Article Notes
An editorial on pandemic information overload?
Yep. 😉
But setting aside the irony of adding 2,000 more words on COVID-19 information overload, Kearsley & Duffy neatly explore the challenge:
"Since the outbreak of this pandemic, our e-mail inboxes, social media feeds and even general news outlets have become saturated with new guidelines, revisions of guidelines, new protocols and updated protocols, all subject to constant amendments."
What's the thesis?
The authors' argument is that too much information in the era of COVID may be a bad thing: the marginal benefit of 'more' may be overwhelmed by the negative cost.
They acknowledge the tension between the pragmatic and perfect when it comes to information sources in the face of a rapidly advancing disease – and in particular the recurrent waves of shifting clinical guidelines.
Kearsley & Duffy mention the important role of rapid research, worryingly tempered by a surge in volume, but fall in quality, along with mainstream promotion of non-peer reviewed and pre-print investigations. They note how information technology in the pandemic climate exploits our biases: confirmation, anchoring, and novelty.
At an individual level they discuss the risk of pandemic 'alert fatigue', the growth of social media and excessive information sharing making quality assessment difficult, and the negative effect of both on well-being.
The take-home
We each have significant personal responsibility to consider the consequences when sharing information, especially if incomplete or risk of misunderstanding when stripped of context.
"As we learn to live with this virus it is important for us to be cognisant that we are all at risk of error; we need to work to reduce information overload and focus on unifying our approach to both information dissemination and presentation. We must go back to basics and apply the well-practiced human factors principles of good teamwork, communication and leadership.
...
We need to avoid a situation where a crisis is overmanaged and underlead; “Ipsa scientia potestas est" or 'knowledge itself is power' – from what COVID-19 is teaching us however, can too much knowledge be a bad thing?"
Daniel Jolley
Though these findings are in stark contrast to Kheterpal’s (2020) massive 45,000 subject matched cohort study that did show sugammadex reduced postop respiratory complications.
Daniel Jolley
LMA and Caesarean – why should I care?
There is a small attitude change underway in the use of supraglottic airway devices (SGA) in obstetric anaesthesia. While there is already an appreciation of their role in obstetric airway rescue, we now see a shift in some countries to use an SGA as the primary airway choice for Caesarean section under general anaesthesia.
Anaesthesiologists need to be aware of this attitudinal shift, and importantly appreciate the inherent compromises and uncertainties driving it.
In this editorial, Metodiev & Mushambi review changing attitudes toward obstetric airway preference, the realities of maternal aspiration risk, and several large studies suggesting acceptable safety when using a SGA for Caesarean GA.
The tension between airway and aspiration
It is well accepted that regional anaesthesia for Caesarean section is overwhelmingly the best choice, driven first by the historical experience of maternal general anaesthesia risk. The very features that underline this safety improvement are also those in tension when considering endotracheal intubation or SGA: risk of failed intubation versus aspiration.
Studies showing safety
Several retrospective, prospective and randomised studies totalling more than 8,000 patients have concluded that in these populations, SGA use (mainly 2nd generation devices, such as ProSeal™ or LMA Supreme™) was not associated with any greater risk of aspiration. This includes both the single largest study investigating 3,000 women (Halaseah 2010), and two RCTs (Yao 2019 & Li 2017), none of which identified any cases of aspiration (although there was a single regurgitation).
So on the surface, SGA use appears arguably safe, particularly with careful patient selection. Among the studies, generally obese patients and those with reflux were excluded, muscle relaxants were frequently used, an orogastric tube was inserted, and cricoid pressure was used at least for some periods of airway intervention.
And yet we do know from NAP4 (2011) that aspiration is a real danger, accounting for 50% of anaesthesia-related deaths.
Is gastric ultrasound the answer?
No. Next question... 😉
While gastric ultrasound shows some utility in quantifying residual gastric volume, it is 1. Not possible to equate this to aspiration risk in pregnant patients, 2. Technically difficult in the pregnant patient.
They conclude that...
"...there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal or selective replacement of tracheal tubes with SGA devices during general anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery. Aspiration remains the main concern."
Be smart
And before you get too excited by the lack of observed aspiration in these large studies, as Metodiev & Mushambi note, many of the studied populations were Asian and Middle Eastern, having different diets and obesity prevalence than Europe, Oceania and North America.
Daniel Jolley