Background The WHO's Vision 2020 global initiative against blindness, launched in 2000, prioritises children. Progress has been hampered by the global paucity of epidemiological data about childhood visual disability. The British Childhood Visual Impairment and Blindness Study 2 (BCVIS2) was undertaken to address this evidence gap. Methods UK-wide prospective population-based observational study of all those aged under 18 years newly diagnosed with visual impairment or blindness between Oct 1, 2015 and Nov 1 2016. Eligible children were notified simultaneously but independently by their managing ophthalmologists and paediatricians via the two national active surveillance schemes, the British Ophthalmic and Paediatric Surveillance Units. Standardised detailed data were collected at diagnosis and one year later. Incidence estimates and relative rates by key sociodemographic factors were calculated. Descriptive analyses were undertaken of underlying ophthalmic disorders and nonophthalmic comorbidities. FindingsOf 784 cases, 72% had additional non-ophthalmic impairments/disorders and 4% died within the year. Annual incidence was highest in the first year of life, 5•2 per 10,000 (95% CI 4•7-5•7) with cumulative incidence by 18 years of 10•0 per 10,000 (95% CI 9•4 to 10•8). Rates were higher for those from any ethnic minority group, the lowest quintile of socio-economic status, born preterm or with low birthweight. Only 44% had a single ophthalmic condition: disorders of the brain/visual pathways affected 48% overall. Prenatal or perinatal aetiological factors accounted for 84% of all conditions. InterpretationBCVIS2 provides a contemporary snapshot of the heterogeneity, multi-morbidity and vulnerability associated with childhood visual disability in a high income country, and the arising complex needs. These findings will facilitate developing and delivering healthcare and planning interventional research. They highlight the importance of including childhood visual disability as a sentinel event and metric in global child health initiatives.

The correlation between acute serum tryptase and severity of anaphylaxis/systemic reactions is weak. A significant proportion of patients with raised acute serum tryptase had mild reactions which did not meet WAO criteria for anaphylaxis and this may reduce the specificity of the test. The commonest aetiology in this cohort was idiopathic followed by drug and food allergies. NICE guidelines relating to serial tryptase measurements and specialist referral were not followed, and there is an urgent need to raise the awareness among clinicians involved in the management of anaphylaxis.

General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/ probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m -2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m -2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

No abstract

No abstract