Principles of environmentally-sustainable anaesthesia: a global consensus statement from the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists

The Earth’s mean surface temperature is already approximately 1.1°C higher than pre-industrial levels. Exceeding a mean 1.5°C rise by 2050 will make global adaptation to the consequences of climate change less possible. To protect public health, anaesthesia providers need to reduce the contribution their practice makes to global warming. We convened a Working Group of 45 anaesthesia providers with a recognised interest in sustainability, and used a three-stage modified Delphi consensus process to agree on principles of environmentally sustainable anaesthesia that are achievable worldwide. The Working Group agreed on the following three important underlying statements: patient safety should not be compromised by sustainable anaesthetic practices; high-, middle- and low-income countries should support each other appropriately in delivering sustainable healthcare (including anaesthesia); and healthcare systems should be mandated to reduce their contribution to global warming. We set out seven fundamental principles to guide anaesthesia providers in the move to environmentally sustainable practice, including: choice of medications and equipment; minimising waste and overuse of resources; and addressing environmental sustainability in anaesthetists’ education, research, quality improvement and local healthcare leadership activities. These changes are achievable with minimal material resource and financial investment, and should undergo re-evaluation and updates as better evidence is published. This paper discusses each principle individually, and directs readers towards further important references.     

超声造影规范化护理专家共识

为了实现超声对比剂（也称超声造影剂）高效、合理、安全、规范化输注，国内相关医护专家总结了国内外文献证据及临床经验，按照循证医学原则充分讨论后，制订了该共识，旨在为我国超声对比剂安全输注的规范化和标准化提供参考意见。共识介绍了超声对比剂的应用现状和安全性、相关法规与流程，造影前、中、后的规范化护理，并提出16条推荐意见。提出目前国内批准上市使用的超声对比剂安全性高，建议医护人员根据最新说明书或专家共识进行配药和给药，并从造影室管理、风险预案、人员资质等方面予以规范。     

介入手术室医院感染控制和预防临床实践专家共识

【摘要】 介入手术后医院感染严重危害人类健康。制定介入手术室医院感染控制和预防临床实践专家共识可更好地规范介入手术过程中相关临床实践标准，降低医院感染发生率。本共识基于 WHO指南制定手册和GRADE证据质量分级系统，形成了介入手术室环境管理、患者管理、工作人员管理、物品管理、职业暴露、培训与质量控制等6个领域54项推荐意见，供相关人员参考。     

Trends in country and gender representation on editorial boards in anaesthesia journals: a pooled cross-sectional analysis

Evidence exists that women and people from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented on the editorial boards of medical journals. This may adversely influence the journal output. We conducted a pooled, cross-sectional evaluation of the editorial board membership of anaesthesia journals. We collected data on members of editorial boards from the founding year and at 5-yearly intervals until 2020. For each editor, we recorded gender, country of affiliation, World Bank income classification (1990 onwards) and editorial role (2020 only). The composite editorial board diversity score was calculated for each editorial board. We obtained complete data for the composition of editorial boards from all 30 journals for 2020, but for only 171 out of 304 editorial boards (56%) over the time period examined. In 2020, 409 out of 1973 (21%) were women (range across the editorial boards 0–39%) and 139 out of 1982 (7%) were from low-, low-middle- and upper-middle-income countries (range across the editorial boards 0–71%). In 2020, of editorial board positions with known seniority status, 109 out of 259 (42%) of women and 306 out of 960 (32%) of men were in senior roles. In the same year, 397 out of 1115 (36%) of people from high-income countries were in senior roles, compared with 19 out of 93 (20%) of people from upper-middle-income countries and 0 out of 14 (0%) people from lower-middle-income countries. The median composite editorial board diversity score was 4 (range 2–6) in 2020 – 5 or less suggests poor diversity, while 8 or more suggests good diversity. Women and people from low- and middle-income countries are under-represented on anaesthesia journal editorial boards. The editorial boards do not reflect the anaesthesia workforce and may act as a barrier to the publication of research produced by these groups. Urgent action is required to improve diversity.     

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.