Going To Sleep Is Free, But

C. difficile Outbreaks, Anyone?

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

Our hospital has pulled all 3M Avagard hand disinfectant from the operating rooms, preferring instead that surgeons go back to the old fashioned surgical hand scrub. At the same time, we are apparently seeing more nosocomial Clostridium difficile infections. C. diff. is not a reportable pathogen, and this was felt to contribute to the outbreak Canada experienced recently. Avagard does not inactivate C. diff. spores. Co-incidence? I don't think so.

The CDC page for healthcare providers on C. diff. provides an interesting nugget:

Has anyone else seen this at their facilities?

Obstetrical deaths in the UK--Anesthesia component

• Categories: Medical errors, Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

Why Mothers Die 2000-2002 - Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom

Chapter 9--Anaesthesia

The anesthesia chapter concludes:

I would like to think that many of the problems pointed out in this report would not happen in the United States, but that would be intellectually dishonest. If you provide anesthesia for obstetrical patients as I do, it's worth reading over this report for the lessons that are applicable in the US.

"If you're wrong, I'll sue you."

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

That's what the patient was overheard to say after I finished a discussion with her about why she would not need prophylactic antibiotics before a nasal procedure. Her medical history was significant only for a 'heart murmur' (which I could not auscultate). No workup or echocardiogram had been done to rule in a structural cardiac abnormality. The patient denied signs or symptoms of valvular heart disease including mitral valve prolapse, and had a very good exercise tolerance. I quoted the AHA Recommendations which, it turns out, admit that....

"If you're wrong, I'll sue you" was reportedly spoken by the patient after I had left the bedside. As I saw it, I had three choices:

1. Tell her I would not provide her an anesthetic for this elective surgery as she had revealed herself to be a litigious patient.
2. Reschedule her surgery after an echocardiogram had been performed to elucidate the origin of the murmur.
3. Give her the antibiotic and get on with things.

Part of why I had such a strong emotional reaction upon hearing this was almost certainly because I have been in practice over eight nearly nine years and have yet to be named in a suit (the average physician is sued once every eight years). And because some very talented surgeons have left Pennsylvania because of the malpractice environment (and have been replaced by considerably less talented surgeons).

After I talked it over with the surgeon (who asked me to proceed so as not to put him in a difficult position) I gave her the antibiotic and got on with things...but not until after I had listed for her every possible complication of both the antibiotic dose and the anesthetic she was about to receive, including brain damage and death.

Now, all the informed consent in the world isn't going to stop a patient from suing regardless of outcome if they want to sue. I decided to save my charm, humor, and best bedside manner for patients that have the good sense not to talk about bombs while they're waiting in line at airport security.

Discovery Health: Anesthesia (Reporting) Nightmares

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

I watched 'Anesthesia Nightmares' on the Discovery Health channel last night (listing). As an anesthesiologist, the awareness and recall of surgery are of grave concern to me, so I tuned in for what I hoped would be an informative, informed, hour of Discovery Health television. What I saw amounted to fearmongering.

Let me state at the outset that I do not doubt the ordeals described by the victims interviewed in the show. Awareness and recall under anesthesia happen. How often they happen has recently been answered by an article titled The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. The study was funded by the company that makes depth of anesthesia monitors (Aspect), but I can't find fault with their data:

Before I point out some of the specific information I disagree with, let me make a few general points.

I. Not every occurrence of awareness is the kind of 'anesthesia nightmare' described in the show. This should have been pointed out during the report. From the article referenced above:

Summary of Awareness Descriptions (n = 25)

II. We know the risk of awareness is higher in certain kinds of operations (trauma resuscitations, open heart surgery, and emergency cesarean sections are three that come to mind) and in certain kinds of patients (patient with significant coexisting medical conditions such as heart disease or renal failure). In those cases there is a trade-off between depth of anesthesia and patient well-being. There can also be awareness during an unanticipated difficult airway (the first dose of injected anesthetic begins to wear off before the inhaled anesthetic is started.

III. We sometimes are asked to do anesthetics which would not be our first choice. Certain orthopedic spine procedures require special monitoring which is in turn affected by anesthetic levels. We have to modify our preferred anesthetic to take into account this new requirement--and the risk of awareness is higher if we can't use inhaled agents, for example.

Let me now give some quotes from the show that I think are misleading and explain why I think so:

Narrator: "The gas was not working, but like all surgical patients, Joe had also been given a paralytic drug"

This is false. Most surgical patients do not receive a paralytic drug. Intra-abdominal, intrathoracic, intracranial cases do because the surgery could not be done without them, but that's not a majority of cases. We try to avoid giving paralytics unless they're clearly indicated.

Dr. Frank Sweeny: "There are a variety of theories about what anesthesia is, but really I can summarize it in three words: We Don't Know"

This is simply a poor choice of words on Dr. Sweeny's part or Discovery Health taking it his quote out of context. Although it is true we do not precisely understand the mechanisms of some anesthetics, we do know a great deal about how these drugs work as evidenced by the safe and uneventful conduct of the vast majority of anesthetics given each day.

Narrator: "Anesthesiologists have to find a delicate balance between three types of drugs: paralytics to prevent movement, analgesics to dull pain, and narcotics to induce unconsciousness"

Well, not quite. Anesthesiologist seek a balance between drugs that cause unconsciousness, amnesia, anxiolysis, attenuation of the stress response, and muscle relaxation (for a history, see this article). Narcotics are used to block pain and therefore attenuate the stress response (but so do drugs like beta blockers). Narcotics do not induce unconsciousness (very well). We use inhaled anesthetics (such successors to ether) and intravenous anesthetics (such as successors to sodium pentothal) for that. It is this line that makes me think that the creators of this show did not allow an anesthesiologist to screen the final product for accuracy.

Narrator: "What no one in the operating room realized is that the canisters of anesthetic gas were empty"

This can happen, but if the pre-anesthetic checklist is used properly, it won't. Checking anesthetic levels is on the checklist. In addition, one of our inhaled anesthetics (Desflurane) has a vaporizer with a built-in alarm for when the anesthetic level gets low that can then be refilled without having to turn the vaporizer off (thus eliminating the risk of forgetting to turn the vaporizer back on).

Narrator: "A muscle relaxant is used to keep the body still during surgery"

A muscle relaxant is used to relax (paralyze) the muscles. We keep the patient still by making sure they are sufficiently anesthetized. Reflexly giving more paralytic if a patient moves is the wrong response. First insure lack of awareness, lack of pain, adequate anesthetic levels, then consider re-dosing the muscle relaxant.

Narrator: "Studies have shown that mistakes happen in 3% of all operations."

That may be true, but it's far too vague to have any bearing here. Mistakes by whom? Of what magnitude? Did harm actually come to the patient?

Finally the show introduces the brain monitor called Bis (for Bispectral Index), and the person introducing it is a Dr. Don Mathews. What the series does not indicate is that Dr. Mathews is on the speakers buereau for Aspect medical, maker of the Bis monitor. Dr. Mathews narrates a case where the patient actually requires less anesthesia than he thought--and that's exactly my experience with the Bis monitor. After using it for several years, I have never deepened someone's anesthetic because of what the monitor showed, only lightened it. The Bis monitor, and others like it, is being studies intensely in the literature, but I don't think there's a consensus yet. Bis measures level of hypnosis. Not depth of anesthesia. Using Bis makes no difference in the incidence of painful awareness.

It's late and I want to get this posted, but reserve the right to add a Part II should the urge arise.

For more information, see the JCAHO Sentinel Event Alert on "Preventing, and managing the impact of, anesthesia awareness" published in October 2004.

NEJM -- The Risk of Cesarean Delivery with Neuraxial Analgesia Given Early versus Late in Labor

• Categories: Medical Articles, Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

NEJM --The Risk of Cesarean Delivery with Neuraxial Analgesia Given Early versus Late in Labor

Bottom Line: Intrathecal fentanyl in women not yet at 4 cm cervical dilation does not increase C-section rate when compared to systemic opioids. Lots of great information to digest over the next several days...

Think CPAP Mask After Major Abdominal Surgery

• Categories: Medical Articles, Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

JAMA just published Continuous positive airway pressure for treatment of postoperative hypoxemia: a randomized controlled trial and those of us giving anesthesia for open major abdominal surgery should take note. Here's the abstract:

I remember the first time someone suggested using CPAP for the struggling patient in the recovery room after major abdominal surgery. I snorted and mumbled something under my breath about how the patient needed an endotracheal tube and should have taken the offered thoracic epidural. I went back to bed, convinced that I'd be called in an hour or two to intubate the patient who would by then certainly be in extremis. You know what? They never called me that night and this paper helps me understand why.

I think I need to modify my internal algorithm for post-anesthesia management of these often difficult cases to reflect the option of CPAP as a middle ground between mask oxygen and endotracheal intubation.

Screening for AAA Recommended for Smokers Aged 65-75

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (part of AHRQ) now 'recommends one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked.'

Patients should also be made aware that there is an alternative to open AAA repairs known as 'endovascular repair.' NEJM recently published A Randomized Trial Comparing Conventional and Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms which concluded:

As an aside, wouldn't it be nice to be able to query our electronic medical record for all patients in our primary care practice who meet this criteria? Oh wait. We don't have EMR's (for the most part).

Parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials -- Colman et al. 329 (7479): 1369 -- BMJ

• Categories: Medical Articles, Anesthesia practice, Anesthesia Tips
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

BMJ: Parenteral metoclopramide for acute migraine: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials -- Colman et al. 329 (7479): 1369

This works well. I've been using metoclopramide (Reglan) for perioperative migraine for years, ever since learning about it from a Navy ER doc at Balboa. I don't use metoclopramide for post-operative nausea vomiting (prophylactic or treatment), but that's another blog post.

Simple steps nearly eliminate catheter-related blood infections

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit :

Well, that last point right there explains the whole effect. In my experience, whenever I place a line in an ICU the nurse disappears. Poof. Gone. "Empowering nurses to stop the...procedure" is just a fancy way of saying "forcing them to stay in the room in case you need anything so you don't contaminate yourself by accident."

[Via Science Blog - Science News Stories]

Perioperative Pacemaker Management

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

In the editorial, Rozner points to the American College of Cardiology perioperative guidelines (pdf) on perioperative cardiac management. The guideline contains a section on pacemakers and AICD's. These guidelines nicely summarize why we worry about using elecrocautery in patients with implanted pacemakers or AICD's:

And their recommendations are as follows:

Kudos to the American College of Cardiology for making these guidelines available free of charge. The more I think about this the more sense it makes to require a pacemaker check within, say, six months of elective surgery and call the supporting company for specifics about any given pacemaker

Liberal Fluid Administration to Improves Recovery After Lap Chole

• Categories: Medical Articles, Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

Liberal Versus Restrictive Fluid Administration to Improve Recovery:

Yawn. This is a 'me too' study, but does provide yet more support to the idea more fluid is good during anesthesia. It's important to note that this is for a 'closed' procedure, not an open one. Insensible loses are minimal with this technique.

Anatomy of a Near Miss

• Categories: Medical errors, Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

Medical errors are insidious. Many, many errors occur that do not lead to a bad outcome, but they are errors nonetheless. Given a different patient or set of circumstances, those same errors could result in injury, death, or at the very least less than optimal care. The following example serves to reinforce this point.

A thin, elderly woman is admitted the morning of her planned multi-level spinal laminectomy, instrumentation, and fusion. She is healthy, active, and appears younger than her stated age. She meets her anesthesiologist for the first time twenty minutes before the case. Upon review of her records, she appears to be free of cardia or pulmonary disease, but he notes laboratory results on the chart which indicate a macrocytic anemia (blood count of 30--normal is greater than 35 or so). The patient does not recall being told this before. No mention is made of this finding in the surgeon's history and physical examination, or elsewhere in the chart. Someone did think to do serum B12 and folate levels, both of which were found to be normal but no note is present to indicate the differential or planned workup. The finding is discussed with the surgeon and the case proceeds.

Error number one: the abnormal laboratory value should have triggered further evaluation. Some evaluation was attempted, but there was nothing in the chart to indicate by whome, or what their conclusion was. Significant blood loss is likely in this case. Starting with a lower hematocrit means less blood can be lost before a transfusion becomes necessary.

Error number two: the anesthesiologist should have cancelled this case due to a new anemia of unknown etiology. The severity of the anemia is such that a blood transfusion will almost certainly be needed. If time had been taken to evaluate and treat the anemia, the blood count may have risen sufficiently to reduce the likelihood of needing a transfusion. Even if the blood count could not be improved, directed donation or intraopoerative blood salvage techniques could have been used. Why didn't the anesthesiologist cancel the case? No good reasons, just all the usual ones. He was afraid the surgeon would be angry. He kne w the patient had been dealing with severe pain and was holding out just for this surgery.

Intra-operative blood loss was approximately 700 cc. Euvolemia was maintained with Hespan and lactated Ringer's solution. The patient was warm, urine output was good, and both blood pressure and heart rate were stable. Her hemoglobin near the end of the case was now 7, and a unit of blood was ordered from the blood bank. When no blood arrived within 30 minutes, the blood bank was called to inquire if there was a problem. No blood sample from the patient was available in the blood bank to cross-match bank blood against. A sample was immediately drawn into a red-top vial and sent. The case ends, patient is extubated successfully, and transported to the recovery room where her vital signs remain stable and urine output good. The anesthesiologist continues with other scheduled cases after giving report and asking the recovery room nurse to administer one unit of blood when it become available.

After another thirty minutes pass, the blood bank calls the recovery room to inform them that the sample was received in the wrong vial. The blood bank used to require a red-topped vial, but now want a lavender-topped vile (the former contains no anticoagulant, the later does). A phlebotomist is called to draw the new sample and the patient received a blood transfusion fully two hours after the anesthesiologist made the decision to administer blood.

Error numbers three through ten: 'what we have here is a failure to communicate.' There was a failure to communicate:

• that blood had not been drawn pre-operatively as ordered (even though the pre-op checklist indicated it had)
  As an interesting aside, this was the first morning the nurses in the pre-op area were asked to use a computerized nursing record rather than their preferred paper method of charting.
• that the blood bank had no specimen to crossmatch blood against after receiving a call for blood.
• that a change had been made in what kind of specimen was needed for crossmatch.
• you can fill in the remainder.

The only reason this patient did not suffer harm from this incident is that she was physiologically very healthy. Imagine a patient with stable but significant coronary disease. That patient would not have tolerated a hemoglobin of seven so well. Imagine a more significant blood loss. It's better to be lucky than good. It's even better to be both.

My response to this event is to draft a 'Go/No-Go' list. My personal decisions on whether to do a case is heavily influenced by what I know the surgeon reaction will be. I'm not saying that's the right reaction, mind you. It's just my reaction (in wanting to please people as I do). A Go/No-Go list is similar to what NASA uses to decide whether or not to launch a space craft. If any item is 'No-Go' the launch is scrubbed. On my anesthesia Go/No-Go list, if I discover an item in a patient chart that's on my list, launch is scrubbed and the case is rescheduled. New, unexplained anemia is certainly on that list, especially in light of a surgery likely to result in significant blood loss. I need to spend some serious time adding to this list. I'll post it as a work in progress.

One Shot Eases Pain After Surgery

• Categories: Anesthesia practice
• Printer Friendly|#| Trackback

It is well known that the injection of a small dose of morphine into the epidural space or cerebral spinal fluid can provide significant post-operative pain relief for as long as 24 hours. The FDA has approved a liposome formulation of morphine that can double that duration. DepoDur, a morphine sulfate extended-release liposome injection, was approved in May, 2004.

More information at SkyePharma.

[Via Yahoo! News: Health]