Caudal epidural blockade in children is one of the most widely administered techniques of regional anaesthesia. Recent clinical studies have answered major pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic questions, thus providing the scientific background for safe and effective blocks in daily clinical practice and demonstrating that patient selection can be expanded to range from extreme preterm births up to 50 kg of body weight. This narrative review discusses the main findings in the current literature with regard to patient selection (sub-umbilical vs mid-abdominal indications, contraindications, low-risk patients with spinal anomalies); anatomical considerations (access problems, age and body positioning, palpation for needle insertion); technical considerations (verification of needle position by ultrasound vs landmarks vs 'whoosh' or 'swoosh' testing); training and equipment requirements (learning curve, needle types, risk of tissue spreading); complications and safety (paediatric regional anaesthesia, caudal blocks); local anaesthetics (bupivacaine vs ropivacaine, risk of toxicity in children, management of toxic events); adjuvant drugs (clonidine, dexmedetomidine, opioids, ketamine); volume dosing (dermatomal reach, cranial rebound); caudally accessed lumbar or thoracic anaesthesia (contamination risk, verifying catheter placement); and postoperative pain. Caudal blocks are an efficient way to offer perioperative analgesia for painful sub-umbilical interventions. Performed on sedated children, they enable not only early ambulation, but also periprocedural haemodynamic stability and spontaneous breathing in patient groups at maximum risk of a difficult airway. These are important advantages over general anaesthesia, notably in preterm babies and in children with cardiopulmonary co-morbidities. Compared with other techniques of regional anaesthesia, a case for caudal blocks can still be made.

No abstract

There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding optimum care of patients with potential or known intake of oral anticoagulants and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Anticoagulation therapy aggravates the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage but, on the other hand, patients take anticoagulants because of an underlying prothrombotic risk, and this could be increased following trauma. Treatment decisions must be taken with due consideration of both these risks. An interdisciplinary group of Austrian experts was convened to develop recommendations for best clinical practice. The aim was to provide pragmatic, clear, and easy-to-follow clinical guidance for coagulation management in adult patients with TBI and potential or known intake of platelet inhibitors, vitamin K antagonists, or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Diagnosis, coagulation testing, and reversal of anticoagulation were considered as key steps upon presentation. Post-trauma management (prophylaxis for thromboembolism and resumption of long-term anticoagulation therapy) was also explored. The lack of robust evidence on which to base treatment recommendations highlights the need for randomized controlled trials in this setting.

Background Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) affects outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the role of pre-ECMO IMV duration is unclear. This single-centre, retrospective study included critically ill adults treated with ECMO due to severe COVID-19-related ARDS between 01/2020 and 05/2021. The primary objective was to determine whether duration of IMV prior to ECMO cannulation influenced ICU mortality. Results During the study period, 101 patients (mean age 56 [SD ± 10] years; 70 [69%] men; median RESP score 2 [IQR 1–4]) were treated with ECMO for COVID-19. Sixty patients (59%) survived to ICU discharge. Median ICU length of stay was 31 [IQR 20.7–51] days, median ECMO duration was 16.4 [IQR 8.7–27.7] days, and median time from intubation to ECMO start was 7.7 [IQR 3.6–12.5] days. Fifty-three (52%) patients had a pre-ECMO IMV duration of > 7 days. Pre-ECMO IMV duration had no effect on survival (p = 0.95). No significant difference in survival was found when patients with a pre-ECMO IMV duration of < 7 days (< 10 days) were compared to ≥ 7 days (≥ 10 days) (p = 0.59 and p = 1.0). Conclusions The role of prolonged pre-ECMO IMV duration as a contraindication for ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS should be scrutinised. Evaluation for ECMO should be assessed on an individual and patient-centred basis.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is gaining importance in the perioperative management of lung transplant patients. To date, the ideal substance for anticoagulation of ECMO patients is still a matter of debate. In this study, we describe our experience with the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in comparison with unfractioned heparin (UFH) in lung transplant patients undergoing perioperative ECMO support. We retrospectively analyzed data from all lung transplant patients who underwent perioperative ECMO support at our institution between 2013 and 2017. Bleeding events served as primary outcome parameter. Secondary outcome parameters consisted of thromboembolic events. 102 patients were included in this study, of which 22 (21.6%) received UFH for anticoagulation, and 80 (78.4%) received LMWH. There was no difference between the two groups in regard to serious bleeding events (22.7% in the UFH group vs 12.5% in the LMWH group, P = .31). However, the proportion of patients experiencing thromboembolic events was significantly higher in the UFH group than in the LMWH group (50% vs 20%, P = .01). After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, we still observed a difference with respect to thromboembolic events. These data remain to be validated in future prospective, randomized trials.