Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOdor, P
dc.contributor.authorBampoe, S
dc.contributor.authorMoonesinghe, R
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Jackie
dc.contributor.authorPandit, J
dc.contributor.authorLucas, N
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-20T16:42:00Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-21
dc.identifier.issn0003-2409
dc.identifier.issn1365-2044
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/16084
dc.description.abstract

<jats:title>Summary</jats:title><jats:p>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%).</jats:p>

dc.format.extent460-471
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectobstetrics
dc.subjectgeneral anaesthesia
dc.subjectcaesarean section
dc.subjectairway management
dc.titleGeneral anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeMulticenter Study
dc.typeObservational Study
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000571439800001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue4
plymouth.volume76
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalAnaesthesia
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/anae.15250
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Admin Group - REF
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Admin Group - REF/REF Admin Group - FoH
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Psychology
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA01 Clinical Medicine
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA04 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience/UoA04 REF peer reviewers
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Centre for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (CBCB)/Cognition
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-06-23
dc.rights.embargodate2020-10-16
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2044
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/anae.15250
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-09-21
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV