Login to myESAIC Membership


The ESAIC is dedicated to supporting professionals in anaesthesiology and intensive care by serving as the hub for development and dissemination of valuable educational, scientific, research, and networking resources.



The ESAIC hosts the Euroanaesthesia and Focus Meeting congresses that serve as platforms for cutting-edge science and innovation in the field. These events bring together experts, foster networking, and facilitate knowledge exchange in anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain management, and perioperative medicine. Euroanaesthesia is one of the world’s largest and most influential scientific congresses for anaesthesia professionals. Held annually throughout Europe, our congress is a contemporary event geared towards education, knowledge exchange and innovation in anaesthesia, intensive care, pain and perioperative medicine, as well as a platform for immense international visibility for scientific research.


Professional Growth

The ESAIC's mission is to foster and provide exceptional training and educational opportunities. The ESAIC ensures the provision of robust and standardised examination and certification systems to support the professional development of anaesthesiologists and to ensure outstanding future doctors in the field of anaesthesiology and intensive care.



The ESAIC aims to advance patient outcomes and contribute to the progress of anaesthesiology and intensive care evidence-based practice through research. The ESAIC Clinical Trial Network (CTN), the Academic Contract Research Organisation (A-CRO), the Research Groups and Grants all contribute to the knowledge and clinical advances in the peri-operative setting.

Learn more about the ESAIC Clinical Trial Network (CTN) and the associated studies.


EU Projects

The ESAIC is actively involved as a consortium member in numerous EU funded projects. Together with healthcare leaders and practitioners, the ESAIC's involvement as an EU project partner is another way that it is improving patient outcomes and ensuring the best care for every patient.


Patient Safety

The ESAIC aims to promote the professional role of anaesthesiologists and intensive care physicians and enhance perioperative patient outcomes by focusing on quality of care and patient safety strategies. The Society is committed to implementing the Helsinki Declaration and leading patient safety projects.



To ESAIC is committed to implementing the Glasgow Declaration and drive initiatives towards greater environmental sustainability across anaesthesiology and intensive care in Europe.



The ESAIC works in collaboration with industry, national societies, and specialist societies to promote advancements in anaesthesia and intensive care. The Industry Partnership offers visibility and engagement opportunities for industry participants with ESAIC members, facilitating understanding of specific needs in anaesthesiology and in intensive care. This partnership provides resources for education and avenues for collaborative projects enhancing science, education, and patient safety. The Specialist Societies contribute to high-quality educational opportunities for European anaesthesiologists and intensivists, fostering discussion and sharing, while the National Societies, through NASC, maintain standards, promote events and courses, and facilitate connections. All partnerships collectively drive dialogue, learning, and growth in the anaesthesiology and intensive care sector.



Guidelines play a crucial role in delivering evidence-based recommendations to healthcare professionals. Within the fields of anaesthesia and intensive care, guidelines are instrumental in standardizing clinical practices and enhancing patient outcomes. For many years, the ESAIC has served as a pivotal platform for facilitating continuous advancements, improving care standards and harmonising clinical management practices across Europe.



With over 40 years of publication history, the EJA (European Journal of Anaesthesiology) has established itself as a highly respected and influential journal in its field. It covers a wide range of topics related to anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine, including perioperative medicine, pain management, critical care, resuscitation, and patient safety.



Becoming a member of ESAIC implies becoming a part of a vibrant community of nearly 8,000 professionals who exchange best practices and stay updated on the latest developments in anaesthesiology, intensive care and perioperative medicine. ESAIC membership equips you with the tools and resources necessary to enhance your daily professional routine, nurture your career growth, and play an active role in advancing anaesthesiology, intensive care and perioperative medicine.

Membership opportunities
at the ESAIC

Newsletter 2021

Newsletter January 2021: Editorial - The work volume-outcome relationship. Any place for us?

Gabriel M. Gurman, MD

Editor in Chief



I am aware of the fact that the discussion on this topic could open Pandora’s box and create a lot of disputes. But one cannot be afraid of sensitive, controversial, subjects. Our newsletter has always been eager to host different opinions and discuss problematic topics.

What is it about this time?

In the last three decades, the pertinent literature presented data about the good results regarding the patient outcome, when he/she was treated in a hospital with a high experience in a specific disease/surgical intervention.

A study published many years ago (1) examined mortality rates for 12 surgical procedures of varying complexity in 1498 American hospitals to determine whether there was a relationship between a hospital’s surgical volume and its surgical mortality. The mortality of open-heart surgery, vascular surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, and coronary bypass decreased with the increasing number of operations.

The same conclusion was reached years later by Birkmeyer et al. (2): the magnitude of operative risk for patients undergoing cardiovascular or cancer procedures was lower when the procedure was performed in a high-volume hospital.

One can expect this state of affairs: the more experienced the hospital in offering specific medical care, the better the results that can be expected.

Later on, this conclusion was emphasized by new studies reporting the same results regarding the intensive care units (ICU) activity.

Peelen (3) presented data which showed that an increased workload in an ICU was accompanied by an improved outcome of patients.

Also, Kahn (4) reported the analysis of six similar studies, all showing “an impressive consistent effect: improvement in outcome with increasing workload”. The study’s explanation for this kind of results emphasized a better organisation, nurse education, teamwork and a high-level communication among the medical staff.

Stolker (5) analysed the same correlation and found out that “admission to an ICU with lower annual acute myocardial infarction volume is associated with a higher in-hospital mortality and longer hospitalisation”.

All the above studies implied the need for creating specialised centres and departments for treating specific diseases and/or performing specific surgical procedures in order to improve the patient outcome, as well as regionalisation for certain operations.

Those studies also noted the high professional quality of those medical institutions in which they found out a strong relationship between the high work volume and a better patient outcome.

But in the last years, the “tone of the music” changed.

Rather than explaining the better outcome as a result of highly organised medical institutions and the efficient teamwork, new studies tend to emphasize the role of individuals in obtaining good results.

For instance, Morche et al (6) reported in 2016 the existence of surgeon volume-outcome relationship, meaning the shorter length of stay in the hospital for various surgical procedures. Their study proposed a discussion about the “minimum thresholds of surgeries performed by single surgeons”. This paper discusses a series of no less than 21 other articles, from the years of 2004-2013, all studying the correlation between the surgeon workload and patient outcome. Fifteen out of the 21 analysed papers reported a positive effect of the surgeon experience (expressed by the amount of workload) on the results of surgery.

As far as I understood from searching the pertinent literature, there was no discussion about the impact of the anaesthesiologist’s experience and workload on the patient outcome.

So I decided to try to find any published studies in this area.

I found two.

Wilson et al (7) studied some 6000 patients who underwent orthopaedic procedures and analysed the correlation between the postoperative course and the anaesthesiologist’s experience. They reached the conclusion that anaesthesia provider volume and experience did not significantly impact the odds of adverse outcome. On the other side, higher surgeon volume was exclusively associated with decreased odds of prolonged length of stay following posterior lumbar fusion.

Last year Memtsoudis et al. (8) published a paper on the same subject. They retrospectively identified 40 437 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasties at a high-volume institution from 2005 to 2014. The main effects of interest were anaesthesiologist and surgeon volume and experience along with anaesthesia-care-team composition. The conclusion? “Anaesthesiologist volume and experience, and anaesthesia-care-team composition did not impact the odds of an adverse outcome, although a higher surgeon volume was associated with decreased odds of complications and prolonged length of stay”.

Here is the place to remind us that the literature is full of studies showing the benefit of one anaesthesia technique in comparison to another.  The long list also includes one of the same author, Memtsoudis, published in the same journal (9), in which the authors reviewed 94 studies comparing neuraxial anaesthesia to general anaesthesia for total knee arthroplasty. They found out that primary neuraxial anaesthesia was preferred for that surgical procedure, because of some postoperative benefits.

In another paper, of Pugely et al (10) the study conclusion was: “Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty who were managed with general anaesthesia had a small but significant increase in the risk of complications as compared with patients who were managed with spinal anaesthesia; the difference was greatest for patients with multiple comorbidities”.

In other words, one can easily reach the conclusion that in order to assure the success of a surgical intervention there is a need to take care of two factors: the surgeon experience and the anaesthesia technique. But the experience and expertise of the anaesthesiologist play no role!

It seems that the already published studies did not give any attention to the “simple” fact that the success of any anaesthesia technique depends, first of all on the ability, experience, skills and expertise of the anaesthesiologist, and every single technique must be taught and learned. Besides, the selection of the type of anaesthesia technique to be used for every patient is an intellectual process which demands experience and knowledge, too.

Last but not least, how can one ignore the fact that in every single hospital there are some anaesthesiologists involved mainly (or even only) in some specific surgical fields, such as paediatric surgery, cardiac surgery or neurosurgery? Needless to say, these physicians are experts in providing the best anaesthesia for each patient, and their knowledge, skills and experience in that specific domain is unique.

So, the question is how can we prove the need for the presence of an experienced, skilled anaesthesiologist for every single surgical procedure?

This can be a very difficult task.

Performing a study which would compare, for instance, the results of anaesthesia performed by, let say, a resident to that one performed by a specialist would be unacceptable and completely unethical.

I would like to leave this challenge open for our readers and members.

But we have to be aware of this new trend, which minimalises the impact of the anaesthesia provider on surgical patient outcome, and of the need to find the way to prove the contrary. We owe this to our speciality and to our colleagues.

It has to be part of our continuous efforts to improve the image of anaesthesiology in the eyes of public opinion, of our peers the surgeons, and in our own eyes.



  1. Luft HS et al. New Engl J Med 1979;301:1364
  2. Birkmeyer JD et al. New Engl J Med 2002;346:1128
  3. Peelen et al. Crit care 2007;11:R40
  4. Kahn JM et al. Crit Care 2007;11:129
  5. Stolker JM J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4:e001225 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.114.001225
  6. Morche J, Mathes T, Pieper D. Systematic Reviews 2016;5:204
  7. Wilson LA et al. Eur Spine 2019;28:2112
  8. Memtsoudis SG et al. Brit J Anaesth 2019;123:679
  9. Memtsoudis SG et al. Brit J Anaesth 2019;123:269
  10. Pugely AJ et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:193


Read More of our Monthly newsletter.

Read More of our special newsletter covering our virtual congress.

Visit our COVID-19 Resource Hub for other news and resources.