Pediatric Preoperative Assessment: 6 Million Missed Opportunities for Childhood Obesity Education.

No abstract available

http://ift.tt/2ptWjHg

Tetrodotoxin, Epinephrine, and Chemical Permeation Enhancer Combinations in Peripheral Nerve Blockade.

BACKGROUND: Chemical permeation enhancers (CPEs) have the potential to improve nerve blockade by site 1 sodium channel blockers such as tetrodotoxin (TTX). Here, we investigated the efficacy and toxicity of CPE-enhanced nerve blockade across a range of TTX concentrations using 2 CPEs (sodium octyl sulfate and octyl trimethyl ammonium bromide). We also tested the hypothesis that CPEs could be used to reduce the concentrations of TTX and/or of a second adjuvant drug (in this case, epinephrine) needed to achieve prolonged local anesthesia METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were injected at the sciatic nerve with combinations of TTX and CPEs, with and without epinephrine. Sensory and motor nerve blockade were assessed using a modified hot plate test and a weight-bearing test, respectively. Systemic and local toxicities of the different combinations were assessed. RESULTS: Addition of increasing concentrations of TTX to fixed concentrations of CPEs produced a marked concentration-dependent improvement in the rate of successful nerve blocks and in nerve block duration. CPEs did not affect systemic toxicity. At some concentrations, the addition of sodium octyl sulfate increased the duration of block from TTX plus epinephrine, and epinephrine increased that from TTX plus CPEs. The addition of epinephrine did not cause an increase in local toxicity, and it markedly reduced systemic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: CPEs can prolong the duration of nerve blockade across a range of concentrations of TTX. CPEs could also be used to reduce the concentration of epinephrine needed to achieve a given degree of nerve block. CPEs may be useful in enhancing nerve blockade from site 1 sodium channel blockers. (C) 2017 International Anesthesia Research Society

http://ift.tt/2qnocxM

Measuring and Improving the Quality of Preprocedural Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural assessments are used by anesthesia providers to optimize perioperative care for patients undergoing invasive procedures. When these assessments are performed in advance by providers who are not caring for the patient during the procedure, there is an additional layer of complexity in ensuring that the workup meets the needs of the primary anesthesia care team. In this study, anesthesia providers were asked to rate the quality of preprocedural assessments prepared by other providers to evaluate anesthesia care team satisfaction. METHODS: Quality ratings for preprocedural assessments were collected from anesthesia providers on the day of surgery using an electronic quality assurance tool from January 9, 2014 to October 21, 2014. Users could rate assessments as "exemplary," "satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." Free text comments could be entered for any of the quality ratings chosen. A reviewer trained in clinical anesthesia categorized all comments as "positive," "constructive," or "neutral" and conducted in-depth chart reviews triggered by 67 "constructive" comments submitted during the first 3 months of data collection to further subcategorize perceived deficiencies in the preprocedural assessments. In May 2014, providers were asked to participate in a midpoint survey and provide general feedback about the preprocedural process and evaluations. RESULTS: 37,611 procedures requiring anesthesia were analyzed. Of the 17,522 (46.6%) cases with a rated preprocedural assessment, anesthesia providers rated 3828 (21.8%) as "exemplary," 13,454 (76.8%) as "satisfactory," and 240 (1.4%) as "unsatisfactory." The monthly proportion of "unsatisfactory" ratings ranged from 3.1% to 0% over the study period, whereas the midpoint survey showed that anesthesia providers estimated that the number of unsatisfactory evaluations was 11.5%. Preprocedural evaluations performed on inpatients received significantly better ratings than evaluations performed on outpatients by the preadmission testing clinic or phone program (P

http://ift.tt/2pu1s1X

The Need for a Global Perspective on Task-Sharing in Anesthesia.

No abstract available

http://ift.tt/2qnAnL7

Optimizing Anesthesia-Related Waste Disposal in the Operating Room: A Brief Report.

Misappropriation of noncontaminated waste into regulated medical waste (RMW) containers is a source of added expense to health care facilities. The operating room is a significant contributor to RMW waste production. This study sought to determine whether disposing of anesthesia-related waste in standard waste receptacles before patient entry into the operating room would produce a reduction in RMW. A median of 0.35 kg of waste was collected from 51 cases sampled, with a potential annual reduction of 13,800 kg of RMW to the host institution, and a cost savings of $2200. (C) 2017 International Anesthesia Research Society

http://ift.tt/2ptMr0b

Left Main Coronary Artery Dissection During Aortic Valve Replacement.

No abstract available

http://ift.tt/2qnmoov

Analysis of Production, Impact, and Scientific Collaboration on Difficult Airway Through the Web of Science and Scopus (1981-2013).

BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics, the statistical analysis of written publications, is an increasingly popular approach to the assessment of scientific activity. Bibliometrics allows researchers to assess the impact of a field, or research area, and has been used to make decisions regarding research funding. Through bibliometric analysis, we hypothesized that a bibliometric analysis of difficult airway research would demonstrate a growth in authors and articles over time. METHODS: Using the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases, we conducted a search of published manuscripts on the difficult airway from January 1981 to December 2013. After removal of duplicates, we identified 2412 articles. We then analyzed the articles as a group to assess indicators of productivity, collaboration, and impact over this time period. RESULTS: We found an increase in productivity over the study period, with 37 manuscripts published between 1981 and 1990, and 1268 between 2001 and 2010 (P 9% for both WoS and Scopus, and CAGR for anesthesiology as a whole =0.64% in WoS, and =3.30% in Scopus. Furthermore, we found a positive correlation between the number of papers published per author and the number of coauthored manuscripts (P

http://ift.tt/2ptGLU3