4.5 Article

Secondary analysis of outcomes after 11,085 hip fracture operations from the prospective UK Anaesthesia Sprint Audit of Practice (ASAP-2)

Journal

ANAESTHESIA
Volume 71, Issue 5, Pages 506-514

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13415

Keywords

aging: cardiovascular physiology; lspinal anesthaesia: complications; spinal hypotension: treatment

Categories

Funding

  1. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP)
  2. National Institute for Health Research
  3. AAGBI
  4. Royal College of Anaesthetists through the NIAA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We re-analysed prospective data collected by anaesthetists in the Anaesthesia Sprint Audit of Practice (ASAP-1) to describe associations with linked outcome data. Mortality was 165/11,085 (1.5%) 5 days and 563/11,085 (5.1%) 30 days after surgery and was not associated with anaesthetic technique (general vs. spinal, with or without peripheral nerve blockade). The risk of death increased as blood pressure fell: the odds ratio (95% CI) for mortality within five days after surgery was 0.983 (0.973-0.994) for each 5 mmHg intra-operative increment in systolic blood pressure, p = 0.0016, and 0.980 (0.967-0.993) for each mmHg increment in mean pressure, p = 0.0039. The equivalent odds ratios (95% CI) for 30-day mortality were 0.968 (0.951-0.985), p = 0.0003 and 0.976 (0.964-0.988), p = 0.0001, respectively. The lowest systolic blood pressure after intrathecal local anaesthetic relative to before induction was weakly correlated with a higher volume of subarachnoid bupivacaine: r(2) -0.10 and -0.16 for hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine, respectively. A mean 20% relative fall in systolic blood pressure correlated with an administered volume of 1.44 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine. Future research should focus on refining standardised anaesthesia towards administering lower doses of spinal (and general) anaesthesia and maintaining normotension.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available