Assessing Postoperative Recovery With Volatile Gas Versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Patients With and Without Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

INTRODUCTION: To determine if there is a recovery time difference between patients with and without obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) when using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) compared to volatile gas inhalational anesthesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OSA and Non-OSA patients were identified at a tertiary institution between January 2019 and November 2020. Non-OSA patients were defined as those who have not been formerly diagnosed with OSA. A modified STOP-BANG score (MSBS) was performed to screen Non-OSA patients for OSA. Recovery was measured by Phase I recovery time, or time it took a patient to reach ≥9/10 on the Aldrete scoring system. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were included with 142 in the OSA cohort (59 TIVA, 83 inhalational anesthesia) and 192 in the Non-OSA cohort (119 TIVA, 73 inhalational anesthesia). In OSA patients, there was a 41.29-minute recovery time reduction when using TIVA versus sevoflurane (P < .0001). Non-OSA patients recovered faster than OSA patients when undergoing inhalational anesthesia by 46.76 minutes and TIVA by 18.58 minutes (P < .0001 and P = .0907, respectively). Non-OSA patients with a MSBS < 3 and ≥3 had a shorter recovery time compared to OSA patients when both underwent sevoflurane anesthesia (57.27 minutes, P < .0001 and 56.23 minutes, P = .040, respectively). Non-OSA patients with a MSBS of <3 had a decrease in recovery time of 26.68 minutes when compared to OSA patients who underwent TIVA (P = .0004). CONCLUSIONS: When utilizing TIVA over inhalational anesthesia, patients with OSA have significantly increased benefit in terms of reduced Phase I recovery times as compared to Non-OSA patients.

Correction: Coppock et al. Pharmacologic Ascorbic Acid as Early Therapy for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Life 2022, 12, 453.

The authors wish to make a change to the author names (deleting one author-Constantine Daskalakis) for this paper [...].

Pharmacologic Ascorbic Acid as Early Therapy for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Despite the widespread availability of effective vaccines, new cases of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), remain a concern in the settings of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine breakthrough. In this randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial, we hypothesized that high-dose ascorbic acid delivered intravenously to achieve pharmacologic concentrations may target the high viral phase of COVID-19 and thus improve early clinical outcomes. Sixty-six patients admitted with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen were randomized to receive either escalating doses of intravenous ascorbic acid plus standard of care or standard of care alone. The demographic and clinical characteristics were well-balanced between the two study arms. The primary outcome evaluated in this study was clinical improvement at 72 h after randomization. While the primary outcome was not achieved, point estimates for the composite outcome and its individual components of decreased use of supplemental oxygen, decreased use of bronchodilators, and the time to discharge were all favorable for the treatment arm. Possible favorable effects of ascorbic acid were most apparent during the first 72 h of hospitalization, although these effects disappeared over the course of the entire hospitalization. Future larger trials of intravenous ascorbic acid should be based on our current understanding of COVID-19 with a focus on the potential early benefits of ascorbic in hospitalized patients.