Evolving trends in the surgical, anaesthetic, and intensive care management of acute spinal cord injuries in the UK

PURPOSE

We surveyed the treatment of acute spinal cord injuries in the UK and compared current practices with 10 years ago.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was conducted amongst neurosurgeons, neuroanaesthetists, and neurointensivists that manage patients with acute spinal cord injuries. The survey gave two scenarios (complete and incomplete cervical spinal cord injuries). We obtained opinions on the speed of transfer, timing and aim of surgery, choice of anaesthetic, intraoperative monitoring, targets for physiological parameters, and drug treatments.

RESULTS

We received responses from 78.6% of UK units that manage acute spinal cord injuries (33 neurosurgeons, 56 neuroanaesthetists/neurointensivists). Most neurosurgeons operate within 12 h for incomplete (82%) and complete (64%) injuries. There is a significant shift from 10 years ago, when only 61% (incomplete) and 30% (complete) of neurosurgeons operated within 12 h. The preferred anaesthetic technique in 2022 is total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), used by 69% of neuroanaesthetists. Significantly more intraoperative monitoring is now used at least sometimes, including bispectral index (91%), non-invasive cardiac output (62%), and neurophysiology (73-77%). Methylprednisolone is no longer used by surgeons. Achieving at least 80 mmHg mean arterial blood pressure is recommended by 70% neurosurgeons, 62% neuroanaesthetists, and 75% neurointensivists.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2012 and 2022, there was a paradigm shift in managing acute spinal cord injuries in the UK with earlier surgery and more intraoperative monitoring. Variability in practice persists due to lack of high-quality evidence and consensus guidelines.

Prophylactic intravenous tranexamic acid and thromboembolism in non-cardiac surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that is widely used during surgery, but there are concerns about its thromboembolic effects. We aimed to investigate the effect of prophylactic intravenous tranexamic acid on thromboembolic outcomes in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous tranexamic acid with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery were included. The primary outcome was a composite of peri-operative cardiovascular thromboembolic events, defined as any deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial ischaemia/infarction or cerebral ischaemia/infarction. A total of 191 randomised controlled trials (40,621 patients) were included in the review. The primary outcome occurred in 4.5% of patients receiving intravenous tranexamic acid compared with 4.9% of patients in the control group. Our analysis showed that there was no difference between groups for composite cardiovascular thromboembolic events (risk ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.94-1.11, p = 0.65, I² 0%, n = 37,512). This finding remained robust when sensitivity analysis was performed with continuity correction and in studies with a low risk of bias. However, in trial sequential analysis, our meta-analysis only achieved 64.6% of the required information size. There was no association between intravenous tranexamic acid and seizure rate or mortality rate within 30 days. Intravenous tranexamic acid was associated with a reduced blood transfusion rate compared with control (9.9% vs. 19.4%, risk ratio 0.46, 95%CI 0.41-0.51, p < 0.0001). It was encouraging to see the evidence that the administration of intravenous tranexamic in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery was not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic outcomes. However, our trial sequential analysis demonstrated that currently available evidence is not yet sufficient to reach a firm conclusion.

Prophylactic Topical Tranexamic Acid Versus Placebo in Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis∗

OBJECTIVES

Perioperative bleeding remains a major concern to all clinicians caring for perioperative patients. Due to the theoretical risk of thromboembolic events associated with tranexamic acid (TXA) when administered intravenously, topical route of TXA has been extensively studied, but its safety and efficacy profile remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to assess the effect of topical TXA on incidence of blood transfusion and mortality in adults undergoing surgery.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of Science were systematically searched from their inception until May 31, 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Parallel-arm randomized controlled trials were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-one trials (7539 participants: orthopedics 5450 vs nonorthopedics 1909) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to placebo, topical TXA significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss [mean difference (MD) -36.83 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -54.77 to -18.88, P < 0.001], total blood loss (MD -319.55 mL, 95% CI -387.42 to -251.69, P < 0.001), and incidence of blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.34, P < 0.001]. Patients who received topical TXA were associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (MD -0.28 days, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08, P = 0.006). No adverse events associated with the use of topical TXA were observed, namely mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.36, P = 0.39), pulmonary embolism (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.93, P = 0.52), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65-1.77, P = 0.79), myocardial infarction (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.21-2.99, P = 0.73), and stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28-2.57, P = 0.77). Of all included studies, the risk of bias assessment was "low" for 20 studies, "unclear" for 26 studies and "high" for 25 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the meta-analysis of 71 trials (7539 patients), topical TXA reduced the incidence of blood transfusion without any notable adverse events associated with TXA in adults undergoing surgery.

PROSPERO

CRD 42018111762.

[A comparison of ramping position and sniffing position during endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

OBJECTIVES

Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI.

RESULTS

Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.

A comparison of ramping position and sniffing position during endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers, and complications during ETI.

Results

Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n = 632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers, and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p = 0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p = 0.004), moderate quality of evidence.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large scale well designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.