Haemorrhage remains a major cause of potentially preventable deaths. Rapid transfusion of large volumes of blood products is required in patients with haemorrhagic shock which may lead to a unique set of complications. Recently, protocol based management of these patients using massive transfusion protocol have shown improved outcomes. This section discusses in detail both management and complications of massive blood transfusion.

These guidelines, written for clinicians, contains evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of hospital acquired infections Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of mortality and morbidity and provide challenge to clinicians. Measures of infection control include identifying patients at risk of nosocomial infections, observing hand hygiene, following standard precautions to reduce transmission and strategies to reduce VAP, CR-BSI, CAUTI. Environmental factors and architectural lay out also need to be emphasized upon. Infection prevention in special subsets of patients - burns patients, include identifying sources of organism, identification of organisms, isolation if required, antibiotic prophylaxis to be used selectively, early removal of necrotic tissue, prevention of tetanus, early nutrition and surveillance. Immunodeficient and Transplant recipients are at a higher risk of opportunistic infections. The post tranplant timetable is divided into three time periods for determining risk of infections. Room ventilation, cleaning and decontamination, protective clothing with care regarding food requires special consideration. Monitoring and Surveillance are prioritized depending upon the needs. Designated infection control teams should supervise the process and help in collection and compilation of data. Antibiotic Stewardship Recommendations include constituting a team, close coordination between teams, audit, formulary restriction, de-escalation, optimizing dosing, active use of information technology among other measure. The recommendations in these guidelines are intended to support, and not replace, good clinical judgment. The recommendations are rated by a letter that indicates the strength of the recommendation and a Roman numeral that indicates the quality of evidence supporting the recommendation, so that readers can ascertain how best to apply the recommendations in their practice environments.

Background and Aims:Transfusion of blood and blood products poses several hazards. Antifibrinolytic agents are used to reduce perioperative blood loss. We decided to assess the effect of tranexamic acid (TA) on blood loss and the need for transfusion in head and neck cancer surgery.Methods:After Institutional Review Board approval, 240 patients undergoing supramajor head and neck cancer surgeries were prospectively randomised to either TA (10 mg/kg) group or placebo (P) group. After induction, the drug was infused by the anaesthesiologist, who was blinded to allocation, over 20 min. The dose was repeated every 3 h. Perioperative (up to 24 h) blood loss, need for transfusion and fluid therapy was recorded. Thromboelastography (TEG) was performed at fixed intervals in the first 100 patients. Patients were watched for post-operative complications.Results:Two hundred and nineteen records were evaluable. We found no difference in intraoperative blood loss (TA - 750 [600–1000] ml vs. P - 780 [150–2600] ml, P = 0.22). Post-operative blood loss was significantly more in the placebo group at 24 h (P - 200 [120–250] ml vs. TA - 250 [50–1050] ml, P = 0.009), but this did not result in higher number of patients needing transfusions (TA - 22/108 and P - 27/111 patients, P = 0.51). TEG revealed faster clot formation and minimal fibrinolysis. Two patients died of causes unrelated to study drug. Incidence of wound complications and deep venous thrombosis was similar.Conclusion:In head and neck cancer surgery, TA did not reduce intraoperative blood loss or need for transfusions. Perioperative TEG variables were similar. This may be attributed to pre-existing hypercoagulable state and minimal fibrinolysis in cancer patients.

No abstract

Background: Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk of getting infected while at work, for example, operating room (OR), hence it is pertinent that they don all the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize the chance of getting infected. Methods: A COVID-19 specific briefing and debriefing form was created and used in the OR along with the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist to reinforce the use of appropriate PPE. An audit was subsequently done to understand the compliance to PPE use, followed by a survey based on the findings of the audit to understand the issues related to noncompliance. Results: The form was used in 183 out of the 238 (77%) surgeries performed during a months' time. The overall compliance for PPE usage was 96.3%. Noncompliance was seen most often for eye protection (45/567) (P = .01). The survey revealed that this was mostly among surgeons mainly due to discomfort, poor visibility, and frequent fogging. Conclusions: Our HCW were adapting well to the new normal of donning appropriate PPE in the OR, except for the eye protection due to discomfort and visibility related issues. This is important to know so that necessary changes could be introduced to better the compliance.