BackgroundIn 1993, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) published guidelines stating that automatic perioperative suspension of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders conflicts with patients’ rights to self-determination. Almost 20 years later, we aimed to explore both patient and doctor views concerning perioperative DNR status.MethodsFive-hundred consecutive patients visiting our preoperative evaluation clinic were surveyed and asked whether they had made decisions regarding resuscitation and to rate their agreement with several statements concerning perioperative resuscitation. Anesthesiologists, surgeons and internists at our tertiary referral institution were also surveyed. They were asked to assess their likelihood of following a hypothetical patient’s DNR status and to rate their level of agreement with a series of non-scenario related statements concerning ethical and practical aspects of perioperative resuscitation.ResultsOver half of patients (57%) agreed that pre-existing DNR requests should be suspended while undergoing a surgical procedure under anesthesia, but 92% believed a discussion between the doctor and patient regarding perioperative resuscitation plans should still occur. Thirty percent of doctors completing the survey believed that DNR orders should automatically be suspended intraoperatively. Anesthesiologists (18%) were significantly less likely to suspend DNR orders than surgeons (38%) or internists (34%) (p < 0.01).ConclusionsAlthough many patients agree that their DNR orders should be suspended for their operation, they expect a discussion regarding the performance and nature of perioperative resuscitation. In contrast to previous studies, anesthesiologists were least likely to automatically suspend a DNR order.

We studied 151 patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty, or cruciate ligament reconstruction in a multicentre study in Australia and New Zealand. Patients were openly allocated randomly to one of five treatment groups or to a control group. General anaesthesia was induced after introduction of extradural block with 0.5% ropivacaine. After surgery, patients received an extradural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at 6, 8, 10, 12 or 14 ml h-1 or received no postoperative extradural infusion (control group). All patients had access to i.v. PCA morphine for supplementary analgesia. Morphine consumption was lower in all treatment groups compared with the control group, decreasing with increasing ropivacaine infusion rate. Median VAS scores were lower in all ropivacaine infusion groups compared with the control group for the first 10 h of the study; however by the end of the study, VAS scores were similar in all groups. The higher ropivacaine infusion rates caused a slower convergence of spread of the initial sensory block and a higher degree of motor block. The overall incidence of side effects was similar, with the exception of a higher incidence of urinary retention and hypotension in the groups receiving the higher rates of ropivacaine. The quality of treatment scores were similar for all treatment groups (Br. J. Anaesth. 1996; 76: 606-610).

Greater awareness of patient preferences and expectations may result in better information exchange between anaesthesia providers and their patients.

No abstract