A major adverse cardiac event (MACE) following non-cardiac surgery encompasses critical postoperative cardiovascular complications such as myocardial infarction or injury, cardiac arrest, or stroke that are associated with increased perioperative morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resource utilisation. Cardiac troponin (cTn), particularly high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), has emerged as a key biomarker for prediction of MACE. Despite its recognised utility, there is no consensus on how cTn levels should be used for standardised postoperative surveillance. Interpretation of the cTn levels may vary depending on sex-specific reference values and baseline comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease, sepsis, critical illness, and non-ischaemic conditions. The balance between cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit in implementing universal versus targeted postoperative hs-cTn screening remains to be fully explored. This review examines the prognostic value of cardiac troponin (cTn) levels in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, with a focus on perioperative cTn elevations—particularly those associated with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS)—as potential early indicators of increased cardiovascular risk.

Background and Aims: A quality improvement project (‘Safe Anaesthesia for ALL-SEAL’) was implemented to reduce preventable medication errors and drug wastage in the operating theatre (OT) of a tertiary hospital. The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to prevent the incidence of medication errors, and the secondary objective was to reduce the wastage of unused drugs. Methods: A pre-intervention questionnaire and an audit survey were performed, and multidirectional interventions were designed post-survey. A post-intervention survey was conducted to evaluate effectiveness. The incidence of medication errors, including near misses, was assessed for root causes. Unused drugs drawn or diluted in syringes were recorded daily in each OT. The weekly drug orders and mid-week reordering frequency were also monitored. The data were reported as simple means and percentages. Results: Ninety-eight anaesthesia care providers participated in the survey (72.4% doctors and 27.6% anaesthetic nurses). Pre-intervention, 76.1% of respondents had experienced medication errors during their practice. Common errors included misidentification of ampoules or vials (65.2%), miscalculation of dosages (65.2%), improper syringe labelling (56.5%), accidental drug omission (54.3%) and wrong prescriptions (39.1%). The main sources of errors were fatigue/overwork (80.4%) and a hectic OT environment (71.7%). Post-intervention, no incidents of medication errors were reported. In addition, there was a significant reduction in drug wastage. Conclusions: The SEAL project positively prevented medication errors and reduced drug wastage, which should be further validated in other clinical settings.

Background: Advanced haemodynamic monitoring has been recommended for use in high-risk surgeries and high-risk patients undergoing surgery. This study aims to assess the current practices of haemodynamic monitoring in high-risk surgical patients among Malaysian anaesthesiologists. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional survey among Malaysian anaesthesiologists, following approval from the institution’s Medical Research Ethics Committee and the National Medical Research Register. The survey utilised a questionnaire developed by Cannesson et al. to gather demographic data, practice information, and haemodynamic monitoring practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, and results were presented as the mean, median, or frequency as appropriate. Results: A total of 366 participants responded to the questionnaire, and 2 dropped out due to an incomplete form. This study found differences in the frequency of haemodynamic optimisation and monitoring techniques used in different healthcare settings. Written protocols or statements concerning haemodynamic management in high-risk surgical cases were only available to 15.7% of participants in the institution. The overall utilisation rate of cardiac output monitoring was found to be 31.1%, with a significant majority of the usage observed in university hospitals (p < 0.001). Central venous pressure was more commonly used in university hospitals and private hospitals compared to public hospitals (p < 0.001). The usage of advanced parameters such as stroke volume variation, cardiac index, and systemic vascular resistance was significantly higher in university hospitals, with a p value < 0.001. Transthoracic echocardiography was the most common tool used for high-risk surgical patients. The primary reasons for participants not utilising cardiac output monitoring include the lack of availability of such monitoring in their respective settings, which constitutes 66.9% of the respondents. The overwhelming majority of participants, namely 98%, expressed the belief that there is room for improvement in their present haemodynamic care. Conclusions: This study offers significant insights into the prevailing haemodynamic monitoring practices employed by Malaysian anaesthesiologists in the context of high-risk surgical patients. The findings have the potential to contribute to future educational initiatives and establish practice standards for haemodynamic monitoring in high-risk surgical procedures.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects an estimated 1 billion adults worldwide and carries substantial cardiovascular, metabolic, and neurocognitive morbidity [1]. While continuous positive airway p...