Expert Multinational Consensus Statement for Total Intravenous Anaesthesia (TIVA) Using the Delphi Method

Anaesthetic subspecialties and sustainable healthcare: a narrative review

The principles of environmentally sustainable healthcare as applied to anaesthesia and peri-operative care are well documented. Associated recommendations focus on generic principles that can be applied to all areas of practice. These include reducing the use of inhalational anaesthetic agents and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of modern peri-operative care. However, four areas of practice have specific patient, surgical and anaesthetic factors that present barriers to the implementation of some of these principles, namely: neuroanaesthesia; obstetric; paediatric; and cardiac anaesthesia. This narrative review describes these factors and synthesises the available evidence to highlight areas of sustainable practice clinicians can address today, as well as posing several unanswered questions for the future. In neuroanaesthesia, improvements can be made by undertaking awake surgery, moving towards more reusables and embracing telemedicine in quaternary services. Obstetric anaesthesia continues to present questions regarding how services can move away from nitrous oxide use or limit its release to the environment. The focus for paediatric anaesthesia is addressing the barriers to total intravenous and regional anaesthesia. For cardiac anaesthesia, a significant emphasis is determining how to focus the substantial resources required on those who will benefit from cardiac interventions, rather than universal implementation. Whilst the landscape of evidence-based sustainable practice is evolving, there remains an urgent need for further original evidence in healthcare sustainability targeting these four clinical areas.

Real Evidence and Misconceptions about Malignant Hyperthermia in Children: A Narrative Review

Malignant hyperthermia is a rare but life-threatening pharmacogenetic disorder triggered by exposure to specific anesthetic agents. Although this occurrence could affect virtually any patient during the perioperative time, the pediatric population is particularly vulnerable, and it has a five-fold higher incidence in children compared to adults. In the last few decades, synergistic efforts among leading anesthesiology, pediatrics, and neurology associations have produced new evidence concerning the diagnostic pathway, avoiding unnecessary testing and limiting false diagnoses. However, a personalized approach and an effective prevention policy focused on clearly recognizing the high-risk population, defining perioperative trigger-free hospitalization, and rapid activation of supportive therapy should be improved. Based on epidemiological data, many national scientific societies have produced consistent guidelines, but many misconceptions are common among physicians and healthcare workers. This review shall consider all these aspects and summarize the most recent updates.

Effect of body position on the redistribution of regional lung aeration during invasive and non-invasive ventilation of COVID-19 patients

Severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) requires mechanical ventilation. While this intervention is often performed in the prone position to improve oxygenation, the underlying mechanisms responsible for the improvement in respiratory function during invasive ventilation and awake prone positioning in C-ARDS have not yet been elucidated. In this prospective observational trial, we evaluated the respiratory function of C-ARDS patients while in the supine and prone positions during invasive (n = 13) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 15). The primary endpoint was the positional change in lung regional aeration, assessed with electrical impedance tomography. Secondary endpoints included parameters of ventilation and oxygenation, volumetric capnography, respiratory system mechanics and intrapulmonary shunt fraction. In comparison to the supine position, the prone position significantly increased ventilation distribution in dorsal lung zones for patients under invasive ventilation (53.3 ± 18.3% vs. 43.8 ± 12.3%, percentage of dorsal lung aeration ± standard deviation in prone and supine positions, respectively; p = 0.014); whereas, regional aeration in both positions did not change during non-invasive ventilation (36.4 ± 11.4% vs. 33.7 ± 10.1%; p = 0.43). Prone positioning significantly improved the oxygenation both during invasive and non-invasive ventilation. For invasively ventilated patients reduced intrapulmonary shunt fraction, ventilation dead space and respiratory resistance were observed in the prone position. Oxygenation is improved during non-invasive and invasive ventilation with prone positioning in patients with C-ARDS. Different mechanisms may underly this benefit during these two ventilation modalities, driven by improved distribution of lung regional aeration, intrapulmonary shunt fraction and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the differences in the severity of C-ARDS may have biased the sensitivity of electrical impedance tomography when comparing positional changes between the protocol groups.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04359407) and Registered 24 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359407 .