001), and 2% (p = 0.0003) increase in monitored anesthesia care occurred for each 1-year increase in age for pacemaker placement, ICD placement, and pacemaker transvenous lead removal, respectively. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status ≤III for pacemaker placement, ASA ≥IV for ICD placement, and ASA ≤III for pacemaker transvenous lead removal were 7% (p = 0.0013), 5% (p = 0.0144), and 27% (p = 0.0247) more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care, respectively. Patients treated in the Northeast were more likely to receive monitored anesthesia care than in the West for all groups analyzed (p < 0.0024). Male patients were 24% less likely to receive monitored anesthesia care for pacemaker transvenous lead removal (p = 0.0378). For every additional 10 pacemaker or ICD lead removals performed in a year, a 2% decrease in monitored anesthesia care was evident (p = 0.0271, p < 0.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

General anesthesia still has a strong presence in the anesthetic management of both CIED placement and transvenous lead removal. Anesthetic choice, however, varies with patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and geographic region.

Anaesthesia clinicians' perception of safety, workload, anxiety, and stress in a remote hybrid suite compared with the operating room

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia care outside of the standard operating room (OR) can be challenging. This prospective matched case-pair study describes the difference in anaesthesia clinicians' perception of safety, workload, anxiety, and stress in two settings by comparing similar neurosurgical procedures performed in either the OR or a remote hybrid room with intraoperative MRI (MRI-OR).

METHODS

A visual numeric scale for safety perception and validated instruments for workload, anxiety, and stress were administered to enrolled anaesthesia clinicians after induction of anaesthesia and at the end of eligible cases. The difference in outcomes reported by the same clinician for unique pairs of similar operations performed in both settings (OR vs MRI-OR) was compared using the Student t-test with the general bootstrap algorithm to address the presence of clusters.

RESULTS

Over 15 months, 37 clinicians provided data for 53 case pairs. Working in the remote MRI-OR vs OR was associated with lower perceived safety (7.3 [2.0] vs 8.8 [0.9]; P<0.001), higher scores in the workload subdomains effort and frustration (41.6 [24.1] vs 31.3 [21.6]; P=0.006 and 32.4 [22.9] vs 20.7 [17.2]; P=0.002, respectively), and higher anxiety (33.6 [10.1] vs 28.4 [9.2]; P=0.003) at the end of the case. Stress was rated higher in the MRI-OR after induction of anaesthesia (26.5 [15.5] vs 20.9 [13.4]; P=0.006). Effect sizes (Cohen's D) were moderate to good.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaesthesia clinicians reported lower perceived safety and higher workload, anxiety, and stress in a remote MRI-OR compared with a standard OR. Improving non-standard work settings should benefit clinician well-being and patient safety.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

.

Anesthetic choice for arteriovenous access creation: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry analysis

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate differences in primary anesthetic type used in arteriovenous access creation with the hypothesis that administration of regional anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with local anesthesia as the primary anesthetic has increased over time.

METHODS

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data were retrospectively evaluated. Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to determine predictors of anesthetic type in adults who underwent elective arteriovenous access creation between 2010 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 144,392 patients met criteria; 90,741 (62.8%) received general anesthesia. The use of regional anesthesia and MAC decreased over time (8.0%-6.8%, 36.8%-27.8%, respectively; both p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent regional anesthesia were more likely to have ASA physical status >III and to reside in rural areas (52.3% and 12.9%, respectively; both p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent MAC were more likely to be older, male, receive care outside the South, and reside in urban areas (median age 65, 56.8%, 68.1%, and 70.8%, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that being male, having an ASA physical status >III, and each 5-year increase in age resulted in increased odds of receiving alternatives to general anesthesia (regional anesthesia adjusted odds ratios (AORs) 1.06, 1.12, and 1.26, MAC AORs 1.09, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Treatment in the Midwest, South, or West was associated with decreased odds of receiving alternatives to general anesthesia compared to the Northeast (regional anesthesia AORs 0.28, 0.38, and 0.03, all p < 0.0001; MAC 0.76, 0.13, and 0.43, respectively; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of regional anesthesia and MAC with local anesthesia for arteriovenous access creation has decreased over time with general anesthesia remaining the primary anesthetic type. Anesthetic choice, however, varies with patient characteristics and geography.

Quantifying and Interpreting Inequality in Surgical Site Infections per Quarter Among Anesthetizing Locations and Specialties

Background Earlier studies have shown that prevention of surgical site infection can achieve net cost savings when targeted to operating rooms with the most surgical site infections. Methodology This retrospective cohort study included all 231,057 anesthetics between May 2017 and June 2022 at a large teaching hospital. The anesthetics were administered in operating rooms, procedure rooms, radiology, and other sites. The 8,941 postoperative infections were identified from International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes relevant to surgical site infections documented during all follow-up encounters over 90 days postoperatively. To quantify the inequality in the counts of infections among anesthetizing locations, the Gini index was used, with the Gini index being proportional to the sum of the absolute pairwise differences among anesthetizing locations in the counts of infections. Results The Gini index for infections among the 112 anesthetizing locations at the hospital was 0.64 (99% confidence interval = 0.56 to 0.71). The value of 0.64 is so large that, for comparison, it exceeds nearly all countries' Gini index for income inequality. The 50% of locations with the fewest infections accounted for 5% of infections. The 10% of locations with the most infections accounted for 40% of infections and 15% of anesthetics. Among the 57 operating room locations, there was no association between counts of cases and infections (Spearman correlation coefficient r = 0.01). Among the non-operating room locations (e.g., interventional radiology), there was a significant association (Spearman r = 0.79). Conclusions Targeting specific anesthetizing locations is important for the multiple interventions to reduce surgical site infections that represent fixed costs irrespective of the number of patients (e.g., specialized ventilatory systems and nightly ultraviolet-C disinfection).

Looking Into the Future: The Current and Future State of IR in Canada

This review explores the priorities and future opportunities of interventional radiology in Canada.

Systems safety in nonoperating room anesthesia locations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) care is an area of rapid growth over the last decade. However, literature describing safety systems in NORA is limited. This review evaluates historical safety models described by Donabedian and Reason, assesses the NORA environment and safety concerns that may contribute to adverse events, and provides potential solutions via a human-centered systems safety design.

RECENT FINDINGS

Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 provides a framework for quality and patient safety improvement. Although the previous SEIPS 2.0 model has been used to evaluate NORA environments with focus on the case volume, high productivity pressure, and significant physical constraints common to NORA sites, literature describing SEIPS 3.0 in relation to NORA care is sparse. Given the rate of malpractice claims for death in NORA settings, solutions that address the multifactorial nature of adverse events are needed.

SUMMARY

The SEIPS 3.0 model may be applied to NORA care. Changes should focus on staffing ratios, staff/patient education, checklist utilization, burnout prevention, scheduling efficiency, anesthesia workstation standardization, communication improvements, room layout, medication and supply availability and storage, and the global managerial approach. Team members must demonstrate flexibility and a willingness to adapt to successfully implement change.

Sedation-analgesia techniques for nonoperating room anesthesia: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a substantial increase in nonoperating room anesthesia procedures over the years along with an increase in the complexity and severity of cases. These procedures pose unique challenges for anesthesia providers requiring meticulous planning and attention to detail. Advancements in the delivery of sedation and analgesia in this setting will help anesthesia providers navigate these challenges and improve patient safety and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a renewed interest in the development of newer sedative and analgesic drugs and delivery systems that can safely provide anesthesia care in challenging situations and circumstances.

SUMMARY

Delivery of anesthesia care in nonoperating room locations is associated with significant challenges. The advent of sedative and analgesic drugs that can be safely used in situations where monitoring capabilities are limited in conjunction with delivery systems, that can incorporate unique patient characteristics and ensure the safe delivery of these drugs, has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed in these areas to develop newer drugs and delivery systems.

Prevention of pulmonary complications in sedated patients undergoing interventional procedures in the nonoperating room anesthesia setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) procedures have expanded in number, variety, and complexity. NORA involves all age groups, including frail older adults and patients often considered too sick to tolerate traditional surgical interventions. Postoperative pulmonary complications are a significant source of adverse events in the perioperative setting. We present a review focused on preventing pulmonary complications in the interventional NORA setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

NORA locations should function as independent, autonomous ambulatory units. We discuss a strategic plan involving a thorough preoperative evaluation of patients, including recognizing high-risk patients and their anesthetic management. Finally, we offer guidance on the challenges of conducting sedation and anesthesia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or a history of COVID-19.

SUMMARY

The demands on the interventional NORA anesthesia team are increasing. Strategic planning, checklists, consistent staffing assignments, and scheduled safety drills are valuable tools to improve patient safety. In addition, through quality improvement initiatives and reporting, NORA anesthetists can achieve reductions in periprocedural pulmonary complications.

Anesthesia Patient Safety: Next Steps to Improve Worldwide Perioperative Safety by 2030

Patient safety is a core principle of anesthesia care worldwide. The specialty of anesthesiology has been a leader in medicine for the past half century in pursuing patient safety research and implementing standards of care and systematic improvements in processes of care. Together, these efforts have dramatically reduced patient harm associated with anesthesia. However, improved anesthesia patient safety has not been uniformly obtained worldwide. There are unique differences in patient safety outcomes between countries and regions in the world. These differences are often related to factors such as availability, support, and use of health care resources, trained personnel, patient safety outcome data collection efforts, standards of care, and cultures of safety and teamwork in health care facilities. This article provides insights from national anesthesia society leaders from 13 countries around the world. The countries they represent are diverse geographically and in health care resources. The authors share their countries' current and future initiatives in anesthesia patient safety. Ten major patient safety issues are common to these countries, with several of these focused on the importance of extending initiatives into the full perioperative as well as intraoperative environments. These issues may be used by anesthesia leaders around the globe to direct collaborative efforts to improve the safety of patients undergoing surgery and anesthesia in the coming decade.

Morbidity, mortality, and systems safety in non-operating room anaesthesia: a narrative review

Non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA) describes anaesthesia delivered outside a traditional operating room (OR) setting. Non-operating room anaesthesia cases have increased significantly in the last 20 yr and are projected to account for half of all anaesthetics delivered in the next decade. In contrast to most other medication administration contexts, NORA is performed in high-volume fast-paced environments not optimised for anaesthesia care. These predisposing factors combined with increasing case volume, less provider experience, and higher-acuity patients increase the potential for preventable adverse events. Our narrative review examines morbidity and mortality in NORA settings compared with the OR and the systems factors impacting safety in NORA. A review of the literature from January 1, 1994 to March 5, 2021 was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest. After completing abstract screening and full-text review, 30 articles were selected for inclusion. These articles suggested higher rates of morbidity and mortality in NORA cases compared with OR cases. This included a higher proportion of death claims and complications attributable to inadequate oxygenation, and a higher likelihood that adverse events are preventable. Despite relatively few attempts to quantify safety concerns, it was possible to find a range of systems safety concerns repeated across multiple studies, including insufficient lighting, noise, cramped workspace, and restricted access to patients. Old and unfamiliar equipment, lack of team familiarity, and limited preoperative evaluation are also commonly noted challenges. Applying a systems view of safety, it is possible to suggest a range of methods to improve NORA safety and performance.

Preoperative optimization of patients undergoing interventional procedures: infrastructure, logistics, and evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients presenting for non-operating room procedures are often 'too sick' for surgery and require specific anesthesia care in remote areas with logistical and scheduling challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased complexity and scope of minimally invasive procedures have expanded this practice. In addition, the concept of therapeutic options other than conventional surgery is gaining traction.

SUMMARY

Our review of recent literature confirms the complexity and supports the safety of providing care in non-operating room anesthesia locations. Standard preanesthesia assessments and principles apply to these areas.

National trends in nonoperating room anesthesia: procedures, facilities, and patient characteristics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) continues to increase in popularity and scope. This article reviews current and new trends in NORA, trends in anesthesia management in nonoperating room settings, and the evolving debates surrounding these trends.

RECENT FINDINGS

National data suggests that NORA cases will continue to rise relative to operating room (OR) anesthesia and there will continue to be a shift towards performing more interventional procedures outside of the OR. These trends have important implications for the safety of interventional procedures as they become increasingly more complex and patients continue to be older and more frail. In order for anesthesia providers and proceduralists to be prepared for this future, rigorous standards must be set for safe anesthetic care outside of the OR.Although the overall association between NORA and patient morbidity and mortality remains unclear, focused studies point toward trends specific to each non-OR procedure type. Given increasing patient and procedure complexity, anesthesiology teams may see a larger role in the interventional suite. However, the ideal setting and placement of anesthesia staff for interventional procedures remain controversial. Also, the impact of COVID-19 on the growth and utilization of non-OR anesthesia remains unclear, and it remains to be seen how the pandemic will influence the delivery of NORA procedures in postpandemic settings.

SUMMARY

NORA is a rapidly growing field of anesthesia. Continuing discussions of complication rates and mortality in different subspecialty areas will determine the need for anesthesia care and quality improvement efforts in each setting. As new noninvasive procedures are developed, new data will continue to shape debates surrounding anesthesia care outside of the operating room.

Frameworks for trainee education in the nonoperating room setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the volume and types of procedures requiring anesthesiologist involvement in the nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) setting continue to grow, it is important to create a formal curriculum and clearly define educational goals.

RECENT FINDINGS

A NORA rotation should be accompanied by a dedicated curriculum that should include topics such as education objectives, information about different interventional procedures, anesthesia techniques and equipment, and safety principles. NORA environment may be unfamiliar to anesthesia residents. The trainees must also learn the principles of efficiency, rapid recovery from anesthesia, and timely room turnover. Resident education in NORA should be an essential component of their training. The goals and objectives of the NORA educational experience should include not only developing the clinical knowledge necessary to implement the specific type of anesthetic desired for each procedure, but also the practical knowledge of care coordination needed to safely and efficiently work in the NORA setting.

SUMMARY

As educators, we must foster and grow a resident's resilience by continually challenging them with new clinical scenarios and giving them appropriate autonomy to take risks and move outside of their comfort zone. Residents should understand that exposure to such unique and demanding environment can be transformative.

Anaesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac procedures in the catheterization lab

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The share of cardiac procedures performed in settings involving nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) continues to grow rapidly, and the number of publications related to anaesthetic techniques in cardiac catheterization laboratories is substantial. We aim to summarize the most recent evidence about outcomes related to type of anaesthetic in minimally invasive cardiac procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest studies, primarily focused on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr), demonstrate the need for reliable monitoring and appropriate training of the interdisciplinary teams involved in this high-risk NORA setting.

SUMMARY

Inappropriate sedation and concurrent inadequate oxygenation are main risk factors for claims involving NORA care. Current evidence deriving from TAVR shows that monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is associated with shorter length of stay and lower mortality.

Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2021: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists

This guideline updates and replaces the 5th edition of the Standards of Monitoring published in 2015. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the UK and Ireland, but it is recognised that these guidelines may also be of use in other areas of the world. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and during transfer. There are new sections specifically discussing capnography, sedation and regional anaesthesia. In addition, the indications for processed electroencephalogram and neuromuscular monitoring have been updated.

Perioperative Emergencies: Who, What, When, Where, Why?

OBJECTIVE(S)

Throughout the last several decades, the perioperative mortality rate from anesthesia care has declined, shifting focus to perioperative emergencies. Data on these emergencies, often referred to as "Anesthesia STAT" calls (STATs), are lacking at adult hospitals. The goal of this study was to determine the etiology of STATs at a major academic medical center and to determine surgical cases and patient comorbid conditions that increase the risk for STATs.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study took place at a large academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who underwent anesthesia care were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

No interventions were performed during this study.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data collected included the etiologies of STATs, patient demographic information, patient comorbid conditions, and surgeries during which STATs occurred. Between February 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020, 92 STATs occurred during 58,547 anesthetic cases, with an incidence rate of 0.16%. The most common etiology for a STAT was cardiac arrest, followed by respiratory compromise. Surgical services associated with a significant increase of STATs included general, thoracic, oral/maxillofacial, and vascular surgery. Comorbid conditions that significantly increased the risk of STATs included hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac arrest is the most common etiology of STATs. Specific surgical services and comorbid conditions are associated with an increased risk of STATs.

Anesthetic Choice for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated the type of anesthesia administered in atrial fibrillation ablation, hypothesizing that monitored anesthesia care is used less frequently than general anesthesia.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data, which are multi-institutional from across the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent elective atrial fibrillation ablation between 2013 and 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data were evaluated, and covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to assess for predictors of anesthetic type. A total of 54,321 patients underwent atrial fibrillation ablation; 3,251 (6.0%) received monitored anesthesia care. Patients who received monitored anesthesia care were more likely to be >80 years old (12.4% v 4.9%; p < 0.0001), female (36.1% v 34.3%; p < 0.0001), have American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >III (17.28% v 10.48%; p < 0.0001), and reside in urban areas (62.23% v 53.37%; p < 0.0001). They received care in the Northeast (17.6% v 10.1%; p < 0.0001) at low-volume centers (median 224 v 284 procedures; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that each five-year increase in age, being female, and having an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >III resulted in a 7% (p < 0.0001), 9% (p = 0.032), and 200% (p < 0.0001) increased odds of receiving monitored anesthesia care, respectively. Requiring additional ablation of atria or of a second arrhythmia and residing outside the Northeast resulted in a decreased odds of monitored anesthesia care (adjusted odds ratio 0.24 [p=0.002] and < 0.5 [p < 0.03], respectively). For each 50 cases performed annually at a center, the odds decreased by 5% (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

General anesthesia is the most common type of anesthesia administered for atrial fibrillation ablation. The type of anesthesia administered, however, varies with patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics.

Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) patients typically receive either tubeless anesthesia or general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). Patients receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are at higher risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) than patients receiving GETA, primarily due to the need for additional airway maneuvers. The increasing use of non-operating room (OR) anesthesia and the perception of a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in non-OR areas has led to the development of devices to improve safety while maintaining efficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the LMA Gastro™ could be used as a safe alternative to tubeless anesthesia for successfully completing ERCPs.

METHODS

Eligible subjects were identified within the patient population at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients (≥18 years old) scheduled for elective ERCP with TIVA. This was a prospective observational study in which the following data were collected: number of attempts and time to successful supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, vital signs, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), median end-tidal CO2, practitioner satisfaction, and any complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included in this study. The overall rate of successful SGA placement within 3 attempts was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.8-99.9) or 29/30. The rate of successful ERCP with SGA placement within 3 attempts was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2) or 28/30. Both the gastroenterologist and anesthesiologist reported satisfaction with the device in 90% of the cases (in 66.7% of the cases both anesthesiologist and gastroenterologist scored the device a 7/7 for satisfaction). Patients maintained an SpO2 of 95%-100% from induction to discharge, with the exception of 1 patient who had an SpO2 of 93%. The median end-tidal CO2 during the procedure for all patients was 35 mm Hg. Observed aspiration did not occur in any patient. Symptoms of hoarseness (13.3%), mouth soreness (6.7%), sore throat (6.6%), and minor bleeding/cuts/redness/change in taste to the tongue (3.3%) were determined through patient questioning before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the LMA Gastro might be a safe alternative for ERCP procedures. There was a high level of practitioner satisfaction. Only minor complications, such as hoarseness, mouth or throat soreness, or minor trauma to the tongue were experienced by patients. Similar incidences of complications may occur with GETA and tubeless anesthesia. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients; all patients maintained adequate oxygenation and required only minimal blood pressure support.

Nonoperating room anaesthesia: safety, monitoring, cognitive aids and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an ageing population, mounting pressure on the healthcare dollar, significant advances in medical technology, and now in the context of coronavirus disease 2019, the traditional paradigm in which operative procedures are undertaken is changing. Increasingly, procedures are performed in more distant, isolated and less familiar locations, challenging anaesthesiologists and requiring well developed situational awareness. This review looks at implications for the practitioner and patient safety, outlining considerations and steps involved in translation of systems and processes well established in the operating room to more unfamiliar environments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite limited nonoperating room anaesthesia outcome data, analysis of malpractice claims, anaesthesia-related medical disputes and clinical outcome registries have suggested higher morbidity and mortality. Complications were often associated with suboptimal monitoring, nonadherence to recommended guidelines and sedationist or nonanaesthesiologist caregivers. More recently, clear monitoring guidelines, global patient safety initiatives and widespread implementation of cognitive aids may have contributed to nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) outcomes approaching that of traditional operating rooms.

SUMMARY

As NORA caseloads increase, understanding structural and anaesthetic requirements is essential to patient safety. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has provided an opportunity for anaesthesiologists to implement lessons learned from previous analyses, share expertise as patient safety leaders and provide valuable input into protecting patients and caregivers.

Nonoperating room anesthesia in different parts of the world

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in early diagnosis and treatment of diseases using minimally invasive procedures has led to an increase in the number of cases in locations outside the operating room. This surge created the need for anesthesia services to expand to these areas to provide well tolerated and favorable procedural conditions. The present review describes nonoperating room anesthesia patterns in different parts of the world.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonoperating room anesthesia has grown exponentially over the last years. Patients scheduled in these areas are sicker and older compared to the operating room patients. Anesthesiologist-directed care has proven to be well tolerated, with less serious complications and improvement in patients and proceduralist satisfaction.

SUMMARY

There are marked variations in how anesthesia services are delivered in out of operating room locations in different parts of the world. Although there are some data available from the United States, expansion of minimally invasive procedures across continents will likely lead to the emergence of various models of delivering anesthetic care.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Safety and Systems

Anesthesia care performed outside the operating room is a growing area of pediatric anesthesia practice. The anesthesiology team expects to care for children in diverse locations, which include diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology sites, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory. To provide safe, high-quality care the anesthesiologist working in these environments must understand the unique environmental, logistical, and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location. This 2-part review provides an overview of safety and system considerations in pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia before describing in more detail considerations for particular remote anesthetizing locations.

Pediatric Anesthesia Outside the Operating Room: Case Management

Anesthesiology teams care for children in diverse locations, including diagnostic and interventional radiology, gastroenterology and pulmonary endoscopy suites, radiation oncology units, and cardiac catheterization laboratories. To provide safe, high-quality care, anesthesiologists working in these environments must understand the unique environmental and perioperative considerations and risks involved with each remote location and patient population. Once these variables are addressed, anesthesia and procedural teams can coordinate to ensure that patients and families receive the same high-quality care that they have come to expect in the operating room. This article also describes some of the considerations for anesthetic care in outfield locations.

Practice horizons in pediatric nonoperating room anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia outside the operating room is rapidly expanding for adult and pediatric patients. Anesthesia clinicians practicing in this area need a good understanding of the challenges of the NORA environment and the anesthetic risks and perioperative implications of practice so that they can deliver safe care to their patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reports from large patient databases have afforded anesthesiologists a greater understanding of the risk of NORA when compared to anesthesia in the operating room. Descriptions of advances in team training with the use of simulation have allowed the development of organized procedural teams. With an emphasis on clear communication, an understanding of individual roles, and a patient-centered focus, these teams can reliably develop emergency response procedures, so that critical moments are not delayed in an environment remote from usual assistance.

SUMMARY

With appropriate attention to organizational concerns (i.e. team environment, safety protocols) and unrelenting focus on patient safety, anesthesiologists can assist in safely providing the benefit of cutting-edge technical advancements to pediatric patients in these challenging environments.

Pediatric sedation in vascular malformations interventions by a non-anesthesiologist-feasibility and safety

OBJECTIVE

Sedation for pediatric patients undergoing interventional procedures in radiology is in increasing demand. Once only anesthesiology-performed, there is a demand for sedation services to perform sedations for these procedures. However, the safety of performing long sedations by non-anesthesiologists in interventional radiology has not been reported. This pilot study aimed at describing a single center's experience and outcome with sedation.

METHODS

This study reviews the sedations performed at a single center by a pediatric emergency physician who performed the sedation. The results regarding safety and satisfaction were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 52 sedations were documented. Four cases of significant adverse events and three adverse events occurred. In all cases, the procedures were completed. None of the patients required intubation or admission following the sedation. There was high satisfaction by the interventional radiologists.

CONCLUSION

This small pilot study shows that sedations for procedures in interventional radiology can be performed safely and successfully by dedicated non-anesthesiology sedation services. This may be considered as an alternative when anesthesiology service is not available.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This small, single center pilot study examines the safety of sedation by a non-anesthesiologist for interventional radiology procedures. This may offer an additional method of performing procedures in the pediatric population while anesthesia is not readily available.

Non-Operating Room Anesthesia: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) represents a growing field of medicine with an increasing trend in the number of cases performed over the previous decade. As a result, anesthesia providers will need to enhance their familiarity with the resources, personnel, and environment outside of the operating room. Anesthesia delivery in NORA settings should be held with the same high-quality standards as that within the operating room. This review looks at special considerations in patient selection and the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. In addition, there is a discussion on the unique aspects of specific NORA areas and the considerations that come with them.

Safety in the nonoperating room anesthesia suite is not an accident: lessons from the National Transportation Safety Board

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the findings of National Transportation Safety Board-related aviation near misses and catastrophes and apply these principles to the nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) suite.

RECENT FINDINGS

NORA is a specialty that has seen tremendous growth. In 2019, NORA contributes to a larger proportion of anesthesia practice than ever before. With this growth, the NORA anesthesiologist and team are challenged to provide safe, high-quality care for more patients, often with complex comorbidities, and are forced to utilize deeper levels of sedation and anesthesia than ever before. These added pressures create new avenues for human error and adverse outcomes.

SUMMARY

Safety in modern anesthesia practice often draws comparison to the aviation industry. From distinct preoperational checklists, defined courses of action, safety monitoring and the process of guiding individuals through a journey, there are many similarities between the practice of anesthesia and flying an airplane. Consistent human performance is paramount to creating safe outcomes. Although human errors are inevitable in any complex process, the goal for both the pilot and physician is to ensure the safety of their passengers and patients, respectively. As the aviation industry has had proven success at managing human error with a dramatic improvement in safety, a deeper look at several key examples will allow for comparisons of how to implement these strategies to improve NORA safety.

Sedation and analgesia in interventional radiology: Where do we stand, where are we heading and why does it matter?

The aims of this review were to describe the rationale and the techniques of sedation in interventional radiology, and to compile the safety and efficacy results available so far in the literature. A systematic MEDLINE/PubMed literature search was performed. Preliminary results from several studies demonstrated the feasibility, the efficacy and the safety of using sedative techniques in interventional radiology. Beyond pharmacological sedation and clinical hypnosis, digital sedation could reduce the anxiety and pain associated with interventional radiology procedures.

Partnership with Interventional Pulmonologist: An Anesthesiologist's Perspective

Via the emergence of new bronchoscopic technologies and techniques, there is enormous growth in the number of procedures being performed in nonoperating room settings. This, coupled with a greater focus from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for mandated anesthesiology oversight of procedural sedation for bronchoscopy by the pulmonologists has led to a more frequent working partnership between interventional pulmonologists and anesthesiologists. This article offers the interventional pulmonologist insight into how the anesthesiologist thinks and approaches anesthetic care delivery.

Cone-Beam CT-Assisted Ablation of Renal Tumors: Preliminary Results

INTRODUCTION

Renal ablation is a recognized treatment modality for small renal masses. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) has been recently used in interventional oncology as a promising new guidance device, but this technology still needs to be validated for renal ablations. We aimed to assess the technical success of CBCT applications in renal ablative treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2016 and June 2018, 14 patients (mean age 69, range 54-83, 7F, 7M) underwent 21 renal ablations for histologically proven renal cell carcinoma (RCC). All treatments were performed with ultrasound (US) and CBCT guidance under general anesthesia in a dedicated angiography room setting. CBCT was mainly used to assess needle placement and to exclude complications at the end of the procedure. In two small lesions (< 1 cm), pre-acquired CBCT was co-registered with real-time US to obtain a US-CBCT fusion image guidance for tumor ablation.

RESULTS

Whether used alone or in combination with other imaging modalities, CBCT was proven to be technically successful in all 21 procedures to guide or assist tumor ablation. A primary technical efficacy of thermal ablation was achieved in 19/21 ablations (90.1%) at 1 month. Mean procedure duration was 100.2 min (range 160-64). Mean length of hospital stay was 2 days (range 1-10 days). All patients are still under active surveillance for a mean follow-up of 14.5 months (range 4-26 months).

CONCLUSIONS

CBCT for renal ablation guidance is a viable tool. Larger series are needed to compare it to MDCT.