Neuraxial Anesthesia in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.

Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) has been contraindicated in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) due to concerns of sympathetic blockade and hemodynamic instability. These considerations are based on precautionary expert recommendations, supported by expected physiologic effects, but in the absence of any published scientific evidence. In light of the increasing elderly population and the prevalence of AS, this systematic review compiles available literature on NA in patients with AS to address the understanding of the anesthetic practice and safety in this population. Using a systematic approach, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies of patients with AS who exclusively received NA. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications. Of 1,433 citations, 61 met full-text inclusion criteria, including 3,228 patients undergoing noncardiac (n = 3,146, 97.5%), obstetric (n = 69, 2.1%), and cardiac (n = 13, 0.4%) procedures. Significant data heterogeneity (local anesthetic dosing, intraoperative interventions, and measured outcomes) prevented formal metanalysis, but descriptive data are presented. Spinal block (n = 2,856, 88.5%) and epidural anesthesia (n = 397, 12.3%) were administered most frequently. Hypotension requiring vasopressors was the most common intraoperative complication-noncardiac (n = 16, 9.9%), obstetric (n = 6, 13.0%), and cardiac (n = 1, 7.7%)-with resolution in all patients and no reported intraoperative cardiovascular collapse or mortality. The relative risk of different AS severities remains unclear, and optimal medication dosing remains elusive. The authors' data suggested that NA may not be contraindicated in carefully selected patients with AS. The authors' results should inform the design of future prospective studies comparing NA and general anesthesia in patients with AS.

Temperature Changes During Electrophysiology Ablation in Veterans and 1-Year Success Rates: A Retrospective Pilot Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The authors hypothesized that body core temperature during cardiac arrhythmia procedures in the electrophysiology laboratory declines, and examined the association of changes with the patient or procedural factors. They hypothesized that a greater degree of change negatively affects 1-year ablation success. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Veteran's Administration Boston Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive records of veterans undergoing ablation procedures under general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Retrospective data collection and analysis from the electronic medical record. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient and procedural characteristics were collected from the electronic medical record. Core temperature data included baseline (BT) (following entry to the care process on the day of the procedure), the start (ST) and end of the procedure temperatures (ET), and their differences. The 1-year ablation success was assessed as described elsewhere in the literature. The authors used the paired t-test, linear, and logistic regression for hypothesis testing. Among 107 veterans, core temperatures were significantly lower between BT and ST, BT and ET, and ST and ET (p < 0.001 for all). One-year ablation success was 74.8% (n = 80). In multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age, body mass index and BTs showed a greater degree of change from BT to ET, and the ST-to-ET temperature was significantly associated with lower odds of success (odds ratios of 0.57 and 0.42, respectively; p < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Core temperature declines during ablation. Greater temperature decline during general anesthesia was associated with lower 1-year ablation success rates.

Blood Products, Crystalloids, and Rapid Infusion: An Experimental Study With Magnesium.

OBJECTIVES: Calcium and magnesium are concentration-dependent pro- and anticoagulant cofactors, and magnesium behaves similarly to calcium in the presence of citrate. The authors hypothesized that magnesium can cause clot formation (primary objective) when mixed with coagulation factor-containing blood products diluted with different crystalloids in a rapid- infuser reservoir. A secondary objective was the observation of any infuser alarms and stops in the event of clotting. DESIGN: An experimental in vitro study with blood products, crystalloids, magnesium, and calcium in a rapid infuser with a reservoir using a closed-loop system. SETTING: Anesthesia research laboratory at an urban academic tertiary medical center PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Exposure of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and packed red blood cells alone (control) or in combination with either normal saline (NS), lactated Ringer's solution (LR), or Plasma-Lyte A (PL) to increasing concentrations of magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) up to 1 g. After each incremental MgSO4 change, the authors applied a specific pump-flow sequence in a closed-loop system with a rapid-infuser reservoir, and if no clot was observed, the authors incrementally added calcium chloride (CaCl2) up to 1 g. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Observation of macroscopic clot and time to event, as well as occurrence and type of any pump alarms or stops. LR experiments resulted in clot observation in the reservoir by a dedicated observer after MgSO4 275 ± 206 mg (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-541). Adding MgSO4 1 g in the NS, PL, or the control experiments did not result in clot observation. Only when CaCl2 166.7 ± 51.64 mg (95% CI, 112.0-22.01) was added to the combination of blood products alone or mixed with NS and PL, clotting occurred. The mean FFP volume was 281 ± 48.6 mL (range, 204-340 mL) and was not different between groups (p = 0.44). Pump alarms and stops were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of magnesium to a combination of LR with coagulation factor- containing blood products consistently resulted in a visible blood clot in the rapid-infuser reservoir in the authors' experimental setup. In addition to MgSO4 1 g in the control, NS, and PL experiments, CaCl2 is needed before a clot can be observed.

Intraoperative Blood Pressure Monitoring in Obese Patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal method for blood pressure monitoring in obese surgical patients remains unknown. Arterial catheters can cause potential complications, and noninvasive oscillometry provides only intermittent values. Finger cuff methods allow continuous noninvasive monitoring. The authors tested the hypothesis that the agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements is better than the agreement between oscillometric and intraarterial measurements. METHODS: This prospective study compared intraarterial (reference method), finger cuff, and oscillometric (upper arm, forearm, and lower leg) blood pressure measurements in 90 obese patients having bariatric surgery using Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and concordance analysis (to assess the ability of monitoring methods to follow blood pressure changes), and error grid analysis (to describe the clinical relevance of measurement differences). RESULTS: The difference (mean ± SD) between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was -1 mmHg (± 11 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure, -7 mmHg (± 14 mmHg) for systolic blood pressure, and 0 mmHg (± 11 mmHg) for diastolic blood pressure. Concordance between changes in finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was 88% (mean arterial pressure), 85% (systolic blood pressure), and 81% (diastolic blood pressure). In error grid analysis comparing finger cuff and intraarterial measurements, the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 77.1%, 21.6%, 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.0% for mean arterial pressure, respectively, and 89.5%, 9.8%, 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.2%, respectively, for systolic blood pressure. For mean arterial pressure and diastolic blood pressure, absolute agreement and trending agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements were better than between oscillometric (at each of the three measurement sites) and intraarterial measurements. Forearm performed better than upper arm and lower leg monitoring with regard to absolute agreement and trending agreement with intraarterial monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was better than the agreement between oscillometric and intraarterial measurements for mean arterial pressure and diastolic blood pressure in obese patients during surgery. Forearm oscillometry exhibits better measurement performance than upper arm or lower leg oscillometry.

The Obese Patient: Facts, Fables, and Best Practices.

The prevalence of obesity continues to rise worldwide, and anesthesiologists must be aware of current best practices in the perioperative management of the patient with obesity. Obesity alters anatomy and physiology, which complicates the evaluation and management of obese patients in the perioperative setting. Gastric point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is a noninvasive tool that can be used to assess aspiration risk in the obese patient by evaluating the quantity and quality of gastric contents. An important perioperative goal is adequate end-organ perfusion. Standard noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) is our best available routine surrogate measurement, but is vulnerable to greater inaccuracy in patients with obesity compared to the nonobese population. Current NIBP methodologies are discussed. Obese patients are at risk for wound and surgical site infections, but few studies conclusively guide the exact dosing of intraoperative prophylactic antibiotics for them. We review evidence for low-molecular-weight heparins and weight-based versus nonweight-based administration of vasoactive medications. Finally, intubation and extubation of the patient with obesity can be complicated, and evidence-based strategies are discussed to mitigate danger during intubation and extubation.

Identification of Sleep Medicine and Anesthesia Core Topics for Anesthesia Residency: A Modified Delphi Technique Survey.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders affect up to 25% of the general population and are associated with increased risk of adverse perioperative events. The key sleep medicine topics that are most important for the practice of anesthesiology have not been well-defined. The objective of this study was to determine the high-priority sleep medicine topics that should be included in the education of anesthesia residents based on the insight of experts in the fields of anesthesia and sleep medicine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey of experts in the fields of sleep medicine and anesthesia based on the Delphi technique to establish consensus on the sleep medicine topics that should be incorporated into anesthesia residency curricula. Consensus for inclusion of a topic was defined as >80% of all experts selecting "agree" or "strongly agree" on a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to the survey questions were analyzed with descriptive statistical methods and presented as percentages or weighted mean values with standard deviations (SD) for Likert scale data. RESULTS: The topics that were found to have 100% agreement among experts were the influence of opioids and anesthetics on control of breathing and upper airway obstruction; potential interactions of wake-promoting/hypnotic medications with anesthetic agents; effects of sleep and anesthesia on upper airway patency; and anesthetic management of sleep apnea. Less than 80% agreement was found for topics on the anesthetic implications of other sleep disorders and future pathways in sleep medicine and anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We identify key topics of sleep medicine that can be included in the future design of anesthesia residency training curricula.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Single-dose intravenous ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous (IV) ibuprofen, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate-to-severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 10 June 2021. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a 4- and 6-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants reporting or experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and specific NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. We were not able to carry out any planned meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study met our inclusion criteria, involving 201 total participants, mostly female (mean age 42 years), undergoing primary, unilateral, distal, first metatarsal bunionectomy (with osteotomy and internal fixation). Ibuprofen 300 mg, placebo or acetaminophen 1000 mg was administered intravenously to participants reporting moderate pain intensity the day after surgery. Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we did not perform any quantitative analyses. The study was at low risk of bias for most domains. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision. Ibuprofen versus placebo Findings of the single study found that at both the 4-hour and 6-hour assessment period, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 32% (24/76) for those assigned to ibuprofen and 22% (11/50) for those assigned to placebo. These findings produced a risk ratio (RR) of 1.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 2.66 versus placebo for at least 50% of maximum pain relief over the 4-hour and 6-hour period (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 71 minutes for placebo (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study (1 study, 126 participants), 58/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 39/50 (78%) assigned to placebo reported or experienced any adverse event (AE), (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). No serious AEs (SAEs) were experienced (1 study, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus active comparators Ibuprofen (300 mg) was similar to the active comparator, IV acetaminophen (1000 mg) at 4 hours and 6 hours (1 study, 126 participants). For those assigned to active control (acetaminophen), the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 35% (26/75) at 4 hours and 31% (23/75) at 6 hours. At 4 hours, these findings produced a RR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). At 6 hours, these findings produced a RR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) versus active comparator (acetaminophen). Median time to rescue medication was 101 minutes for ibuprofen and 125 minutes for the active comparator, acetaminophen (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The number of participants using rescue medication was not reported within the included study. During the study, 8/76 (76%) of participants assigned to ibuprofen and 45/75 (60%) assigned to active control (acetaminophen) reported or experienced any AE, (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59; very low-certainty evidence). No SAEs were experienced (1 study, 151 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that IV ibuprofen is effective and safe for acute postoperative pain in adults.

Non-invasive measurement of pulse pressure variation using a finger-cuff method in obese patients having laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is a dynamic cardiac preload variable used to predict fluid responsiveness. PPV can be measured non-invasively using innovative finger-cuff systems allowing for continuous arterial pressure waveform recording, e.g., the Nexfin system [BMEYE B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands; now Clearsight (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA)] (PPVFinger). However, the agreement between PPVFinger and PPV derived from an arterial catheter (PPVART) in obese patients having laparoscopic bariatric surgery is unknown. We compared PPVFinger and PPVART at 6 time points in 60 obese patients having laparoscopic bariatric surgery in a secondary analysis of a prospective method comparison study. We used Bland-Altman analysis to assess absolute agreement between PPVFinger and PPVART. The predictive agreement for fluid responsiveness between PPVFinger and PPVART was evaluated across three PPV categories (PPV < 9%, PPV 9-13%, PPV > 13%) as concordance rate of paired measurements and Cohen's kappa. The overall mean of the differences between PPVFinger and PPVART was 0.5 ± 4.6% (95%-LoA - 8.6 to 9.6%) and the overall predictive agreement was 72.4% with a Cohen's kappa of 0.53. The mean of the differences was - 0.7 ± 3.8% (95%-LoA - 8.1 to 6.7%) without pneumoperitoneum in horizontal position and 1.1 ± 4.8% (95%-LoA - 8.4 to 10.5%) during pneumoperitoneum in reverse-Trendelenburg position. The absolute agreement and predictive agreement between PPVFinger and PPVART are moderate in obese patients having laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Intravenous lidocaine infusion in a case of severe COVID-19 infection.

A subset of patients with COVID-19 develops a severe inflammatory response that may lead to respiratory and multiorgan failure. Effective treatment strategies to mitigate or interrupt this self-destructive inflammatory process are limited. The local anesthetic lidocaine has anti-inflammatory properties in addition to its analgesic, antiarrhythmic, and sedating effects that may be beneficial in critically ill COVID-19 patients. We report the case of a patient with COVID-19 induced severe respiratory distress who was intubated and received supportive treatment including proning and neuromuscular blockade. He developed a strong inflammatory response that we treated with an intermittent lidocaine infusion resulting in subsequent resolution. This case occurred prior to emerging data from a large dexamethasone use trial that demonstrated a survival benefit from its use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. At the time, lidocaine was the only anti-inflammatory medication our patient received.

Supraglottic Airway Use for Transfemoral-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Examine outcome differences in patients managed either with a supraglottic airway or an endotracheal tube for general anesthesia during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The authors hypothesized that patients managed with a supraglottic airway would have shorter post-anesthesia care unit and hospital stays and receive fewer opioids, norepinephrine equivalents, and neuromuscular blocking agents, without an increase in 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review with 1:2 supraglottic airway-to-endotracheal tube patient propensity score matching. SETTING: Single, urban, tertiary care, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing transfemoral- transcatheter aortic valve replacement between 2017 and 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Supraglottic or endotracheal tube airway management during general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one supraglottic airway patients were propensity score matched with 62 endotracheal tube patients. There was no significant difference for postanesthesia care unit (p = 0.58) or hospital (p = 0.16) lengths of stay. Supraglottic airway patients received significantly fewer neuromuscular blockers (p < 0.0001) and trended toward fewer opioids (p = 0.05), but received a similar number of norepinephrine equivalents (p = 0.76). The major adverse cardiovascular event odds ratio between groups was 1.39 (p = 0.51). The time under general anesthesia (p = 0.02) and total time in the operating room (p = 0.04) were significantly shorter for supraglottic airway patients. CONCLUSIONS: Supraglottic airway management in transcatheter aortic valve replacement was feasible without an increase in major adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with endotracheal tube management during general anesthesia. Supraglottic airway patients trended toward receiving fewer opioids and received significantly fewer neuromuscular blockers while also having significantly shorter time under general anesthesia and total time in the operating room.

ABO Blood Group and Transfusions In the Intraoperative and Postoperative Period After LVAD Implantation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether blood group O patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion have higher perioperative transfusion requirements, postoperative chest tube output, and postoperative changes in hematocrit. DESIGN: Retrospective review of 116 LVAD patients from August 2015 to May 2018. SETTING: Single-institution, urban academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixteen LVAD patients analyzed by blood group: group O (n = 49) versus non-O (n = 67). INTERVENTIONS: Transfusions in the combined intraoperative and postoperative period at 7 days and 90 days after LVAD implantation, chest tube output in the first 24 hours, and hematocrit change in the first 48 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no difference between group O and non-O within the univariable analysis for both 7-day and 90-day transfusion rates. Adjusting for covariables, blood type O was not associated with packed red blood cells transfusion after accounting for multiple comparisons (odds ratio 1.33 [1.07-1.66], p = 0.01, where p < 0.005 was considered statistically significant as a Bonferroni correction was performed to control the familywise error rate). Additionally, there was no difference in chest tube output over the first 24 hours (1,129 v 1,057 mL, p = 0.47) or hematocrit change in the first 48 hours postoperatively (3.49 v 4.53%, p = 0.15). CONCLUSION: O blood group is not a significant predictor of transfusion requirements in the combined intraoperative and postoperative period up to 90 days after LVAD implantation.

Effect of a Cognitive Aid on Reducing Sugammadex Use and Associated Costs: A Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors observed increased pharmaceutical costs after the introduction of sugammadex in our institution. After a request to decrease sugammadex use, the authors implemented a cognitive aid to help choose between reversal agents. The purpose of this study was to determine if sugammadex use changed after cognitive aid implementation. The authors' hypothesis was that sugammadex use and associated costs would decrease. METHODS: A cognitive aid suggesting reversal agent doses based on train-of-four count was developed. It was included with each dispensed reversal agent set and in medication dispensing cabinet bins containing reversal agents. An interrupted time series analysis was performed using pharmaceutical invoices and anesthesia records. The primary outcome was the number of sugammadex administrations. Secondary outcomes included total pharmaceutical acquisition costs of neuromuscular blocking drugs and reversal agents, adverse respiratory events, emergence duration, and number of neuromuscular blocking drug administrations. RESULTS: Before cognitive aid implementation, the number of sugammadex administrations was increasing at a monthly rate of 20 per 1,000 general anesthetics (P < 0.001). Afterward, the monthly rate was 4 per 1,000 general anesthetics (P = 0.361). One month after cognitive aid implementation, the number of sugammadex administrations decreased by 281 per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 228 to 333, P < 0.001). In the final study month, there were 509 fewer sugammadex administrations than predicted per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 366 to 653; P < 0.0001), and total pharmaceutical acquisition costs per 1,000 general anesthetics were $11,947 less than predicted (95% CI, $4,043 to $19,851; P = 0.003). There was no significant change in adverse respiratory events, emergence duration, or administrations of rocuronium, vecuronium, or atracurium. In the final month, there were 75 more suxamethonium administrations than predicted per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 32 to 119; P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive aid implementation to choose between reversal agents was associated with a decrease in sugammadex use and acquisition costs.

A Simple Method for Estimating Hand Hygiene Use Among Anesthesia Personnel: Development, Validation, and Use in a Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: Frequent hand hygiene by anesthesia personnel may be an important factor in reducing contamination of IV lines and medication access ports and may reduce hospital-acquired infections. Measurement of hand hygiene frequency at the individual clinician level by direct observation or electronic devices is cumbersome and expensive. We developed and validated a simple method for estimating hand hygiene frequency by individual anesthesia providers and utilized it in a quality improvement initiative to increase hand hygiene use. METHODS: Pump-style, alcohol-based hand hygiene container weight at the anesthesia work station was measured before and after each surgical operation and converted to estimated number of accesses (pumps) per hour. Video observation was used to validate the estimated hand hygiene use. A quality improvement initiative utilized periodic measurement of hand hygiene frequency via the validated method, and incorporated individual provider feedback, email reminders, monthly departmental performance reports, and reminders in the electronic anesthesia record. Segmented linear regression was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on hand hygiene use. RESULTS: Delivered product per pump was consistent for containers at least half-full and averaged (mean ± SD) 0.92 ± 0.13 g per pump. Video observation in 26 cases showed a strong correlation between observed hand hygiene episodes and estimated hand hygiene use frequency based on weight change of the container (linear regression, R = 0.97, P < .0001). Median hand hygiene frequency was near 0 at baseline but increased progressively throughout the intervention period (segmented linear regression, overall R = 0.76, P < .0001; change of intercept or mean hand hygiene after initiation of intervention [parameter estimate ± SE] [0.970 ± 0.29], P = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: A low-cost, simple method for measuring individual anesthesia clinician use of hand hygiene intraoperatively based on container weight change is feasible and sufficiently accurate to support a quality improvement initiative to increase its use.

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Effect of early allograft dysfunction on outcomes following liver transplantation.

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following liver transplantation (LT) remains a challenge for patients and clinicians. We retrospectively analyzed the effect of pre-defined EAD on outcomes in a 10-year cohort of deceased-donor LT recipients with clearly defined exclusion criteria. EAD was defined by at least one of the following: AST or ALT >2000 IU/L within first-week post-LT, total bilirubin ≥10 mg/dL, and/or INR ≥1.6 on post-operative day 7. Ten patients developed primary graft failure and were analyzed separately. EAD occurred in 86 (36%) recipients in a final cohort of 239 patients. In univariate and multivariate analyses, EAD was significantly associated with mechanical ventilation ≥2 days or death on days 0, 1, PACU/SICU stay >2 days or death on days 0-2 and renal failure (RF) at time of hospital discharge (all P<.05). EAD was also significantly associated with higher one-year graft loss in both uni- and multivariate Cox hazard analyses (P=.0203 and .0248, respectively). There was no difference in patient mortality between groups in either of the Cox proportional hazard models. In conclusion, we observed significant effects of EAD on short-term post-LT outcomes and lower graft survival.

Methadone for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review replaces an earlier review, "Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.The included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.There were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).For secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.One study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.