Practice patterns and perceptions of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists towards perioperative oxygen therapy

Does gender still matter in the pursuit of a career in anaesthesia?

A survey sent to fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) aimed to document issues affecting gender equity in the anaesthesia workplace. A response rate of 38% was achieved, with women representing a greater proportion of respondents (64.2%). On average women worked fewer hours than men and spent a larger percentage of time in public practice; however, satisfaction rates were similar between genders. There was a gender pay gap which could not be explained by the number of hours worked or years since achieving fellowship. The rates of bullying and harassment were high among all genders and have not changed in 20 years since the first gender equity survey by Strange Khursandi in 1998. Women perceived that they were more likely to be discriminated against particularly in the presence of other sources of discrimination, and highlighted the importance of the need for diversity and inclusion in anaesthetic workplaces. Furthermore, women reported higher rates of caregiving and unpaid domestic responsibilities, confirming that anaesthetists are not immune to the factors affecting broader society despite our professional status. The overall effect was summarised by half of female respondents reporting that they felt their gender was a barrier to a career in anaesthesia. While unable to be included in statistics due to low numbers, non-binary gendered anaesthetists responded and must be included in all future work. The inequities documented here are evidence that ANZCA's gender equity subcommittee must continue promoting and implementing policies in workplaces across Australia and New Zealand.

A vanguard randomised feasibility trial comparing three regimens of peri-operative oxygen therapy on recovery after major surgery

International recommendations encourage liberal administration of oxygen to patients having surgery under general anaesthesia, ostensibly to reduce surgical site infection. However, the optimal oxygen regimen to minimise postoperative complications and enhance recovery from surgery remains uncertain. The hospital operating theatre randomised oxygen (HOT-ROX) trial is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial designed to assess the effect of a restricted, standard care, or liberal peri-operative oxygen therapy regimen on days alive and at home after surgery in adults undergoing prolonged non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. Here, we report the findings of the internal vanguard feasibility phase of the trial undertaken in four large metropolitan hospitals in Australia and New Zealand that included the first 210 patients of a planned overall 2640 trial sample, with eight pre-specified endpoints evaluating protocol implementation and safety. We screened a total of 956 participants between 1 September 2019 and 26 January 2021, with data from 210 participants included in the analysis. Median (IQR [range]) time-weighted average intra-operative Fi O2 was 0.30 (0.26-0.35 [0.20-0.59]) and 0.47 (0.44-0.51 [0.37-0.68]) for restricted and standard care, respectively (mean difference (95%CI) 0.17 (0.14-0.20), p < 0.001). Median time-weighted average intra-operative Fi O2 was 0.83 (0.80-0.85 [0.70-0.91]) for liberal oxygen therapy (mean difference (95%CI) compared with standard care 0.36 (0.33-0.39), p < 0.001). All feasibility endpoints were met. There were no significant patient adverse events. These data support the feasibility of proceeding with the HOT-ROX trial without major protocol modifications.

Oxygen therapy for critically Ill and post-operative patients

Nearly all patients receiving treatment in a peri-operative or intensive care setting receive supplemental oxygen therapy. It is biologically plausible that the dose of oxygen used might affect important patient outcomes. Most peri-operative research has focussed on oxygen regimens that target higher than normal blood oxygen levels. Whereas, intensive care research has mostly focussed on conservative oxygen regimens which assiduously avoid exposure to higher than normal blood oxygen levels. While such conservative oxygen therapy is preferred for spontaneously breathing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the optimal oxygen regimen in other patient groups is not clear. Some data suggest that conservative oxygen therapy might be preferred for patients with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. However, unless oxygen supplies are constrained, routinely aggressively down-titrating oxygen in either the peri-operative or intensive care setting is not necessary based on available data. Targeting higher than normal levels of oxygen might reduce surgical site infections in the perioperative setting and/or improve outcomes for intensive care patients with sepsis but further research is required and available data are not sufficiently strong to warrant routine implementation of such oxygen strategies.

Benefits and harms of increased inspiratory oxygen concentrations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The topic of perioperative hyperoxia remains controversial, with valid arguments on both the 'pro' and 'con' side. On the 'pro' side, the prevention of surgical site infections was a strong argument, leading to the recommendation of the use of hyperoxia in the guidelines of the Center for Disease Control and the WHO. On the 'con' side, the pathophysiology of hyperoxia has increasingly been acknowledged, in particular the pulmonary side effects and aggravation of ischaemia/reperfusion injuries.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some 'pro' articles leading to the Center for Disease Control and WHO guidelines advocating perioperative hyperoxia have been retracted, and the recommendations were downgraded from 'strong' to 'conditional'. At the same time, evidence that supports a tailored, more restrictive use of oxygen, for example, in patients with myocardial infarction or following cardiac arrest, is accumulating.

SUMMARY

The change in recommendation exemplifies that despite much work performed on the field of hyperoxia recently, evidence on either side of the argument remains weak. Outcome-based research is needed for reaching a definite recommendation.