Der Anaesthesist
-
In the case of a poor peripheral venous status the use of conventional approaches is associated with several failed attempts, delay of treatment, increased pain and escalation to more invasive techniques. Ultrasound-guided venous access has become increasingly popular for difficult venous access; however, in German-speaking countries it has not yet become as popular as in English-speaking countries. First attempt success rates are high, but the factors contributing to the time needed for ultrasound-guided venous access are not well investigated. It is hypothesized that body mass index (BMI), vein diameter and depth contribute to the time needed for successfully establishing a peripheral vein access in patients with a difficult venous status. ⋯ A greater vein diameter and a higher BMI contribute to a shorter time period for ultrasound-guided venous access. Obese patients with difficult venous access may benefit from ultrasound-guided venous access, which could be explained by the imaging contrast with a higher proportion of subcutaneous fatty tissue.
-
Measurement of blood pressure is part of standard monitoring procedures in anesthesia, in addition to the other vital parameters of heart frequency and peripheral oxygen saturation. In recent years the relevance of the duration and extent of perioperative episodes of hypotension for the occurrence of postoperative complications or even increased mortality have become the focus of scientific investigations. ⋯ Perioperative hypotension is defined by either absolute systolic arterial pressure (SAP) or mean arterial pressure (MAP) thresholds and by relative blood pressure declines from an individual preoperative baseline value. For the definition of absolute and relative thresholds it needs to be considered that the ultimate target is an adequate perfusion pressure (and not the MAP) and that the preinduction blood pressure is a poor reflection of the patients' normal blood pressure profile. Risk factors for an intraoperative drop in blood pressure are advanced age, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, low blood pressure prior to induction of anesthesia, the premedication, e.g. angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, the anesthesia technique (combination of general and epidural anesthesia) and emergency surgery. The lowest tolerable intraoperative blood pressure should be defined according to the individual patient's preoperative blood pressure and risk profile. Individual thresholds should be determined for the severity and duration of intraoperative hypotension. Empirically, MAP values <65 mm Hg and relative pressure declines of >20-30% are often recommended as thresholds. Below critical blood pressure values the risk of postoperative organ damage (myocardium, kidneys and central nervous system) and mortality increases with longer duration of hypotension. Older people and high-risk patients (e.g. patients in vascular surgery) have a poorer and shorter tolerance of low blood pressure. Postoperative organ complications can be minimized by maintenance of an adequate intraoperative blood pressure CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists should avoid extensive and prolonged hypotension by timely interventions in order to improve the postoperative outcome of patients.
-
Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). ⋯ In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.