Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and neck of femur fractures: Standardising the perioperative management and time to surgery

Demographic projections for hip fragility fractures indicate a rising annual incidence by virtue of a multimorbid, ageing population with more noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). NCDs are characterised by slow progression and long duration ranging from ischaemic cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to various cancers. Management of this disease burden often involves commencing patients on oral anticoagulants to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in clinical practice has increased due to their rapid onset of action, short half-life and predictable anticoagulant effects, without the need for routine monitoring. Safe and timely surgical intervention relies on reversal of anticoagulants. However, the lack of specific evidence-based guidelines for the perioperative management of patients on DOACs with hip fractures has proved challenging; in particular, the accessibility of DOAC-specific assays, justification of the cost-benefit ratio of targeted reversal agents and indications for neuraxial anaesthesia. This has led to potentially avoidable delays in surgical intervention. Following a literature review of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of commonly used DOACs in our region including the role of surrogate markers, we propose a systematic, evidence-based guideline to the perioperative management of hip fractures DOACs. We believe this standardised protocol can be easily replicated between hospitals. We recommend that if patients are deemed suitable for a general anaesthesia, with satisfactory renal function, optimal surgical time should be 24 h following the last ingested dose of DOAC.     

Obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia in SARS-CoV-2-positive parturients across 10 maternity units in the north-west of England: a retrospective cohort study

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have reported anaesthetic outcomes in parturients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the labour analgesic and anaesthetic interventions utilised in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients who had a confirmed positive test for SARS-CoV-2 across 10 hospitals in the north-west of England between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. Primary outcomes analysed included the analgesic/anaesthetic technique utilised for labour and caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of maternal characteristics, caesarean birth rate, maternal critical care admission rate along with adverse composite neonatal outcomes. A positive SARS-CoV-2 test was recorded in 836 parturients with 263 (31.4%) reported to have symptoms of COVID-19. Neuraxial labour analgesia was utilised in 104 (20.4%) of the 509 parturients who went on to have a vaginal birth. No differences in epidural analgesia rates were observed between symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.64–1.67; p = 0.90). The neuraxial anaesthesia rate in 310 parturients who underwent caesarean delivery was 94.2% (95%CI 90.6–96.0%). The rates of general anaesthesia were similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients (6% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.52). Symptomatic parturients were more likely to be multiparous (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.19–2.22; p = 0.002); of Asian ethnicity (OR 1.54, 1.04–2.28; p = 0.03); to deliver prematurely (OR 2.16, 95%CI 1.47–3.19; p = 0.001); have a higher caesarean birth rate (44.5% vs. 33.7%; OR 1.57, 95%CI 1.16–2.12; p = 0.008); and a higher critical care utilisation rate both pre- (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.001) and post-delivery (11% vs. 3.5%; OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.83–6.52; p = 0.001). Eight neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while no differences in adverse composite neonatal outcomes were observed between those born to symptomatic and asymptomatic mothers (25.8% vs. 23.8%; OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.78–1.57; p = 0.55). In women with COVID-19, non-neuraxial analgesic regimens were commonly utilised for labour while neuraxial anaesthesia was employed for the majority of caesarean births. Symptomatic women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of significant maternal morbidity including preterm birth, caesarean birth and peripartum critical care admission.     

Impact and Predictors of Noncircular Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Shapes on Estimating Aortic Stenosis Severity by Means of Continuity Equations

Determining aortic stenosis (AS) severity is clinically important. Calculating aortic valve (AV) area by means of the continuity equation assumes a circular left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The full impact of this assumption in calculating AV area is unknown. Predictors of noncircular LVOT shape in patients with AS are undefined.In 109 adult patients with AS who underwent multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, we calculated AV area by means of the standard continuity method and by a modified method involving planimetric LVOT area.We found 54 circular, 37 horizontal-oval, 8 vertical-oval, and 10 irregular LVOTs. Area derived by direct planimetry correlated better with the modified than the standard continuity method (r=0.89 vs r=0.85; both P=0.0001). Valve areas of patients with mild, moderate, or severe AS by planimetry were more often mischaracterized with use of the standard than modified method (29 vs 18; P <0.0001). Horizontal-oval AV area derived by planimetry (1.28 ± 0.55 cm²) was underestimated by the standard method (1.05 ± 0.47 cm²; P=0.001), but not by the modified method. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index were the only multivariate predictors of horizontal-oval shape. Low cardiac index was the only predictor of noncircular shape.More than half our patients with AS had noncircular LVOTs. Using the modified method reduces mischaracterizations of AS severity. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index predict horizontal-oval or noncircular shape. These data suggest the value of direct LVOT measurement to calculate AS severity in patients who have congenital AV or a low cardiac index.     

The Effects of Expressing Religious Support Online for Breast Cancer Patients

The growth of online support groups has led to an expression effects paradigm within the health communication literature. Although religious support expression is characterized as a typical subdimension of emotional support, we argue that in the context of a life-threatening illness, the inclusion of a religious component creates a unique communication process. Using data from an online group for women with breast cancer, we test a theoretical expression effects model. Results demonstrate that for breast cancer patients, religious support expression has distinct effects from general emotional support messages, which highlights the need to further theorize expression effects along these lines.