Journal article
General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multicentre observational study
- Abstract:
- There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%).
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, 915.0KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1111/anae.15250
Authors
- Publisher:
- Wiley
- Journal:
- Anaesthesia More from this journal
- Volume:
- 76
- Issue:
- 4
- Pages:
- 460-471
- Publication date:
- 2020-09-21
- Acceptance date:
- 2020-08-14
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1365-2044
- ISSN:
-
0003-2409
- Pmid:
-
32959372
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1134958
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1134958
- Deposit date:
-
2020-10-30
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Odor et al.
- Copyright date:
- 2020
- Rights statement:
- ©2020 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record