Anesthesia during cardiologic procedures

Cardiovascular anesthesia training: A single center survey among fellow doctors

Despite the proliferation of research on anesthesiology training at all stages of medical education, there is relatively little published literature surveying the perspectives and concerns of anesthesiologists regarding cardiovascular anesthesia training. Therefore, we conducted a survey to investigate the attitudes, barriers, expectations, stress experiences, satisfaction, and future aspirations of anesthesiologists trained at a tertiary cardiovascular specialty hospital in China. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 260 anesthesiologists who received cardiovascular anesthesia training at departments of anesthesiology in a tertiary cardiovascular specialty hospital in China. After the study protocol was approved, electronic questionnaires were distributed to the target group through the online survey software "Wen Juan Xing." Respondents were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire on their smartphones through WeChat, with the restriction of one response per device enabled. Of the 260 trainees, 240 (98%) completed the questionnaire. The majority of the trainees were 31 years of age or above. A large majority had approximately 10 years of clinical anesthesia practice, and nearly one-third had never undertaken cardiovascular specialty anesthesia practice before. The most common reasons for attending the refresher training were the need to learn basic specialty theory and improve clinical skills. The barriers were mainly time constraints or staff shortages in the department. Sixty-one (93.8%) trainees described the experience as "stressful or highly stressful" and identified poor teacher interaction as the highest-ranking stressor. Anesthesiologists were most dissatisfied with job rewards, with a satisfaction rate of only 15%. Anesthesiologists are highly stressed during the refresher training. Poor teacher interaction and low job rewards were identified as the highest-ranking stressors during cardiovascular anesthesia training. Training providers need to pay more attention to these stressors to enhance the quality of cardiovascular anesthesia training.

PECS II block for cardiac implantable electronic device insertion: A pilot study

AIM

Some truncal blocks could provide adequate surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) insertion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the pectoral nerves (PECS) II block for CIED insertion.

METHODS

PECS II blocks were performed on the left side using the ultrasound-guided single injection technique in all patients. The primary outcome for feasibility was the percentage of the cases completed without intraoperative additional local anesthesia. Secondary outcomes were the amount of intraoperative additional local anesthetic, intraoperative opioid requirement, postoperative pain scores, first requirement for postoperative analgesia, postoperative analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, and block-related complications.

RESULTS

Of the total 30 patients, 19 (63.3%) required intraoperative additional local anesthetic. The median (IQR [range]) volume of the additional local anesthetic used was 7 (4-10 [2.5-12]) mL. Two patients needed additional IV analgesics in the first 24 h postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were determined between the patients requiring and not requiring intraoperative additional local anesthetic in respect of age, gender, duration of surgery, block performance time, and hospital stay. A total of 26 (86.6%) patients reported a high level of satisfaction with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

PECS II block for cardiac electronic implantable device insertion provides effective postoperative analgesia for at least 24 h. Although PECS II block alone could not provide complete surgical anesthesia in the majority of the patients, when combined with supplementary local anesthetic, contributes to a smooth intraoperative course for patients.

Anaesthesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Interventions in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) requiring anaesthetic expertise are becoming routine. These interventions involve a heterogeneous patient population and take place in an offsite location. This review aims to give an insight into anaesthetic issues surrounding certain interventions and the challenges encountered in an offsite location.

RECENT FINDINGS

Owing to an ageing population with increasing comorbidity, transcatheter interventions are being developed and in certain cases becoming routine alternatives for open heart operations. Percutaneous interventions are also being increasingly performed in adult patients with congenital heart abnormalities. The anaesthetic team plays an important role in these procedures, requiring detailed knowledge of the intervention, the characteristics of the patient population and the ability to work as a team in a complex, multidisciplinary setting.

SUMMARY

Interventions in the CCL have developed to such an extent that dedicated anaesthesia teams are required in order to cope with the complexities of the patient populations, the interventions and the challenges brought by the offsite nature of the CCL.