A survey of surgical patients' perspectives and preferences towards general anesthesia techniques and shared-decision making

The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

Mortality and morbidity after total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using only intravenous agents, or through inhalational anaesthesia, using volatile anaesthetic agents. The debate on how this affects postoperative patient outcome is ongoing, despite an abundance of published trials. The relevance of this topic has grown by the increasing concern about the contribution of anaesthetic gases to the environmental impact of surgery. We aimed to summarise all available evidence on relevant patient outcomes with total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for works published from January 1, 1985 to August 1, 2023 for randomised controlled trials comparing total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia using the volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text articles, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were derived from a recent series of publications on consensus definitions for Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative trials (StEP). Primary outcomes covered mortality and organ-related morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023430492).

Findings

We included 317 randomised controlled trials, comprising 51,107 patients. No difference between total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia was seen in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66, 27 trials, 3846 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.36, 23 trials, 9667 patients) and one-year mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, 13 trials, 9317 patients). Organ-related morbidity was similar between groups except for the subgroup of elderly patients, in which total intravenous anaesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, 11 trials, 3834 patients) and a better score on postoperative cognitive dysfunction tests (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 0.47-2.88, 9 trials, 4917 patients). In the secondary outcomes, total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67, 145 trials, 23,172 patients), less emergence delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.56, 32 trials, 4203 patients) and a higher quality of recovery score (QoR-40 mean difference 6.45, 95% CI 3.64-9.25, 17 trials, 1835 patients).

Interpretation

The results indicate that postoperative mortality and organ-related morbidity was similar for intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia offered advantages in postoperative recovery.

Funding

Dutch Society for Anaesthesiology (NVA).

Patient-centered precision care in anaesthesia - the PC-square (PC) 2 approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review navigates the landscape of precision anaesthesia, emphasising tailored and individualized approaches to anaesthetic administration. The aim is to elucidate precision medicine principles, applications, and potential advancements in anaesthesia. The review focuses on the current state, challenges, and transformative opportunities in precision anaesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review explores evidence supporting precision anaesthesia, drawing insights from neuroscientific fields. It probes the correlation between high-dose intraoperative opioids and increased postoperative consumption, highlighting how precision anaesthesia, especially through initiatives like Safe Brain Initiative (SBI), could address these issues. The SBI represents multidisciplinary collaboration in perioperative care. SBI fosters effective communication among surgical teams, anaesthesiologists, and other medical professionals.

SUMMARY

Precision anaesthesia tailors care to individual patients, incorporating genomic insights, personalised drug regimens, and advanced monitoring techniques. From EEG to cerebral/somatic oximetry, these methods enhance precision. Standardised reporting, patient-reported outcomes, and continuous quality improvement, alongside initiatives like SBI, contribute to improved patient outcomes. Precision anaesthesia, underpinned by collaborative programs, emerges as a promising avenue for enhancing perioperative care.

Description of the Content and Quality of Publicly Available Information on the Internet About Inhaled Volatile Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia: Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

More than 300 million patients undergo surgical procedures requiring anesthesia worldwide annually. There are 2 standard-of-care general anesthesia administration options: inhaled volatile anesthesia (INVA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). There is limited evidence comparing these methods and their impact on patient experiences and outcomes. Patients often seek this information from sources such as the internet. However, the majority of websites on anesthesia-related topics are not comprehensive, updated, and fully accurate. The quality and availability of web-based patient information about INVA and TIVA have not been sufficiently examined.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (1) assess information on the internet about INVA and TIVA for availability, readability, accuracy, and quality and (2) identify high-quality websites that can be recommended to patients to assist in their anesthesia information-seeking and decision-making.

METHODS

Web-based searches were conducted using Google from April 2022 to November 2022. Websites were coded using a coding instrument developed based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria and adapted to be appropriate for assessing websites describing INVA and TIVA. Readability was calculated with the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) grade level and the simple measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula.

RESULTS

A total of 67 websites containing 201 individual web pages were included for coding and analysis. Most of the websites provided a basic definition of general anesthesia (unconsciousness, n=57, 85%; analgesia, n=47, 70%). Around half of the websites described common side effects of general anesthesia, while fewer described the rare but serious adverse events, such as intraoperative awareness (n=31, 46%), allergic reactions or anaphylaxis (n=29, 43%), and malignant hyperthermia (n=18, 27%). Of the 67 websites, the median F-K grade level was 11.3 (IQR 9.5-12.8) and the median SMOG score was 13.5 (IQR 12.2-14.4), both far above the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended reading level of sixth grade. A total of 51 (76%) websites distinguished INVA versus TIVA as general anesthesia options. A total of 12 of the 51 (24%) websites explicitly stated that there is a decision to be considered about receiving INVA versus TIVA for general anesthesia. Only 10 (20%) websites made any direct comparisons between INVA and TIVA, discussing their positive and negative features. A total of 12 (24%) websites addressed the concept of shared decision-making in planning anesthesia care, but none specifically asked patients to think about which features of INVA and TIVA matter the most to them.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of websites described INVA and TIVA, few provided comparisons. There is a need for high-quality patient education and decision support about the choice of INVA versus TIVA to provide accurate and more comprehensive information in a format conducive to patient understanding.