1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

In this second article we examine the principles underlying delivery of the components of anaesthesia. Topics considered include anaesthetic technique, management of the airway and lung ventilation, induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, patient monitoring including the place of cardiac output devices. We summarise recent research on the management of shock and sepsis syndromes including goal directed therapy and examine some controversies around intravenous fluid therapy. Finally, we discuss intra-operative awareness and challenges during emergence including peri-operative cognitive dysfunction.

Choice of anaesthetic technique

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

Optimal anaesthetic technique is dependent upon an individualised assessment of patient and surgical requirements. Prospective, randomised, controlled trials of rival anaesthetic techniques, e.g. the GALA trial, are rare [1]. Emergency anaesthesia lacks this evidence base and extrapolations from meta-analyses typically fail to reach clear recommendations for clinicians [2]. The nature of surgery, patient co-morbidities, and urgency will frequently decide the anaesthetic choice but clinicians should remain mindful of the options of local or regional anaesthesia and sedation in appropriate patients, especially when a ‘lesser’ procedure becomes feasible e.g. percutaneous drainage.

Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

The fourth National Audit Project (NAP4) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists recorded the epidemiology and management of airway complications in UK practice and is essential reading [3]. It is emphasised that 25% of emergency airway management takes place outside operating theatres and since publication, several resources and recommendations have become available [4–6]. In the UK, out-of-theatre tracheal intubation frequently occurs in the absence of essential staff and equipment and capnography was not used in nearly a third of cases in a large observational study [7].

Both difficult laryngoscopy and difficult tracheal intubation are more common in emergency patients, often outside the theatre setting [8, 9]. One American study of non-theatre emergency tracheal intubation by experienced practitioners identified difficulties in over 10%, with over 4% suffering complications [10]. Predictors of complications included multiple attempts and poor views at laryngoscopy and intubation in a ward or emergency department setting. Human factors are increasingly recognised in airway complications and an unfamiliar environment during airway management is likely to be important [3].

Recommendations for prior planning for both airway management and airway disaster management form part of anaesthetists’ training in the UK [11, 12]. The distinction between an expansive management algorithm at the planning stage [13] and a ‘failed intubation drill’ with limited choices [14] is emphasised, yet ‘drill practice’ and simulation are typically rare in UK anaesthesia despite the need for establishing behavioural patterns in defined circumstances [15]. End-tidal capnography [16, 17] should support clinical examination for confirmation of airway placement and there were criticisms in NAP4 around interpretation of common capnograph recordings (e.g. cardiac arrest or airway obstruction) [3].

Emergency anaesthesia is often associated with delayed gastric emptying. Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents was the commonest (over 50%) anaesthetic cause of death in NAP4, although the majority occurred during supraglottic airway anaesthesia, and only once during rapid sequence induction [3]. The incidence of aspiration syndromes varies by definition and patient population and has been reported as 1 per 400 000 elective anaesthetics or 1 per 900 emergency anaesthetics [18], or collectively, 1 in 7000 [19]. One might expect the increasing need for surgery in the sick and more elderly population to increase the incidence of aspiration, but some workers identify this as relatively constant [20].

The top five factors implicated in aspiration in the Australian Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study were: emergency cases; inadequate anaesthesia; abdominal pathology; obesity; and opioid medication [21]. It remains intuitive that a lower pH and larger volume increase the severity of aspiration syndromes, classically > 25 ml at pH < 2.5 [22]. Furthermore, obesity and gastro-oesophageal reflux, both significant risk factors for regurgitation of gastric contents, are common, and their incidence is increasing [23, 24]. Recent peri-operative fasting times and guidelines [25, 26] often need to be disregarded for emergency anaesthesia and other aspects of airway management (e.g. a low threshold for tracheal intubation) are probably more important in preventing aspiration [27]. The identification of a full stomach during left upper quadrant ultrasound is familiar to most FAST practitioners and this non-invasive test has been described as a precursor to anaesthesia, although this is a ‘rule in’ test with poor correlation with gastric volume [28].

Before elective surgery, histamine-2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of aspiration syndromes [29]. Other interventions to reduce gastric contents volume and/or increase pH might intuitively reduce the risk and severity of pulmonary aspiration, including pre-surgery gastric tube drainage, use of post-pyloric feeding tubes and use of pro-kinetic therapy, although evidence is limited and extrapolated from other populations e.g. elective surgery, critical care or obstetrics [30–34]. The presence of a tracheal tube cannot guarantee airway protection and in cases of intestinal obstruction, intra-operative enterostomy and drainage may be preferable to ‘milking back’ large volumes of fluid that may bypass a nasogastric tube.

Cricoid pressure, described over 50 years ago, remains controversial in anaesthesia practice [35]. Although it forms part of mainstream practice in the UK, many countries do not use cricoid pressure and have similar reported incidences of aspiration [36, 37]. Conversely, some authorities suggest that cricoid pressure may increase the incidence of difficult laryngoscopy [38], failed intubation and regurgitation.

Emergence from anaesthesia and extubation are times during which the aspiration risk is higher, and clinicians should remain vigilant until patients are fully awake, with airway protective reflexes. The Difficult Airway Society (DAS) now recommends stratification of patients into ‘low-risk’ or ‘at-risk’ with distinct extubation algorithms to follow [39, 40]. Awake extubation is strongly recommended for both groups. Clinicians should have a low threshold for suspecting pulmonary aspiration, e.g. unexplained hypoxaemia, and a low threshold for planned admission to critical care facilities if this is suspected [41].

While beyond the scope of this article, the NAP4 report highlighted the high incidence of complications around tracheostomy management, often within the intensive care unit [3]. Guidelines and standards of care from the Intensive Care Society [42] and a number of resources are available alongside the NAP4 findings [5, 6].

The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

Managing an anatomically difficult or obstructed airway in the emergency setting in a patient at high risk of gastric aspiration presents one of the most challenging scenarios an anaesthetist can face. While a ‘rapid sequence induction’ (RSI) is arguably the ‘gold standard’ technique to secure the airway and avoid aspiration, it carries significant risks if laryngoscopy and/ or intubation fail. Failure to consider alternative techniques to secure the airway, in particular awake fibreoptic intubation, was highlighted by the NAP4 report [3].

Recent surveys have identified, that a significant number of anaesthetists, possibly the majority, employ ‘modifications’ to the ‘classical’ RSI and these are considered in Table 1 [43–45]. Factors promoting clinicians to modify their technique included obesity, risk of reflux and trauma [46, 47].

Table 1. Components of a ‘classical’ and ‘modified’ rapid sequence induction (RSI).
Classical RSIModified RSIComment
Pre-oxygenation and avoidance of mask ventilation until trachea intubatedLittle justification to omit pre-oxygenation but many clinicians attempt mask ventilation [45]The role of neuromuscular blockade in facilitating difficult mask ventilation is controversial [48]; many cases are made easier following blockade, but spontaneous ventilation becomes impossible
Induction agent thiopental and avoidance of other agentsAlternatives used e.g. propofol, ketamine, opioid adjuncts [15]Factors promoting this may include availability, preparation time, familiarity, perceived cardiovascular stability, risk of allergic reaction
Neuromuscular blocking agent suxamethoniumCommonly rocuronium is used in doses of 0.75–1.5−1 [15]The largely equivalent time to intubation must be balanced against the risk of ‘can’t intubate, can’t ventilate’. The availability of sugammadex may have altered the risk benefit ratio (see below).
Cricoid pressureOmittedThe ability of cricoid pressure to prevent reflux and possibly worsen the view at laryngoscopy make it controversial. Most UK clinicians do use cricoid pressure [36–38]
Direct laryngoscopy with Macintosh bladeMany clinicians routinely utilise alternative blades e.g. McCoy or select a videolaryngoscope or modified device (e.g. AirtraqTM)Grade 3 or 4 views at laryngoscopy are associated with failure to intubate and attendant risk of hypoxaemia and aspiration of gastric contents. Furthermore, in the presence of suspected cervical spine injury, modifications may reduce cervical spine excursions [49, 50]
Confirmation of tracheal intubation using capnographyThe only argument against routine use of capnography is its absolute lack of timely availabilityCapnography was strongly recommended in NAP4 and publications before and since [3, 5, 17]

Management of ventilation

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

The requirement for tracheal intubation for airway protection and neuromuscular blockade to facilitate cavity surgery lead to the common use of intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in emergency anaesthesia. Modern recommendations for IPPV have mostly derived from management during acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Many of these principles hold true during emergency anaesthesia as acute lung injury is the commonest cause of postoperative respiratory failure, and respiratory complications may exceed cardiac complications [51].

Modern ‘lung protective’ IPPV during ARDS suggests low tidal volumes of 6–8−1 (avoiding volutrauma) and limited inflation airway pressures < 30 cmH2O (avoiding barotrauma) [52–55]. More controversial is the selection of ‘high’ vs ‘low’ PEEP with limited evidence of benefit for higher values in critically ill patients [55–58], and little evidence to support clinicians during anaesthesia [59].

The deleterious effects of non-physiological IPPV have been reviewed previously [60]. In animal models, even 90 min of ‘non-injurious’ ventilation produces upregulation of pro-inflammatory genes and their products [61, 62]. It is of concern that tidal volumes > 10−1 may have damaging effects even after relatively short applications during human anaesthesia [63], and there are few circumstances where clinicians cannot limit tidal volumes to < 10−1 [64].

While permissive hypercapnia may be practised on intensive care [65], pre-existing acidosis, renal impairment, hyperkalaemia or elevated intracranial pressure may make this inappropriate during emergency surgery; the risk/benefits should be considered for each case.

The nature of the patient’s condition may carry significant implications for IPPV management. For example, a laparotomy and washout following a perforation may significantly reduce intra-abdominal pressure and aid IPPV, while conversely a polytrauma patient undergoing large volume resuscitation may develop intra-abdominal compartment syndrome, making IPPV more challenging. The management of intra-abdominal compartment syndrome is considered elsewhere [66], and simple adjuncts, e.g. a nasogastric tube, should be considered as one only needs to restore the abdomen to the compliant part of its pressure-volume relationship, rather than achieve complete decompression [67].

Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

UK practice for the majority of emergency cases will be to employ a form of RSI as discussed above. A national survey in 2001 found that thiopental and suxamethonium were the most widely used drugs for RSI. Propofol and rocuronium were used by more than a third of respondents and most (75%) routinely administered an opioid [15], and modifications seem to persist [47].

Historically etomidate, an imidazole ester, was popular for induction in cardiovascularly unstable, septic or shocked patients, due to its lesser effect as a circulatory depressant. Concerns regarding the safety of etomidate have been sustained [68] due to its effects on 11 β-hydroxylation in the steroid synthetic pathway; however, adrenal dysfunction in critical illness is a complex disorder [69]. Prolonged infusions were recognised to increase mortality [70], and even single bolus dose administration in the critically ill may be harmful [71, 72]. While the adrenal suppressant effect is largely accepted, the clinical implications of this are less clear, and support for the choice of etomidate in emergencies continues [73]. In retrospective analysis of septic shock patients, less cardiovascular depression was observed without significantly increased mortality or effect of steroid therapy following etomidate [74]. The controversy around etomidate is reinforced by equivocal findings following steroid replacement in critically ill patients with adrenal suppression [75, 76].

Ketamine, a phencyclidine derivative, has made a significant resurgence in emergency practice. Ketamine has many ‘ideal’ qualities for an intravenous induction agent, with analgesia and a sympathomimetic effect (and indirect haemodynamic stability) both considered positive. The risks of emergence phenomena, nausea and vomiting are minimised by prolonged postoperative sedation in intensive care. A French study demonstrated that adrenal insufficiency following even single dose etomidate was increased and that ketamine is a safe alternative to use [77]. It is certainly our routine practice to use ketamine, including in cases where raised intracranial pressure may be a risk or actually present, in all RSIs where cardiovascular instability is anticipated [78].

A variety of alternative selections and combinations are used in clinical practice and perhaps under-represented in the literature. Reduced dose thiopental [79], propofol, midazolam plus opioid combinations are frequently used in the UK during RSI [15]. Propofol is the most common induction agent for out-of-theatre tracheal intubation in the UK [7]. Induction agent choice has not been related to outcome for patients undergoing RSI in the emergency department who are subsequently admitted to intensive care units, although the risks of developing hypotension and receiving a vasopressor at induction were greatest for propofol, and etomidate may have increased mortality before patient matching [80]. Propofol is frequently considered as an appropriate agent for emergency anaesthesia but there are strong pharmacokinetic and dynamic considerations that argue against this, and some workers suggest that in the presence of haemorrhagic shock, propofol doses should be reduced to 10–20% of an ‘elective’ dose should [81]. Furthermore, the vagotonic effects of phenylpiperidene opioids may be especially poorly tolerated and patients may require an element of tachycardia to maintain cardiac output, especially with relative hypovolaemia. A recent study in non-critically ill patients (ASA 1-2, elective surgery) has demonstrated improved haemodynamic effects of combination ketamine 0.75−1 and propofol 1.5−1 named ‘Ketofol’ as an admixture administered from a 20 ml syringe for induction; this combination certainly requiring further study [82].

It is common practice in the elective setting to check if manual ventilation is possible before administering a neuromuscular blocking drug (NBD) over concerns of a ‘can’t intubate, can’t ventilate’ (CICV) scenario. This is a controversial area and some workers argue that ‘check ventilation’ lacks rationale and may increase patient risk [48]. It is interesting that NBDs during RSI are classically administered without ‘check ventilation’. Certainly NAP4 recommended that no patient should undergo salvage airway (e.g. cricothyroid access) during CICV without prior administration of NBDs [3].

The choice of rapid onset NBD has evolved from exclusive use of suxamethonium, with the advent of sugammadex offering the potential of rapid and complete reversal of aminosteroid NBDs e.g. rocuronium or vecuronium. A large UK trial demonstrated equivalence in intubating conditions at 50 s between rocuronium 1−1 and suxamethonium 1−1 [83], and a comparison of rocuronium 0.6−1 vs suxamethonium 1.0−1 showed no significant difference in the rate of acceptable intubating conditions in patients for emergency surgery [84]. When compared with rocuronium during RSI, suxamethonium was considered clinically superior by a Cochrane review panel as it had a shorter duration of action [85]. However, this must be considered cautiously for the patient that cannot be woken due to surgical condition or pre-induction physiology (e.g. aortic aneurysm rupture, apnoeic head injury etc.), or contraindications to suxamethonium (e.g. hyperkalaemia, muscle crush injury, malignant hyperthermia etc.).

Sugammadex is a cyclic gamma dextrin with the ability to reverse deep neuromuscular paralysis with rocuronium, and is of interest in this context where airway strategy entails ‘waking the patient up’ and restoring spontaneous ventilation [14]. This topic has undergone review previously [86]. Lee et al. have shown that reversal of neuromuscular blockade by sugammadex (16−1) is significantly faster than spontaneous recovery from low dose suxamethonium (1−1) when given exactly 3 min following rocuronium 1.2−1 [87]. Furthermore, the time to onset of spontaneous ventilation following placement of the tracheal tube was significantly faster following combination of rocuronium (1−1) and sugammadex (16−1) than with low dose suxamethonium (1−1). However, simulation evidence suggests that rocuronium followed by sugammadex ‘salvage’ is unrealistic in current anaesthetic practice [88]: the mean time from decision to administration in a CICV situation was 6.7 min (SD 1.5 min), following which a further 2.2 min would be required to achieve a train-of-four ratio of 0.9. In addition to this, task focus and distraction may lead to a failure to decide or use the sugammadex in a timely fashion, leaving a desaturating patient with profound neuromuscular blockade and no spontaneous ventilation.

The course of action in a rocuronium or suxamethonium ‘CICV’ scenario is the restoration of oxygenation and shortly thereafter ventilation [12]. If circumstances dictate that patients are not appropriate to ‘wake up’ following CICV, they should not undergo cricothyroid access until a NBD has been given, even if this was not the first line plan, as a proportion of these patients may become possible to ventilate. It should be emphasised that restoration of neuromuscular function does not ensure the patient will be able to ventilate, especially if airway obstruction exists [89]. Similarly, following the decision to wake a patient up, if deterioration continues prompt administration of a NBD should be considered. Retrospective data suggest that cricothyroid access using small bore cannula and high pressure ventilation are associated with unacceptable failure rates in delivering both oxygenation and ventilation [3]. Use of an incision and > 4 mm airway, either as small (6.0 mm) tracheal tube or large bore cannula (e.g. QuicktrachTM, Teleflex Medical, Rusch, Durham, NC, USA) enable oxygenation, exhalation and ventilation and can be delivered through conventional ventilation systems (< 60 cmH2O pressure).

Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

Before emergency anaesthesia, equipment, medications and monitoring should be checked; a revised checklist for anaesthetic equipment is available from the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) [90]. Of particular note is that a ‘two-bag test’ should be performed and a self-inflating bag must be immediately available in any location where anaesthesia is conducted. The 2007 AAGBI monitoring guidelines are established and familiar to most anaesthetists (Table 2) [16].

Table 2. AAGBI essential monitoring devices for safe conduct of anaesthesia [16].
  1. NBD, neuromuscular blocking drug

Induction and maintenance of anaesthesia
  Pulse oximeter   Non invasive blood pressure monitor   Electrocardiograph   Airway gases: oxygen, carbon dioxide and vapour   Airway pressure
The following must also be available
  A nerve stimulator whenever a NBD is used   A means of measuring a patient’s temperature

The UK National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data reports over 300 anaesthesia incidents per annum related to equipment and probably reflects under-reporting. Almost 40% of critical incidents concern monitoring, most commonly screen failure, whilst nearly 18% involve problems with IPPV [91]. The recent NAP4 report described a deficiency in the use and interpretation of monitors during anaesthesia outside of theatres [3].

‘Additional monitors’ in the AAGBI guidance may include invasive devices e.g. arterial and central venous pressure monitors, pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) and the range of cardiac output monitors currently available, urethral catheters, continuous temperature monitoring devices and occasionally intracranial or abdominal pressure monitors.

Cardiac output monitoring is increasingly used in emergency surgery, and is also recommended for use in high-risk elective cases; however, the uptake of such technology is slow [92] and clinicians may be guided by experience and anecdote rather than evidence and guidelines [93–95]. Much of the evidence around cardiac output monitoring in emergency anaesthesia has been extrapolated from studies in the critically ill using PACs. The landmark PACMan trial demonstrated no mortality benefit following insertion of PACs in ICU patients (compared with the 80% of patients with an alternative device) associated with a 10% complication rate [96]. A Cochrane systematic review of 12 randomised controlled studies could not demonstrate a beneficial effect of PACs on mortality, cost of care, or hospital length of stay in either patients on general ICUs or a subgroup of high-risk surgical patients [97], and a Health Technology Assessment concluded that ongoing routine costs could not be justified [98]. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider the PAC and cardiac output debate, which has largely been rendered obsolete by clinicians avoiding routine PAC placement. However, many of the failings of routine PAC use are being replicated with alternative ‘semi-’ or ‘non-invasive’ devices and the benefit of routine cardiac output monitoring in the critically ill remains controversial [99].

Oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM) for peri-operative fluid optimisation has been evaluated in elective bowel and cardiac surgery, and fractured neck of femur surgery, demonstrating reduced hospital stays [100–102]. It is recommended by NICE for use in patients undergoing major or high-risk surgery, or other surgical patients in whom a clinician would consider using invasive cardiac monitoring [103]. However, there are methodological concerns over its ability to direct care in the presence of vasoactive infusions and in terms of other outcomes beyond hospital stay in elective surgery, the evidence is limited. Similarly, a recent Health Technology Assessment highlighted the need for ongoing research [104]. It is a fallacy to expect any monitor to improve patient outcomes; rather it is the therapy it directs which holds this potential. With this in mind a recent review highlighted the difficulty in identifying the correct type of fluid to use in combination with the ODM and that harm with colloid strategies could not be excluded [105]. Indeed, more recent work could not demonstrate a benefit of ODM guided care and raised the possibility of hydroxyethyl starch related harm [106]. There remains controversy over the use of ODM in clinical practice [107].

Echocardiography is an imaging modality that allows diagnosis and haemodynamic monitoring and recent development of a UK training pathway and imminent inclusion in critical care training curriculum will see its use increase [108]. Echocardiography encompasses two complimentary approaches: transthoracic or (TTE) and transoesophageal (TOE) and has been considered previously [109]. TOE is routinely used during cardiac anaesthesia and lends itself to continuous patient monitoring where access may limit TTE e.g. during a laparotomy. Beyond cardiac output data, it also allows a direct view of cardiac physiology and a number of simplified algorithms to allow haemodynamic assessment and diagnosis exist with courses to support training [110–112]. TOE has been shown to influence diagnostic and management decisions and the range of indications, that include elements of emergency anaesthesia, is expanding [113, 114]. TOE has an expanding role for peri-operative monitoring in high-risk general surgical patients but requires extensive training, and equipment is both expensive to purchase and semi-invasive with finite complications. A second generation of smaller TOE devices, often with restricted scanning planes and limited to 2-D imaging, is becoming available and these are currently undergoing evaluation by NICE (personal communication, 13/09/2012). Currently, however, there is little evidence to confirm the presumed intuitive benefit of echocardiography, and the decision to use the device must be made on an individual basis.

An alternative approach to assessing cardiac output is to infer the ‘adequacy’ of oxygen delivery and identify markers of potential cell ischaemia. A number of devices are available, with increasing supportive evidence for their use, including near infrared spectroscopy [115–118], orthogonal polarised spectroscopy [119, 120], tissue perfusion monitors, sublingual capnography and gastric tonometry, microdialysis catheters [121], and continuous non-invasive blood/biochemical sampling. These devices are best regarded as research based, with very plausible theoretical groundings, but their place in routine management of emergency patients has not been defined. The identification of lactate as a prognostic variable and potential therapeutic target has been considered in our acompanying article. Recent evidence suggests that rapidity of normalisation is likely to infer further prognostic details [122].

Managing the circulation and shock

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

It is beyond the scope of this article to consider fully all aspects of shock and haemodynamic disturbance that could manifest during emergency anaesthesia, and that are largely specific to the condition e.g. severe sepsis vs traumatic haemorrhage vs peri-operative myocardial infarction. However, as early as the 1970s Shoemaker et al. identified convective oxygen delivery variables associated with outcome in the critically ill, so called ‘survivor values’ (cardiac index > 4.5 l.min−1.m−2, oxygen delivery index > 1000 ml.min−1.m−2 and oxygen consumption index > 170 ml.min−1.m−2) [123, 124]. It was hypothesised that if therapy could ‘drive’ patients to reach these values their outcomes might improve. The interest in strategies including ‘goal directed’, ‘optimisation’, ‘supranormal’ continues and remains controversial. There is consistent evidence that an optimisation strategy can improve outcomes as long as it is delivered before the onset of cell ischaemia and organ failure [125, 126]. Recent evidence for immunomodulating effects are conflicting [127, 128], and some workers have demonstrated other benefits e.g. on gastro-intestinal function [129]. There is equal evidence that such strategies delivered after the onset are largely unsuccessful, making extrapolations from the elective high-risk setting challenging [130, 131]. There remain many controversies within peri-operative optimisation [132–134] even in the elective setting, and studies are ongoing [107, 135], including studies in emergency patients [136].

The benefit of an early (< 6 h) goal-directed strategy in sepsis was suggested by Tuchschmidt et al. and confirmed by Rivers et al., and this was one of the founding interventions of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign resuscitation bundle [54, 137, 138]. This study demonstrated significant benefits through a strategy of optimising haemodynamic status and markers of tissue oxygenation but as a landmark single centre study it requires to be reproduced by other workers, and a number of trials are ongoing [139, 140].

Modern haemodynamic management encompasses contemporaneous pressure (e.g. mean arterial pressure (MAP)) and flow measurements on a global (cardiac output) and regional (e.g. splanchnic) basis. The optimal target for each parameter requires individualisation and rigid recommendations for practice are inappropriate. Most authorities would aim to maintain MAP > 65 mmHg [54, 141, 142], and a small study of critically ill patients targeting a MAP of 85 vs 65 mmHg did not improve clinical outcomes [143]. However, in theatre and in ICU, a MAP higher than 65 mmHg may be appropriate for those with chronic hypertension or compromised end organ perfusion e.g. raised intracranial pressure [144], and peri-operative hypotension has been adversely associated with outcomes in aortic vascular emergencies [145].

However, one of the principal goals of detailed haemodynamic monitoring is to allow individualised vasoactive and fluid therapy. While the principles of inotrope therapy are familiar to all anaesthetists, there is relatively limited evidence to guide this important class of drugs. An excellent review of vasopressor and inotrope use in septic shock has been published recently [146]. Catecholamine infusions remain the mainstay of vasoactive support for most forms of shock refractory to fluid therapy alone. More recent studies of vasoactive therapies are summarised in the Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of main findings in recent vasoactive therapy studies.
StudyComparisonMain findingsComments
Annane D et al. [147]Dual therapy inotrope dobutamine and noradrenaline vs adrenaline monotherapyNo difference outcomes, no difference metabolic conditionsAdrenaline monotherapy established as a treatment option
Russell JA et al. [148] VASST studyComparison of escalating doses of combined noradrenaline and vasopressin in refractory shockNo difference2012 meta-analysis of nine trials (includes Russell JA et al.) involving terlipressin or vasopressin with noradrenaline showed vasopressin to be safe and associated with a reduced mortality in adults and those with septic shock [149]
De Backer et al. [150] SOAP II StudyComparison of haemodynamic therapy noradrenaline vs dopamineNo significant difference mortalityHigher rates tachyarrythmias with dopamine and excess mortality in cardiogenic shock

Despite the above studies the optimal selection of inotropic agents remains challenging. In a retrospective series, no patient requiring four or more vasoactive agents survived [151]. Recent interest around dopexamine, with its proposed ability to preserve splanchnic perfusion, has perhaps declined, and its role in peri-operative optimisation remains controversial [152–154]. A major limitation of catecholamine inotropes is positive chronotropy, and elegant theoretical arguments propose that the negative chronotropic actions of beta blockade may be combined with post-adrenoceptor phosphodiesterase inhibitor stimulation of cAMP production and positive inotropy, but the impact on clinical outcomes remains obscure [155]. The landmark POISE trial evaluated the place of beta blockade in elective surgery, concluding that although peri-operative myocardial infarction was reduced, stroke and overall mortality was increased in those given beta blockers peri-operatively [156]. The results of the VASST trial [148] were unable to confirm a benefit to adding (non-catecholamine) vasopressin to escalating doses of noradrenaline in the critically ill, although more recent meta-analysis suggests some outcome benefits for vasopressin and terlipressin as alternative vasopressors [149].

An adjunct to inotropic support in the critically ill entails steroid replacement. Previous studies had established that adrenal insufficiency may be prognostic and supplementation produces faster resolution of shock [157]. The CORTICUS trial, however, established that the short synACTHEN test lacked prognostic value and steroid supplementation may reduce the duration of vasoactive support at the expense of secondary infections [76]. Furthermore, the components of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign management bundles require urgent re-evaluation as tight glycaemic control and drotrecogin alfa have been challenged by more recent studies [158–161], with the latter withdrawn by its manufacturer.

Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

Despite multiple international studies, evidence for the optimal intravenous fluid for peri-operative resuscitation remains elusive, but consensus guidelines do exist [162]. Evidence for restrictive fluid management during elective surgery is conflicting [163–168], and accepting the contrast to the elective setting [169], an individualised strategy is appropriate during emergency anaesthesia. There is an emerging consensus in trauma management that avoidance of excessive non-blood product administration (i.e. synthetic colloid and crystalloid) around a strategy of damage control surgery improves outcome [170, 171]; this has not been established in sepsis management where fluid volumes administered may be much higher, but the correct volume to administer remains ill-defined [172, 173]. However, many workers have suggested benefit to prompt resuscitation following trauma and so ‘permissive hypotension’ and delayed resuscitation must be based around early surgical control to allow more complete resuscitation [174].

The largest trial of crystalloid (0.9% saline) vs colloid (iso-oncotic albumin) was the SAFE study and it remains the definitive study awaiting the results of the CHEST study in late 2012 (J. Myburgh, personal communication) [175, 176]. SAFE failed to demonstrate an overall benefit of colloids but identified a trend to harm with colloid in trauma and benefit in sepsis. However, contrary to classical teaching, administered crystalloid volumes were only 1.4:1 of colloid for comparable clinical effects, questioning fundamental assumptions of fluid compartments, transvascular movement and fluid kinetics; this subject has recently been reviewed [177].

While awaiting the findings of CHEST there is little evidence of superiority over crystalloid and consistent concerns regarding the safety of hydroxyethyl starch suspensions and harm cannot be excluded [105, 159, 178, 179]. Furthermore, much of the HES work is being re-appraised following the retraction of prominent research by Boldt et al. (see

Many researchers and clinicians remain concerned by the entity of hyperchloraemic acidosis following large volume crystalloid resuscitation. The clinical impact of this phenomenon is unclear [180], as it is for many classes of metabolic acidosis [181], but the GIFTASUP guidelines recommend balanced salt solutions to avoid it [162].

The optimal haemoglobin concentration remains a controversial value and an individualised approach is recommended. The landmark TRICC trial suggesting that a restrictive transfusion trigger < 7.0 g.dl−1 was safe and beneficial in established and perhaps ‘milder’ critical illness with most patients having APACHE < 20 [182]; this study forms the basis of a recent Cochrane review [183]. Clinical guidelines for transfusion are available from 2009 for trauma and critical illness [184]. This is markedly different to the dynamic situation in theatres where ongoing haemorrhage, elderly patients and significant comorbidities may make this trigger too low. Indeed, within US critical care units, transfusion practice remained relatively unaffected by lower triggers after publication of the TRICC trial [185]. The recent FOCUS trial of peri-operative transfusion in fractured neck of femur patients at risk of cardiovascular events demonstrated no benefit in transfusion thresholds of 10 g.dl−1 vs 8 g.dl−1 [186]. Extrapolation to bleeding general surgical patients is difficult yet, where feasible, intra-operative cell salvage, anti-fibrinolytic therapy and prompt surgical haemostasis alongside an individualised transfusion trigger are guiding principles. The use of transfused blood stored for > 2 weeks remains UK practice and whether this affects outcomes is unclear, with suggestions of harm with both ‘older’ and ‘fresher’ blood products in differing analyses [187–189]. This remains an important clinical question that the Age of Blood Evaluation trial hopes to answer in due course [190]. The UK Defence Medical Services routinely use blood under this age [191] and while older blood may be perceived to have inferior oxygen transfer capabilities (e.g. depletion of 2,3-diphosphoglycerate) [192] a small study of patients suffering traumatic brain injury demonstrated that transfusion of UK-stored blood improved cerebral oxygenation markers within hours of transfusion [193].

Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

Awareness under anaesthesia is a subject that is challenging to consider and has been reviewed previously [194–196]. Concealed within a reported incidence of 0.1–0.2% it is well recognised that during emergency anaesthesia it may be especially prevalent. Factors increasing the risk of awareness include ASA 3-4 status, children, previous substance abuse, obstetrics, lack of benzodiazepine or neuromuscular blockade and ‘out of hours’ and emergency cases [194]. Estimates of awareness are further undermined by lack of routine post-operative screening. Reduced anaesthetic doses (in the face of haemodynamic instability) are probably the most common cause and of note, in 23% of cases no volatile or intravenous anaesthetic was administered, although this review found no association with NBDs. Most awareness was during maintenance, with only 4.5% reported at induction or with prolonged laryngoscopy [197].

No ‘ideal’ depth of anaesthesia monitor exists and it is perhaps troubling that most anaesthetists spend their working lives administering titrated drugs with no target organ monitoring. The various techniques and technologies available include the isolated forearm technique, and both electroencephalograph-derived and auditory evoked potential-derived signals; these have been reviewed previously [198]. Their effectiveness and role in preventing awareness are controversial and affected by the anaesthetic technique or agents employed. A recent study of electroencephalographic bispectral index monitoring to guide general anaesthesia in a population at high risk of awareness did not reduce this incidence [199] in direct contrast to the B-AWARE study [200]. Depth of anaesthesia monitors are subject of current guidance in development from NICE [201].

The use of end-tidal volatile anaesthetic concentrations has advantages and 0.7 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC50) is considered a level where awareness is highly unlikely [202], although the exact dose cannot be known [195] and some workers suggest 0.5 MAC [203]. In the study by Avidan et al., 75% of patients were managed at < 0.7 MAC with no reported awareness [199]. Nonetheless, regardless of haemodynamic instability, there is broad consensus not to reduce volatile anaesthetic < 0.7 MAC, and this would seem reasonable in emergency and non-emergency settings. Currently, the fifth UK National Audit Project NAP5 is collecting data on accidental awareness in association with general anaesthesia and its findings are eagerly awaited [204].

Postoperative care – the problematic recovery

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References

There is increasing recognition of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and delirium, especially amongst the elderly. These are important conditions that consistently worsen patient outcomes, but are, in practice, difficult both to avoid and to manage [205]. The impact of general anaesthesia on these conditions, relative to regional anaesthesia, is controversial, with conflicting evidence that general anaesthesia produces more short-term delirium and confusion, and little evidence that these changes are significantly different at six months [206–210]. Anaesthetists must be mindful of the high risk that emergency surgical patients have for developing delirium and POCD, and the negative impact this has on outcome, although many contributing factors, e.g. age, use of opioids etc. may be challenging to modify [211, 212].


  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Choice of anaesthetic technique
  4. Management and protection of the airway including pulmonary aspiration
  5. The rapid sequence induction: evolution over time
  6. Management of ventilation
  7. Induction of anaesthesia and pharmacology
  8. Patient monitoring: not just the vital signs
  9. Managing the circulation and shock
  10. Intravenous fluid therapy – which fluid and how much?
  11. Maintenance of anaesthesia and awareness
  12. Postoperative care – the problematic recovery
  13. Competing interests
  14. References
  • 1
    GALA Trial Collaborative Group. General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Lancet2008; 372: 213242.
  • 2
    Parker MJ, Handoll HH, Griffiths R. Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2004; 4: CD000521.
  • 3
    The Royal College of Anaesthetists and The Difficult Airway Society. 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and The Difficult Airway Society: Major complications of airway management in the United Kingdom, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 4
    Woodall N, Frerk C, Cook TMCan we make airway management (even) safer? – lessons from national audit. Anaesthesia2011; 66 (Suppl. 2): 2733.
  • 5
    Nolan JP, Kelly FE. Airway challenges in critical care. Anaesthesia2011; 66 (Suppl. 2): 8192.
  • 6
    McGrath BA, Bates L, Atkinson D, Moore JA. Multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of tracheostomy and laryngectomy airway emergencies. Anaesthesia2012; 67: 102541.
  • 7
    Bowles TM, Freshwater-Turner DA, Janssen DJ, Peden CJ. Out-of-theatre tracheal intubation: prospective multicentre study of clinical practice and adverse events. British Journal of Anaesthesia2011; 107: 68792.
  • 8
    Benedetto WJ, Hess DR, Gettings E, et al.Urgent tracheal intubation in general hospital units: an observational study. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia2007; 19: 204.
  • 9
    Jaber S, Amraoui J, Lefrant JY, et al.Clinical practice and risk factors for immediate complications of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center study. Critical Care Medicine2006; 34: 235561.
  • 10
    Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S3,423 emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital: airway outcomes and complications. Anesthesiology2011; 114: 428.
  • 11
    The Royal College of Anaesthetists. Curriculum for a CCT in anaesthetics. 2nd Edition. London: The Royal College of Anaesthetists, 2010. (accessed 15/10/2012).
  • 12
    Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, Pearce AC. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia2004; 59: 67594.
  • 13
    The Difficult Airway Society. Difficult Airway Society Guidelines. Strategy for intubation by direct laryngoscopy, no predicted airway problem, no risk of regurgitation, 2004. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 14
    The Difficult Airway Society. Difficult Airway Society Guidelines. Rapid sequence induction, non-pregnant adult patient, no predicted difficulty, 2004. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 15
    Morris J, Cook TM. Rapid sequence induction: a national survey of practice. Anaesthesia2001; 56: 10907.
  • 16
    Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery, 4th edn. London: AAGBI, 2007. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 17
    The Intensive Care Society. Standards for Capnography in Critical Care. London: ICS, 2009. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 18
    Warner MA, Warner ME, Weber JG. Clinical significance of pulmonary aspiration during the perioperative period. Anesthesiology1993; 78: 5662.
  • 19
    Sakai T, Planinsic RM, Quinlan JJ, Handley LJ, Kim TY, Hilmi IA. The incidence and outcome of perioperative pulmonary aspiration in a university hospital: a 4-year retrospective analysis. Anesthesia and Analgesia2006; 103: 9417.
  • 20
    Ng A, Smith G. Gastroesophageal reflux and aspiration of gastric contents in anaesthetic practice. Anesthesia and Analgesia2001; 93: 494513.
  • 21
    Kluger MT, Short TG. Aspiration during anaesthesia: a review of 133 cases from the Australian Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). Anaesthesia1999; 54: 1926.
  • 22
    Roberts RB, Shirley MA. Reducing the risk of acid aspiration during cesarean section. Anesthesia and Analgesia1974; 53: 85968.
  • 23
    NHS The information Centre for Health and Social Care. Health Survey for England 2010, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 24
    Dent J, El-Serag HB, Wallander MA, Johansson S. Epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Gut2005; 54: 7107.
  • 25
    Royal College of Nursing. Perioperative fasting in adults and children. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 26
    Brady M, Kinn S, Stuart P. Preoperative fasting for adults to prevent perioperative complications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2003; 4: CD004423.
  • 27
    Levy DM. Pre-operative fasting – 60 years on from Mendelson. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain2006; 6: 2158.
  • 28
    Perlas A, Davis L, Khan M, Mitsakakis N, Chan VW. Gastric sonography in the fasted surgical patient: a prospective descriptive study. Anesthesia and Analgesia2011; 113: 937.
  • 29
    Puig I, Calzado S, Suárez D, Sánchez-Delgado J, López S, Calvet X. Meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors for reducing aspiration risk during anaesthesia depending on the administration route and schedule. Pharmacological Research2012; 65: 48090.
  • 30
    Hong JY. Effects of metoclopramide and ranitidine on preoperative gastric contents in day-case surgery. Yonsei Medical Journal2006; 47: 3158.
  • 31
    Orr DA, Bill KM, Gillon KR, Wilson CM, Fogarty DJ, Moore J. Effects of omeprazole, with and without metoclopramide, in elective obstetric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia1993; 48: 1149.
  • 32
    Stuart JC, Kan AF, Rowbottom SJ, Yau G, Gin T. Acid aspiration prophylaxis for emergency caesarean section. Anaesthesia1996; 51: 41521.
  • 33
    Itkin M, DeLegge MH, Fang JC, et al.Multidisciplinary Practical Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Access for Enteral Nutrition and Decompression From the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, With Endorsement by Canadian Interventional Radiological Association (CIRA) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). Gastroenterology2011; 141: 74265.
  • 34
    Deane AM, Fraser RJ, Chapman MJ. Prokinetic drugs for feed intolerance in critical illness: current and potential therapies. Critical Care and Resuscitation2009; 11: 13243.
  • 35
    Sellick BA. Cricoid pressure to control regurgitation of stomach contents during induction of anaesthesia. Lancet1961; 2: 4046.
  • 36
    Brimacombe JR, Berry AM. Cricoid pressure. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia1997; 44: 41425.
  • 37
    Ellis DY, Harris T, Zideman D. Cricoid pressure in emergency department rapid sequence tracheal intubations: a risk-benefit analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine2007; 50: 65365.
  • 38
    Levitan RM, Kinkle WC, Levin WJ, Everett WW. Laryngeal view during laryngoscopy: a randomized trial comparing cricoid pressure, backward-upward-rightward pressure, and bimanual laryngoscopy. Annals of Emergency Medicine2006; 47: 54855.
  • 39
    Popat M, Mitchell V, Dravid R, Patel A, Swampillai C, Higgs A. Difficult Airway Society Guidelines for the management of tracheal extubation. Anaesthesia2012; 67: 31840.
  • 40
    The Difficult Airway Society. Difficult Airway Society Extubation Algorithm, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 41
    Kluger MT, Visvanathan T, Myburgh JA, Westhorpe RN. Crisis management during anaesthesia: regurgitation, vomiting, and aspiration. Quality and Safety in Health Care2005; 14: e4.
  • 42
    The Intensive Care Society. Standards and Guidelines. Standards for the care of adult patients with a temporary tracheostomy. London: ICS, 2008.
  • 43
    Koerber JP, Roberts GEW, Whitaker R, Thorpe CM. Variation in rapid sequence induction techniques: current practice in Wales. Anaesthesia2009; 64: 549.
  • 44
    Halai M, Ramnarine N, McGuire B. Rapid sequence induction: an evolving beast. Anaesthesia2009; 64: 785.
  • 45
    Brown JP, Werrett G. Bag-mask ventilation in rapid sequence induction. Anaesthesia2009; 64: 7845.
  • 46
    Ehrenfeld JM, Cassedy EA, Forbes VE, Mercaldo ND, Sandberg WS. Modified rapid sequence induction and intubation: a survey of United States current practice. Anesthesia and Analgesia2012; 115: 95101.
  • 47
    Walker J, Vaughton A, Baker S, Knipe M, Lilley G. Induction for rapid sequence induction: a tri-deanery survey. Anaesthesia2012; 67: 67980.
  • 48
    Calder I, Yentis SM. Could ‘safe practice’ be compromising safe practice? Should anaesthetists have to demonstrate that face mask ventilation is possible before giving a neuromuscular blocker?Anaesthesia2008; 63: 1135.
  • 49
    Prasarn ML, Conrad B, Rubery PT, et al.Comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in a cadaver model with global ligamentous instability at C5–C6. Spine2012; 37: 47681.
  • 50
    Turkstra TP, Craen RA, Pelz DM, Gelb AW. Cervical spine motion: a fluoroscopic comparison during intubation with lighted stylet, GlideScope, and Macintosh laryngoscope. Anesthesia and Analgesia2005; 101: 9105.
  • 51
    Fernández-Pérez ER, Sprung J, Afessa B, et al.Intraoperative ventilator settings and acute lung injury after elective surgery: a nested case control study. Thorax2009; 64: 1217.
  • 52
    The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine2000; 342: 13018.
  • 53
    Girard TD, Bernard GR. Mechanical ventilation in ARDS: a state-of-the-art review. Chest2007; 131: 9219.
  • 54
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, et al.Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Critical Care Medicine2008; 36: 296327.
  • 55
    Villar J, Kacmarek RM, Pérez-Méndez L, Aguirre-Jaime A. A high positive end-expiratory pressure, low tidal volume ventilatory strategy improves outcome in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Critical Care Medicine2006; 34: 13118.
  • 56
    Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, et al.Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine2004; 351: 32736.
  • 57
    Mercat A, Richard JM, Vielle B, et al.Positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association2008; 299: 64655.
  • 58
    Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, et al.Ventilation strategy using low tidal volumes, recruitment maneuvers, and high positive end-expiratory pressure for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association2008; 299: 63745.
  • 59
    Imberger G, McIlroy D, Pace NL, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Møller AM. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during anaesthesia for the prevention of mortality and postoperative pulmonary complications. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2010; 9: CD007922.
  • 60
    Kilpatrick B, Slinger P. Lung protective strategies in anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia2010; 105 (Suppl. 1): i10816.
  • 61
    Ng CSH, Song Wan, Ho AMH, Underwood MJ. Gene expression changes with a ‘non-injurious’ ventilation strategy. Critical Care2009; 13: 403.
  • 62
    Wolthuis EK, Vlaar APJ, Choi G, Roelofs JJTH, Juffermans NP, Schultz MJ. Mechanical ventilation using non-injurious ventilation settings causes lung injury in the absence of pre-existing lung injury in healthy mice. Critical Care2009; 13: R1.
  • 63
    Lellouche F, Dionne S, Simard S, Bussières J, Dagenais F. High tidal volumes in mechanically ventilated patients increase organ dysfunction after cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology2012; 116: 107282.
  • 64
    Pelosi P, de Abreu MG. Tidal volumes during general anesthesia. Size does matter!Anesthesiology2012; 116: 9856.
  • 65
    Laffey JG, O’Croinin D, McLoughlin P, Kavanagh BP. Permissive hypercapnia – role in protective lung ventilatory strategies. Intensive Care Medicine2004; 30: 34756.
  • 66
    De Keulenaer BL, De Waele JJ, Malbrain ML. Nonoperative management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome: evolving concepts. American Surgeon2011; 77 (Suppl. 1): S3441.
  • 67
    Cheatham ML. Nonoperative management of intraabdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. World Journal of Surgery2009; 33: 111622.
  • 68
    Morris C, McAllister C. Etomidate for emergency anaesthesia; mad, bad and dangerous to know?Anaesthesia2005; 60: 73740.
  • 69
    Molenaar N, Bijkerk RM, Beishuizen A, et al.Steroidogenesis in the adrenal dysfunction of critical illness: impact of etomidate. Critical Care2012; 16: R121.
  • 70
    Watt I, Ledingham IM. Mortality amongst multiple trauma patients admitted to an intensive therapy unit. Anaesthesia1984; 39: 97381.
  • 71
    Absalom A, Pledger D, Kong A. Adrenocortical function in critically ill patients 24 h after a single dose of etomidate. Anaesthesia1999; 54: 8617.
  • 72
    Hildreth AN, Mejia VA, Maxwell RA, Smith PW, Dart BW, Barker DE. Adrenal suppression following a single dose of etomidate for rapid sequence induction: a prospective randomized study. Journal of Trauma2008; 65: 5739.
  • 73
    Hohl CM, Kelly-Smith CH, Yeung TC, Sweet DD, Doyle-Waters MM, Schulzer M. The effect of a bolus dose of etomidate on cortisol levels, mortality, and health services utilization: a systematic review. Annals of Emergency Medicine2010; 56: 10513.
  • 74
    Ray DC, McKeown DW. Effect of induction agent on vasopressor and steroid use, and outcome in patients with septic shock. Critical Care2007; 11: R56.
  • 75
    Gnull F, Ynull S. Pro/con debate: is etomidate safe in hemodynamically unstable critically ill patients?Critical Care2012; 16: 227.
  • 76
    Sprung CL, Annane D, Keh D, et al.Hydrocortisone therapy for patients with septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine2008; 358: 11124.
  • 77
    Jabre P, Combes X, Lapostolle F, et al.Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet2009; 374: 293300.
  • 78
    Morris C, Perris A, Klein J, Mahoney P. Anaesthesia in haemodynamically compromised emergency patients: does ketamine represent the best choice of induction agent?Anaesthesia2009; 64: 5329.
  • 79
    Fuchs-Buder T, Sparr HJ, Ziegenfuss T. Thiopental or etomidate for rapid sequence induction with rocuronium?British Journal of Anaesthesia1998; 80: 504.
  • 80
    Baird CR, Hay AW, McKeown DW, Ray DC. Rapid sequence induction in the emergency department: induction drug and outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Emergency Medicine Journal2009; 26: 576.
  • 81
    Shafer SL. Shock values. Anesthesiology2004; 101: 5678.
  • 82
    Smischney NJ, Beach ML, Loftus RW, Dodds TM, Koff MD. Ketamine/propofol admixture (Ketofol) is associated with improved hemodynamics as an induction agent: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery2012; 73: 94101.
  • 83
    Andrews JI, Kumar N, van den Brom RH, Olkkola KT, Roest GJ, Wright PM. A large simple randomized trial of rocuronium versus succinylcholine in rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia along with propofol. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica1999; 43: 48.
  • 84
    Larsen PB, Hansen EG, Jacobsen LS, et al.Intubation conditions after rocuronium or succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction with alfentanil and propofol in the emergency patient. European Journal of Anaesthesiology2005; 22: 74853.
  • 85
    Perry JJ, Lee JS, Sillberg VA, Wells GA. Rocuronium versus succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2008; 2: CD002788.
  • 86
    Chambers D, Paulden M, Paton F, et al.Sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular block after rapid sequence intubation: a systematic review and economic assessment. British Journal of Anaesthesia2010; 105: 56875.
  • 87
    Lee C, Jahr JS, Candiotti KA, Warriner B, Zornow MH, Naquib M. Reversal of profound neuromuscular block by sugammadex administered three minutes after rocuronium: a comparison with spontaneous recovery from succinylcholine. Anesthesiology2009; 110: 10205.
  • 88
    Bisschops MM, Holleman C, Huitink JM. Can sugammadex save a patient in a simulated ‘cannot intubate, cannot ventilate’ situation?Anaesthesia2010; 65: 93641.
  • 89
    Curtis R, Lomax S, Patel B. Use of sugammadex in a ‘can’t intubate, can’t ventilate’ situation. British Journal of Anaesthesia2012; 108: 6124.
  • 90
    Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Checking Anaesthetic Equipment 2012. Anaesthesia2012; 67: 6608.
  • 91
    Cassidy CJ, Smith A, Arnot-Smith J. Critical incident reports concerning anaesthetic equipment: analysis of the UK National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from 2006–2008. Anaesthesia2011; 66: 87988.
  • 92
    Cannesson M, Pestel G, Ricks C, Hoeft A, Perel A. Hemodynamic monitoring and management in patients undergoing high risk surgery: a survey among North American and European anesthesiologists. Critical Care2011; 15: R197.
  • 93
    Kastrup M, Markewitz A, Spies C, et al.Current practice of hemodynamic monitoring and vasopressor and inotropic therapy in post-operative cardiac surgery patients in Germany: results from a postal survey. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2007; 51: 34758.
  • 94
    Improving surgical outcomes group. Modernising care for patients undergoing major surgery, 2005. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 95
    National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Knowing the risk: a review of the peri-operative care of surgical patients. London: NCEPOD, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 96
    Harvey S, Harison DA, Singer M, et al.Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2005; 366: 4727.
  • 97
    Harvey S, Young D, Brampton W, et al.Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2006; 3: CD003408.
  • 98
    Harvey S, Stevens K, Harrison D, et al.An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in patient management in intensive care: a systematic review and a randomised controlled trial. Health Technology Assessment2006; 10: 29.
  • 99
    Morris CG, Pearse RM. Pro-con debate: we should not measure cardiac output in critical care. Journal of the Intensive Care Society2009; 10: 812.
  • 100
    Abbas SM, Hill AG. Systematic review of the literature for the use of oesophageal Doppler monitor for fluid replacement in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia2008; 63: 4451.
  • 101
    Sinclair S, James S, Singer M. Intraoperative intravascular volume optimisation and length of hospital stay after repair of proximal femoral fracture: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal1997; 315: 90912.
  • 102
    Venn R, Steele A, Richardson P, Poloniecki J, Grounds M, Newman P. Randomized controlled trial to investigate influence of the fluid challenge on duration of hospital stay and perioperative morbidity in patients with hip fractures. British Journal of Anaesthesia2002; 88: 6571.
  • 103
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE medical technologies guidance 3, 2011. (accessed 27/09/12).
  • 104
    Mowatt G, Houston G, Hernández R, et al.Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Health Technology Assessment2009; 13: 7.
  • 105
    Morris C, Rogerson D. What is the optimal type of fluid to be used for peri-operative fluid optimisation directed by oesophageal Doppler monitoring?Anaesthesia2011; 66: 81927.
  • 106
    Challand C, Struthers R, Sneyd JR, et al.Randomized controlled trial of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in aerobically fit and unfit patients having major colorectal surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia2012; 108: 5362.
  • 107
    Ghosh S, Arthur B, Klein AA. NICE guidance on CardioQTM oesophageal Doppler monitoring. Anaesthesia2011; 66: 10813.
  • 108
    The Intensive Care Society. Focused Intensive Care Echo (FICE), 2011. (accessed 12/09/2012).
  • 109
    Ng A, Swanevelder J. Perioperative monitoring of left ventricular function: what is the role of recent developments in echocardiography?British Journal of Anaesthesia2010; 104: 66972.
  • 110
    Royse C. Assessing the basic haemodynamic state. In: Royse C, Donnan G, Royse A, eds. Pocket Guide to Perioperative and Critical Care Echocardiography. Sydney: McGraw Hill, 2006: 93109.
  • 111
    Ultrasound Education Group HeartWeb. H.A.R.T.scan® Haemodynamic Echocardiographic Assessment in Real Time, 2012. (accessed 27/9/2012).
  • 112
    Marum S, Price S. The use of echocardiography in the critically ill; the role of fade (fast assessment diagnostic echocardiography) training. Current Cardiology Reviews2011; 7: 197200.
  • 113
    Eltzschig HK, Rosenberger P, Löffler M, Fox JA, Aranki SF, Shernan SK. Impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography on surgical decisions in 12,566 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery2008; 85: 84552.
  • 114
    Cheitlin MD, Armstrong WF, Aurigemma GP, et al.ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 Guideline update for the clinical application of echocardiography: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation2003; 108: 114662.
  • 115
    Scheeren TW, Schober P, Schwarte LA. Monitoring tissue oxygenation by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS): background and current applications. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing2012; 26: 27987.
  • 116
    Santora RJ, Moore FA. Monitoring trauma and intensive care unit resuscitation with tissue hemoglobin oxygen saturation. Critical Care2009; 13 (Suppl. 5): S10.
  • 117
    Beekley AC, Martin MJ, Nelson T, et al.Continuous noninvasive tissue oximetry in the early evaluation of the combat casualty: a prospective study. Journal of Trauma2010; 69 (Suppl. 1): S1425.
  • 118
    Cohn SM, Nathens AB, Moore FA, et al.Tissue oxygen saturation predicts the development of organ dysfunction during traumatic shock resuscitation. Journal of Trauma2007; 62: 4455.
  • 119
    Černý V, Turek Z, Pařízková R. Orthogonal polarization spectral imaging. Physiological Research2007; 56: 1417.
  • 120
    Mathura KR, Vollebregt KC, Boer K, De Graaff JC, Ubbink DT, Ince C. Comparison of OPS imaging and conventional capillary microscopy to study the human microcirculation. Journal of Applied Physiology2001; 91: 748.
  • 121
    Kopterides P, Theodorakopoulou M, Nikitas N, et al.Red blood cell transfusion affects microdialysis-assessed interstitial lactate/pyruvate ratio in critically ill patients with late sepsis. Critical Care2012; 16 (Suppl 1): 446.
  • 122
    Lindsay AJ, Xu M, Sessler DI, Blackstone EH, Bashour CA. Lactate clearance time and concentration linked to morbidity and death in cardiac surgical patients published as ‘ePub ahead of print’. Annals of Thoracic Surgery Sept 6; [ePub ahead of print]
  • 123
    Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, Kram HB, Waxman K, Lee TS. Prospective trial of supranormal values of survivors as therapeutic goals in high-risk surgical patients. Chest1988; 94: 117686.
  • 124
    Shoemaker WC, Appel P, Bland R. Use of physiologic monitoring to predict outcome and to assist in clinical decisions in critically ill postoperative patients. American Journal of Surgery1983; 146: 4350.
  • 125
    Boyd O, Grounds RM, Bennett ED. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of deliberate perioperative increase of oxygen delivery on mortality in high-risk surgical patients. Journal of the American Medical Association1993; 270: 2699707.
  • 126
    Lobo SM, Salgado PF, Castillo VG, et al.Effects of maximizing oxygen delivery on morbidity and mortality in high-risk surgical patients. Critical Care Medicine2000; 28: 3396404.
  • 127
    Dalfino L, Giglio MT, Puntillo F, Marucci M, Brienza N. Haemodynamic goal-directed therapy and postoperative infections: earlier is better. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care2011; 15: R154.
  • 128
    Jhanji S, Vivian-Smith A, Lucena-Amaro S, Watson D, Hinds CJ, Pearse RM. Haemodynamic optimisation improves tissue microvascular flow and oxygenation after major surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Critical Care2010; 14: R151.
  • 129
    Giglio MT, Marucci M, Testini M, Brienza N. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy and gastrointestinal complications in major surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Anaesthesia2009; 103: 63746.
  • 130
    Gattinoni L, Brazzi L, Pelosi P, et al.A trial of goal-oriented hemodynamic therapy in critically ill patients. New England Journal of Medicine1995; 333: 102532.
  • 131
    Hayes MA, Timmins AC, Yau EHS, Palazzo M, Hinds CJ, Watson D. Elevation of systemic oxygen delivery in the treatment of critically ill patients. New England Journal of Medicine1994; 330: 171722.
  • 132
    Giglio M, Dalfino L, Puntillo F, Rubino G, Marucci M, Brienza N. Haemodynamic goal-directed therapy in cardiac and vascular surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis published as ‘ePub ahead of print’. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery2012: 110.
  • 133
    Lees N, Hamilton M, Rhodes A. Clinical review: goal-directed therapy in high risk surgical patients. Critical Care2009; 13: 231.
  • 134
    Roche AM, Miller TE. Goal-directed or goal-misdirected – how should we interpret the literature?Critical Care2010; 14: 129.
  • 135
    Clinical Traditional versus goal directed perioperative fluid therapy in high risk patients, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 136
    Clinical Impact of early goaldirected fluid therapy in hypovolemic patients undergoing emergency surgery, 2012. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 137
    Tuchschmidt J, Fried J, Astiz M, Rackow E. Elevation of cardiac output and oxygen delivery improves outcome in septic shock. Chest1992; 102: 21620.
  • 138
    Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al.Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine2001; 345: 136877.
  • 139
    The Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre. ARISE: Australasian Resuscitation In Sepsis Evaluation Randomised Controlled Trial (ARISE), 2008. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 140
    Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre. Current Research: ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock, 2010. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 141
    Hollenberg SM, Ahrens TS, Annane D, et al.Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients: 2004 update. Critical Care Medicine2004; 32: 192848.
  • 142
    Shapiro DS, Loiacono LA. Mean arterial pressure: therapeutic goals and pharmacologic support. Critical Care Clinics2010; 26: 28593.
  • 143
    Bourgoin A, Leone M, Delmas A, et al.Increasing mean arterial pressure in patients with septic shock: effects on oxygen variables and renal function. Critical Care Medicine2005; 33: 7806.
  • 144
    Brain Trauma Foundation and AANS/CNS joint section on neurotrauma and critical care. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. 3rd Edition. Journal of Neurotrauma2007; 24(Suppl. 1): S713.
  • 145
    Davidović L, Marković M, Kostić D, et al.Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: factors influencing early survival. Annals of Vascular Surgery2005; 19: 2934.
  • 146
    Hollenberg SM. Inotrope and vasopressor therapy of septic shock. Critical Care Clinics2009; 25: 781802.
  • 147
    Annane D, Vignon P, Renault A, et al.Norepinephrine plus dobutamine versus epinephrine alone for management of septic shock: a randomised trial. Lancet2007; 370: 67684.
  • 148
    Russell JA, Walley KR, Singer J, et al.Vasopressin versus norepinephrine infusion in patients with septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine2008; 358: 87787.
  • 149
    Neto AS, Nassar AP Jr, Cardoso SO, et al.Vasopressin and terlipressin in adult vasodilatory shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials. Critical Care2012; 16: R154.
  • 150
    De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al.Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. New England Journal of Medicine2010; 362: 77989.
  • 151
    Prys-Picard CO, Shah SK, Williams BD, Cardenas V Jr, Sharma G. Outcomes of patients on multiple vasoactive drugs for shock published as ‘ePub ahead of print’. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine2012. Jun 24; [ePub ahead of print] doi: 10.1177/0885066612448738.
  • 152
    Pandit JJ. Meta-analyses of the effects of dopexamine in major surgery: do all roads lead to Rome?Anaesthesia2009; 64: 5858.
  • 153
    Gopal S, Jayakumar D, Nelson PN. Meta-analysis on the effect of dopexamine on in-hospital mortality. Anaesthesia2009; 64: 58994.
  • 154
    Pearse RM, Belsey JD, Cole JN, Bennett ED. Effect of dopexamine infusion on mortality following major surgery: individual patient data meta-regression analysis of published clinical trials. Critical Care Medicine2008; 36: 13239.
  • 155
    Schmittinger CA, Dünser MW, Haller M, et al.Combined milrinone and enteral metoprolol therapy in patients with septic myocardial depression. Critical Care2008; 12: R99.
  • 156
    Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, et al.Effect of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2008; 371: 183947.
  • 157
    Annane D, Bellissant E, Bollaert PE, et al.Corticosteroids in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association2009; 301: 236275.
  • 158
    The NICE-SUGAR study investigators. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. New England Journal of Medicine2009; 360: 128397.
  • 159
    Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al.Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. New England Journal of Medicine2008; 358: 12539.
  • 160
    Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Guidelines Committee Subgroup for Glucose Control; R. Phillip Dellinger, MD, FCCM, the 2008 SSC Guidelines Chair; and the SSC Executive Committee. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Statement on Glucose Control in Severe Sepsis (June 2009), 2009. Statement on Glucose Control in Severe Sepsis.pdf (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 161
    Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al.Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine2012; 366: 205564.
  • 162
    Powell-Tuck J, Gosling P, Lobo DN, et al.British Consensus Guidelines on Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Adult Surgical Patients: GIFTASUP, 2011. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 163
    Rahbari NN, Zimmermann JB, Schmidt T, Koch M, Weigand MA, Weitz J. Meta-analysis of standard, restrictive and supplemental fluid administration in colorectal surgery. British Journal of Surgery2009; 96: 33141.
  • 164
    Futier E, Constantin JM, Petit A, et al.Conservative vs restrictive individualized goal-directed fluid replacement strategy in major abdominal surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Archives of Surgery2010; 145: 1193200.
  • 165
    Hübner M, Schäfer M, Demartines N, et al.Impact of restrictive intravenous fluid replacement and combined epidural analgesia on perioperative volume balance and renal function within a Fast Track program. Journal of Surgical Research2012; 173: 6874.
  • 166
    Vermeulen H, Hofland J, Legemate DA, Ubbink DT. Intravenous fluid restriction after major abdominal surgery: a randomized blinded clinical trial. Trials2009; 10: 50.
  • 167
    MacKay G, Fearon K, McConnachie A, Serpell MG, Molloy RG, O’Dwyer PJ. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of postoperative intravenous fluid restriction on recovery after elective colorectal surgery. British Journal of Surgery2006; 93: 146974.
  • 168
    Holte K, Foss NB, Andersen J, et al.Liberal or restrictive fluid administration in fast-track colonic surgery: a randomized, double-blind study. British Journal of Anaesthesia2007; 99: 5008.
  • 169
    Brandstrup B, Svendsen PE, Rasmussen M, et al.Which goal for fluid therapy during colorectal surgery is followed by the best outcome: near-maximal stroke volume or zero fluid balance?British Journal of Anaesthesia2012; 109: 1919.
  • 170
    Harris T, Thomas GOR, Brohi K. Early fluid resuscitation in severe trauma. British Medical Journal2012; 345: 3842.
  • 171
    Krausz MM. Initial resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock. World Journal of Emergency Surgery2006; 1: 14.
  • 172
    Smith SH, Perner A. Higher vs. lower fluid volume for septic shock: clinical characteristics and outcome in unselected patients in a prospective, multicenter cohort. Critical Care2012; 16: R76.
  • 173
    Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al.Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Critical Care Medicine2006; 34: 34453.
  • 174
    Tisherman SA, Barie P, Bokhari F, et al.Clinical practice guideline: endpoints of resuscitation. Journal of Trauma2004; 57: 898912.
  • 175
    Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, French J, Myburgh J, Norton R. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. New England Journal of Medicine2004; 350: 224756.
  • 176
    Crystalloid Versus Hydroxyethylstarch Trial (CHEST) Management Committee. The Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial: protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid resuscitation with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) compared to 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) in intensive care patients on mortality. Intensive Care Medicine2011; 37: 81623.
  • 177
    Woodcock TE, Woodcock TM. Revised Starling equation and the glycocalyx model of transvascular fluid exchange: an improved paradigm for prescribing intravenous fluid therapy. British Journal of Anaesthesia2012; 108: 38494.
  • 178
    Schortgen F, Lacherade JC, Bruneel F, et al.Effects of hydroxyethylstarch and gelatin on renal function in severe sepsis: a multicentre randomised study. Lancet2001; 357: 9116.
  • 179
    Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al.Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis. New England Journal of Medicine2012; 367: 12434.
  • 180
    Handy JM, Soni N. Physiological effects of hyperchloraemia and acidosis. British Journal of Anaesthesia2008; 101: 14150.
  • 181
    Morris CG, Low J. Metabolic acidosis in the critically ill: part 2 causes and treatment. Anaesthesia2008; 63: 396411.
  • 182
    Hébert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, et al.A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. New England Journal of Medicine1999; 340: 40917.
  • 183
    Carson JL, Carless PA, Hebert PC. Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2012; 4: CD002042.
  • 184
    Napolitano LM, Kurek S, Luchette FA, et al.Clinical practice guideline: red blood cell transfusion in adult trauma and critical care. Critical Care Medicine2009; 37: 312457.
  • 185
    Corwin HL, Gettinger A, Pearl RG, et al.The CRIT study: anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill – current clinical practice in the United States. Critical Care Medicine2004; 32: 3952.
  • 186
    Carson JL, Terrin ML, Noveck H, et al.Liberal or restrictive transfusion in high-risk patients after hip surgery. New England Journal of Medicine2011; 365: 245362.
  • 187
    Wang D, Sun J, Solomon SB, Klein HG, Natanson C. Transfusion of older stored blood and risk of death: a meta-analysis. Transfusion2012; 52: 118495.
  • 188
    Middelburg RA, van de Watering LM, Briët E, van der Bom JG. Storage time of red blood cells and mortality of transfusion recipients published as ‘ePub ahead of print’. Transfusion Medicine Reviews2012 Aug 14; [ePub ahead of print] doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2012.06.002.
  • 189
    Duggan JM. Blood transfusion: old blood, new blood or no blood. Internal Medicine Journal2011; 41: 3589.
  • 190
    Lacroix J, Hébert P, Fergusson D, et al.The Age of Blood Evaluation (ABLE) randomized controlled trial: study design. Transfusion Medicine Reviews2011; 25: 197205.
  • 191
    Mercer SJ, Tarmey NT, Woolley T, Wood P, Mahoney PF. Haemorrhage and coagulopathy in the defence medical services. Anaesthesia2013; 68 (Suppl. 1): xxxx.
  • 192
    McCrossan L, Masterson G. Blood transfusion in critical illness. British Journal of Anaesthesia2002; 88: 69.
  • 193
    Zygun DA, Nortje J, Hutchinson PJ, Timofeev I, Menon DK, Gupta AK. The effect of red blood cell transfusion on cerebral oxygenation and metabolism after severe traumatic brain injury. Critical Care Medicine2009; 37: 10748.
  • 194
    Bischoff P, Rundshagen I. Awareness under general anesthesia. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International2011; 108: 17.
  • 195
    Ghoneim MM, Block RI, Haffarnan M, Mathews MJ. Awareness during anesthesia: risk factors, causes and sequelae: a review of reported cases in the literature. Anesthesia and Analgesia2009; 108: 52735.
  • 196
    Sandin RH, Enlund G, Samuelsson P, Lennmarken C. Awareness during anaesthesia: a prospective case study. Lancet2000; 355: 70711.
  • 197
    Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, et al.The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. Anesthesia and Analgesia2004; 99: 8339.
  • 198
    Musizza B, Ribaric S. Monitoring the depth of anaesthesia. Sensors2010; 10: 10896935.
  • 199
    Avidan MS, Jacobsohn E, Glick D, et al.Prevention of intraoperative awareness in a high-risk surgical population. New England Journal of Medicine2011; 365: 591600.
  • 200
    Myles PS, Leslie K, McNeil J, Forbes A, Chan MT. Bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness during anaesthesia: the B-Aware randomised controlled trial. Lancet2004; 363: 175763.
  • 201
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE guidance. Guidance in development: Depth of anaesthesia monitors (E-Entropy, BIS, and Narcotrend), 2012. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 202
    Avidan MS, Zhang L, Burnside BA, et al.Anesthesia awareness and bispectral index. New England Journal of Medicine2008; 358: 1097108.
  • 203
    Chortkoff B, Eger EI 2nd, Crankshaw DP, Gonsowski CT, Dutton RC, Ionescu P. Concentrations of desflurane and propofol that suppress response to command in humans. Anesthesia and Analgesia1995; 81: 73743.
  • 204
    National institute of academic anaesthesia. NAP5: Accidental Awareness during General Anaesthesia in the United Kingdom, 2012. (accessed 27/09/2012).
  • 205
    Deiner S, Silverstein JH. Postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction. British Journal of Anaesthesia2009; 103 (Suppl. 1): i416.
  • 206
    Sieber FE. Postoperative delirium in the elderly surgical patient. Anesthesiology Clinics2009; 27: 45164.
  • 207
    Mason SE, Noel-Storr A, Ritchie CW. The impact of general and regional anesthesia on the incidence of post-operative cognitive dysfunction and post-operative delirium: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease2010; 22 (Suppl. 3): 6779.
  • 208
    Vlisides P, Xie Z. Neurotoxicity of general anesthetics: an update published as ‘ePub ahead of print’. Current Pharmaceutical Design2012; July 2; [ePub ahead of print] doi: 10.2174/1381212227624776128.
  • 209
    Jones MJ, Piggott SE, Vaughan RS, et al.Cognitive and functional competence after anaesthesia in patients aged over 60: controlled trial of general and regional anaesthesia for elective hip or knee replacement. British Medical Journal1990; 300: 16837.
  • 210
    Ramaiah R. What’s new in emergencies, trauma and shock? Anesthesia, surgery and postoperative cognition. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock2011; 4: 12.
  • 211
    Guenther U, Radtke FM. Delirium in the postanaesthesia period. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology2011; 24: 6705.
  • 212
    Allen SR, Frankel HL. Postoperative complications: delirium. Surgical Clinics of North America2012; 92: 40931.