Well after a little bit of a hiatus (exam-based once again) we’re hopefully back for some regular blogging. When having a look at things to write about it looks like the topic of allergy will be a bit of a theme over the coming few months, for 2 big reasons. Firstly, the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) from the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCOA) is due to report on the 14th May. This time NAP is looking at perioperative anaphylaxis and will no doubt provide a wealth of new information on this (fortunately) rare complication. Whilst we will look at that report in more detail when it comes out, the current focus is on the upcoming DALES project. DALES stands for Drug Allergy Labelling in the Elective Surgical population, and is the 3rd annual project from the Research and Audit Federation of Trainees (RAFT). Us lot at NWRAG will be helping to deliver the project in the North West and we are currently continuing to recruit interested trainees (get in touch here if you are interested). This study is looking at better understanding the problems of drug ‘allergy’ labelling in patients, with the inverted commas and slight raise of the eyebrows being of particular interest here. This is because the application of an allergy label is frequently applied to non-allergy reactions (for instance well recognised side effects) and can interfere with clinical practice and good patient care. The problems that this is causing, and how anaesthetists interact with such labels, still has some unknown quantities, hence the role of this study. As such, I wanted to use this blog post and follow up ones to explore the background of this topic in a bit more detail.
Last week the team from the North West Research and Audit Group (NWRAG) were kindly invited to run the social media at the UK Perioperative Medicine Clinical Trials Network (POM CTN) autumn meeting. This year it was held in Manchester and brought together a wide range of speakers looking at the future of research in the realm of perioperative medicine. The aim of this blog is to provide a bit of a summary of a packed and interesting day, and ultimately to highlight some of the fascinating research that has been, and is planned to be, conducted in this field. More information on most of the topics is available on the POM CTN homepage (https://www.pomctn.org.uk/home), and we have tried to include some useful links throughout.
Hello everyone, and welcome back! Today’s post is going to be a little different from previous ones, as I want to use it to briefly introduce the upcoming North West Research and Audit Group (NWRAG) online journal club. As this is a slightly new concept, I wanted to spend a few minutes to talk through our plans to help the process easier for everyone to get involved with.
Hello, and welcome back! Firstly, I must apologise for such a prolonged absence. I can’t quite believe it has been so long since my last blog post but I seem to have managed to keep myself very busy with a number of things. Regardless, we shall crack on with having a look through the different critical care and anaesthesia literature out there that is waiting to be devoured. Given that I have currently just started a block of neuro-critical care, I felt it was a good time to have a look at some of the big studies in this area, especially as there have been a few interesting ones recently. Today I’ve opted to have a look at the RESCUEicp study which came out in September last year. The full text is available at the link below, and I’d definitely recommend having a look at it as well as just reading my rambling thoughts. I’ve also put together a more focused review of the paper here [link] if you want to read a bit more of the details.
The RESCUEicp Study
In last week’s journal club, we turned our gaze back to neuro critical care, with a paper that revisited the question of blood pressure control in acute intracerebral haemorrhage. It’s a scenario that is familiar to many of us; the systolic blood pressures well into the 200s in a patient with a new bleed in their head. Qureshi and colleagues have tried to revisit the question of what is the best way to respond to this through the ATACH2 trial (Antihypertensive Treatment in Acute Cerebral Haemorrhage II). The paper is available to read through the link below:
The ATACH2 Trial
The scene will be familiar to many of us; our patient is leaving the ICU after their brutal clash with sepsis. They were really, REALLY sick when they came in but you and the team have done an amazing job. Aggressive cardiovascular support, meticulous attention to lung protective ventilation, intensive physiotherapy – you’ve done a cracking job in maximising their chances and they’ve pulled through. They are now stepping down to the ward and it’s all smiles, best wishes and high fives around the room. Job well done team!
But wait, one of your junior trainees has pointed out that their 2 year mortality is actually quite affected by this illness, and they’re not out of the woods yet…
The mood darkens slightly. The party hats are taken off. Killjoy! Can’t we celebrate the little victories?
And yet this is where we are in intensive care medicine much of the time. A spell on the unit is hardly a spa weekend that renews your vigour and health – the acute illness process is just the start. This topic is the focus of the paper from our recent journal club, available open-access through the link below. Specifically, it looks at the impact of sepsis on our patients in the long term.
Prescott H et al. Late mortality after sepsis: propensity matched cohort study. BMJ. 2016. 353. i2375
A collection of our most recent posts on articles, guidelines and interesting thoughts.