Background Cardiac catheterization is usually done routinely in patients with univentricular hearts before palliative Bidirectional Glenn (BDG) surgery. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with physiological univentricular hearts and restrictive pulmonary flow that did not undergo routine cardiac catheterization before BDG with the patients that did have cardiac catheterization done. We retrospectively reviewed the data of all patients with single ventricle physiology and restrictive pulmonary blood flow who underwent BDG surgery from January 2016 till December 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: the catheterization and the non-catheterization groups. Results Out of 93 patients, 25 (27%) underwent BDG surgery without prior cardiac catheterization. The median age of patients was ten months, interquartile range (IQR) was 5–18 months. Tricuspid atresia represented 36% of the non-catheterization group, while unbalanced atrioventricular septal defect and hypoplastic left heart syndrome represented 19% and 17.6% of the catheterization group. No patients in the catheterization group were excluded from further BDG surgery based on the catheterization data. Moreover, no significant differences were found between the patients' groups regarding the length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative oxygen saturation, or survival (P = 0.266, P = 0.763, P = 0.543, P = 0456). Conclusions Although pre-BDG cardiac catheterization is the routine and standard practice, in certain situations, some patients with single ventricle physiology and restrictive pulmonary blood flow may go directly to BDG without cardiac catheterization if noninvasive imaging is satisfactory on a case-by-case basis and according to center experience. Pre-BDG catheterization could be reserved for patients with limited echocardiographic studies, high-risk patients, or those indicated for catheter intervention before BDG surgery.

The new novel coronavirus is having a major impact on healthcare systems internationally. Hospitals are struggling to manage the sudden influx of critical patients. Anaesthesiologists and critical care physicians are front liners in the fight against COVID-19 and carry the highest risk of getting infected. Due to the rapid response of the Saudi government to the WHO's early warning, we were fortunate at our hospital to see a slower rise in COVID-19 cases allowing us some time to prepare. We had to make room for the expected rise in highly infectious and critical patients, while at the same time protecting non-COVID-19 patients, staff and trainees. Additionally, the team continued to provide essential and specialized care to all patients in the hospital and maintain its academic and non-clinical services within the university. This review presents the different protocols, challenges and lessons learned during the development of a COVID-19 anaesthesia and critical care department plan in a major teaching hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Our ultimate aim is to share our experience with other similar institutions.

As the number of COVID-19 cases is rapidly increasing internationally, management, recommendations and guidelines of COVID-19 are rapidly evolving and changing. Formulating local clinical management policies among institutions adopting these recommendations is vital to staff as well as the patients’ safety. Also, training multidisciplinary teams on these policies is an important, yet challenging, part of the process. The purpose of this paper is to present the process that has been followed to formulate COVID-19-specific response anesthesiology and operating room (OR) policies at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, by applying David A. Kolb's experiential learning theory during simulation-based training. This project had a total of six simulation-based sessions (four simulation scenarios and two clinical drills) designed to test the efficacy and efficiency of the then current practice in the hospital, facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative data analysis was completed using qualitative thematic data analysis. To apply experiential Kolb's theory, session's checklist (two raters per session), outcomes, and participants’ feedback to develop and improve clinical management pathway in the department were used. The 12 reports and participants’ feedback highlighted three main areas for improvement. These are Personal Protective Equipment implementation, team dynamics, and airway management. This process then guided in creating a new understanding of the multidisciplinary clinical management pathway, in addition to enhancing viability of the current practice and clinical management guidelines and protocols, which were already established and adapted at the hospital before the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The alignment with Kolb's experiential theory helped formulate anesthesiology and OR effective clinical management pathway has been demonstrated. Applying experiential learning theory by a clinical institute using interprofessional, multidisciplinary simulations and clinical drills can guide the process of formulating clinical management pathways during pandemic outbreaks.