Research priorities in regional anaesthesia: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies. METHODS: We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group. RESULTS: There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

Dorsal root ganglion: a key to understanding the therapeutic effects of the erector spinae plane (ESP) and other intertransverse process blocks?

Since its description in 2016, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has become a widely employed regional anesthetic technique and kindled interest in a range of related techniques, collectively termed intertransverse process blocks. There has been ongoing controversy over mechanism of action of the ESPB, mainly due to incongruities between results of cutaneous sensory testing, clinical efficacy studies, and investigations into the neural structures that are reached by injected local anesthetic (LA). This paper reviews the spread of LA to the paravertebral and epidural space and the cutaneous anesthesia in ESPB, with specific emphasis on the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). We hypothesize that the DRG, due to its unique and complex microarchitecture, represents a key therapeutic target for modulation of nociceptive signaling in regional anesthesia. This paper discusses how the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the DRG may be one of the factors underpinning the clinical analgesia observed in ESPB and other intertransverse process blocks.

Long-term Outcomes with Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal versus general anesthesia on long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study tested the hypothesis that spinal anesthesia is associated with better long-term survival and functional recovery than general anesthesia. METHODS: A prespecified analysis was conducted of long-term outcomes of a completed randomized superiority trial that compared spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture repair. Participants included previously ambulatory patients 50 yr of age or older at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1 to spinal or general anesthesia, stratified by sex, fracture type, and study site. Outcome assessors and investigators involved in the data analysis were masked to the treatment arm. Outcomes included survival at up to 365 days after randomization (primary); recovery of ambulation among 365-day survivors; and composite endpoints for death or new inability to ambulate and death or new nursing home residence at 365 days. Patients were included in the analysis as randomized. RESULTS: A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled between February 12, 2016, and February 18, 2021; 795 were assigned to spinal anesthesia, and 805 were assigned to general anesthesia. Among 1,599 patients who underwent surgery, vital status information at or beyond the final study interview (conducted at approximately 365 days after randomization) was available for 1,427 (89.2%). Survival did not differ by treatment arm; at 365 days after randomization, there were 98 deaths in patients assigned to spinal anesthesia versus 92 deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.44, P = 0.59). Recovery of ambulation among patients who survived a year did not differ by type of anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio for spinal vs. general, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.14; P = 0.31). Other outcomes did not differ by treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes were similar with spinal versus general anesthesia.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown. METHODS: Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.

A hood shield reduces postdoffing contamination during simulated COVID-19 airway management: an exploratory, simulation-based randomized study.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 poses a significant occupational health threat to health care workers performing aerosol-generating medical procedures, with a threefold increased risk of a positive test and predicted infection compared with the general population. Nevertheless, the personal protective equipment (PPE) configuration that provides better protection with lower contamination rates is still unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 40 practitioners with airway management training (anesthesiologists, anesthesia assistants/nurses) in an exploratory, simulation-based randomized study. We evaluated the performance of a novel, locally designed hood (n = 20) in terms of protection from surrogate contamination using an ultraviolet (UV) marker during a standardized urgent intubation procedure and a simulated episode of coughing in a high-fidelity simulation setting compared with standard PPE (n = 20). The primary outcome was the presence of residual UV fluorescent contamination on any base clothing or exposed skin of the upper body after doffing PPE assessed by a blinded evaluator. RESULTS: The proportion of participants with residual contamination on any base clothing or exposed skin of the upper body after doffing was less than half in the hood PPE group compared with the standard PPE group (8/20 [40%] vs 18/20 [90%], respectively; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard PPE, enhanced PPE with a locally designed prototype hood was associated with reduced contamination of the upper torso and fewer body areas being exposed to droplets after a simulated aerosol-generating scenario without designed airflow. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04373096); registered 4 May 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le SRAS-CoV-2 représente une menace importante pour la santé au travail des travailleurs de la santé réalisant des interventions médicales générant des aérosols, avec un risque trois fois plus élevé de test positif au SRAS-CoV-2 et d'infection prédite au SRAS-CoV-2 par rapport à la population générale. Néanmoins, la configuration optimale des équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) offrant la meilleure protection avec des taux de contamination plus faibles est encore inconnue. MéTHODE: Nous avons recruté 40 praticiens ayant une formation en prise en charge des voies aériennes (anesthésiologistes, assistants en anesthésie/personnel infirmier) dans le cadre d'une étude exploratoire randomisée de simulation. Nous avons évalué la performance d'un nouveau capuchon conçu localement (n = 20) par rapport aux EPI standards (n = 20) en termes de protection contre la contamination de substitution à l'aide d'un marqueur ultraviolet (UV) au cours d'une procédure d'intubation urgente normalisée et d'un épisode simulé de toux dans un environnement de simulation haute fidélité. Le critère d'évaluation principal était la présence d'une contamination résiduelle par fluorescence UV sur les vêtements de base ou la peau exposée du haut du corps après le retrait des EPI telle qu'évaluée par un évaluateur en aveugle. RéSULTATS: La proportion de participants présentant une contamination résiduelle sur les vêtements de base ou la peau exposée du haut du corps après le retrait des équipements de protection était de moins de la moitié dans le groupe ayant porté le capuchon par rapport au groupe EPI standard (8/20 [40 %] vs 18/20 [90 %], respectivement; P = 0,002). CONCLUSION: Par rapport aux EPI standards, les EPI améliorés avec un prototype de capuchon conçu localement étaient associés à une contamination réduite du haut du torse et à moins de zones du corps exposées aux gouttelettes après une mise en situation simulée de génération d'aérosols sans flux d'air préconçu. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04373096); enregistrée le 4 mai 2020.

Erector spinae block: beyond the torso.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article aims to summarize the current literature describing the application of erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks for regional anesthesia of upper and lower limbs and to discuss the advantages and limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: Investigations are still at an early stage but results are promising. High thoracic ESP blockade can relieve acute and chronic shoulder pain through local anesthetic diffusion to cervical nerve roots, although it may not be as effective as direct local anesthetic injection around the brachial plexus. It does, however, preserve motor and phrenic nerve function to a greater extent. It will also block the T2 innervation of the axilla which can be a source of pain in complex arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Lumbar ESP blocks provide effective analgesia following hip arthroplasty and arthroscopy, and appear comparable to lumbar plexus, quadratus lumborum, and fascia iliaca blocks. Unlike the latter, they are motor-sparing and are associated with improved postoperative ambulation. SUMMARY: High thoracic and lumbar ESP blocks have the potential to provide adequate analgesia of the upper and lower limbs respectively, without causing significant motor block. They are thus alternative methods of regional anesthesia when other techniques are not feasible or have undesirable adverse effects.

No Benefits of Adding Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, Dexamethasone, and Nerve Blocks to an Established Multimodal Analgesic Regimen after Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: An optimal opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic regimen to treat severe pain can enhance recovery after total knee arthroplasty. The hypothesis was that adding five recently described intravenous and regional interventions to multimodal analgesic regimen can further reduce opioid consumption. METHODS: In a double-blinded fashion, 78 patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty were randomized to either (1) a control group (n = 39) that received spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine, periarticular local anesthesia infiltration, intravenous dexamethasone, and a single injection adductor canal block or (2) a study group (n = 39) that received the same set of analgesic treatments plus five additional interventions: local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee, intraoperative intravenous dexmedetomidine and ketamine, and postoperatively, one additional intravenous dexamethasone bolus and two additional adductor canal block injections. The primary outcome measure was 24-h cumulative opioid consumption after surgery and secondary outcomes were other analgesics, patient recovery, functional outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Opioid consumption was not different between groups at 24 h (oral morphine equivalents, mean ± SD; study: 23.7 ± 18.0 mg vs. control: 29.3 ± 18.7 mg; mean difference [95% CI], -5.6 mg [-2.7 to 13.9]; P = 0.189) and all other time points after surgery. There were no major differences in pain scores, quality of recovery, or time to reach rehabilitation milestones. Hypotensive episodes occurred more frequently in the study group (25 of 39 [64.1%] vs. 13 of 39 [33.3%]; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of periarticular local anesthesia infiltration, intrathecal morphine, single-shot adductor canal block and dexamethasone, the addition of five analgesic interventions-local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee, intravenous dexmedetomidine, intravenous ketamine, an additional intravenous dexamethasone dose, and repeated adductor canal block injections-failed to further reduce opioid consumption or pain scores or to improve functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.

Core outcome set for peripheral regional anesthesia research: a systematic review and Delphi study.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: There is heterogeneity among the outcomes used in regional anesthesia research. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to produce a core outcome set for regional anesthesia research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and Delphi study to develop this core outcome set. A systematic review of the literature from January 2015 to December 2019 was undertaken to generate a long list of potential outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. For each outcome found, the parameters such as the measurement scale, timing and definitions, were compiled. Regional anesthesia experts were then recruited to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi process with incremental thresholds to generate a core outcome set. Once the core outcomes were decided, a final Delphi survey and video conference vote was used to reach a consensus on the outcome parameters. RESULTS: Two hundred and six papers were generated following the systematic review, producing a long list of 224 unique outcomes. Twenty-one international regional anesthesia experts participated in the study. Ten core outcomes were selected after three Delphi survey rounds with 13 outcome parameters reaching consensus after a final Delphi survey and video conference. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first core outcome set for regional anesthesia derived by international expert consensus. These are proposed not to limit the outcomes examined in future studies, but rather to serve as a minimum core set. If adopted, this may increase the relevance of outcomes being studied, reduce selective reporting bias and increase the availability and suitability of data for meta-analysis in this area.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia. DESIGN: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505). SETTING: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. INTERVENTION: Spinal or general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups. LIMITATION: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Experiences of healthcare providers with a novel emergency response intubation team during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were significant concerns about the infectious risks of intubation to healthcare providers. In response, a dedicated emergency response intubation team (ERIT) consisting of anesthesiologists and allied health providers was instituted for our emergency department (ED). Given the high-risk nature of intubations and the new interprofessional team dynamics, we sought to assess health-care provider experiences and potential areas of improvement. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to healthcare providers at the University Health Network, a quaternary healthcare centre in Toronto, Canada, which includes two urban EDs seeing over 128,000 patients per year. Participants included ED physicians and nurses, anesthesiologists, anesthesia assistants, and operating room nurses. The survey included free-text questions. Responses underwent thematic analysis using grounded theory and were independently coded by two authors to generate descriptive themes. Discrepancies were resolved with a third author. Descriptive themes were distilled through an inductive, iterative process until fewer main themes emerged. RESULTS: A total of 178 surveys were collected (68.2% response rate). Of these, 123 (69%) participated in one or more ERIT activations. Positive aspects included increased numbers of staff to assist, increased intubation expertise, improved safety, and good team dynamics within the ERIT team. Challenges included a loss of scope (primarily ED physicians and nurses) and unfamiliar workflows, perceived delays to ERIT team arrival or patient intubation, role confusion, handover concerns, and communication challenges between ED and ERIT teams. Perceived opportunities for improvement included interprofessional training, developing clear guidelines on activation, inter-team role clarification, and guidelines on handover processes post-intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers perceived that a novel interprofessional collaboration for intubations of COVID-19 patients presented both benefits and challenges. Opportunities for improvement centred around interprofessional training, shared decision making between teams, and structured handoff processes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Aux premiers stades de la pandémie de COVID-19, les risques infectieux de l'intubation pour les prestataires de soins de santé ont suscité de vives inquiétudes. En réponse, une équipe d'intervention d'urgence en intubation (emergency response intubation team ERIT), composée d'anesthésistes et de prestataires de services paramédicaux, a été mise en place dans notre service d'urgence. Compte tenu de la nature à haut risque des intubations et de la nouvelle dynamique d'équipe interprofessionnelle, nous avons cherché à évaluer les expériences des prestataires de soins et les domaines d'amélioration potentiels. MéTHODES: Les questionnaires ont été distribués aux prestataires de soins de santé du University Health Network, un centre de soins de santé quaternaire de Toronto, au Canada, qui comprend deux urgences urbaines accueillant plus de 128 000 patients par an. Les participants comprenaient des médecins et des infirmiers des urgences, des anesthésistes, des assistants en anesthésie et des infirmiers de salle d'opération. Les réponses ont fait l'objet d'une analyse thématique fondée sur la théorie de la base et ont été codées indépendamment par deux auteurs afin de générer des thèmes descriptifs. Les divergences ont été résolues avec un troisième auteur. Les thèmes descriptifs ont été distillés par un processus inductif et itératif jusqu'à ce qu'un nombre réduit de thèmes principaux émerge. RéSULTATS: Au total, 178 sondages ont été recueillis (taux de réponse de 68,2 %). Parmi ceux-ci, 123 (69 %) ont participé à une ou plusieurs activations d'ERIT. Les aspects positifs comprenaient un nombre accru de personnel pour aider, une expertise accrue en matière d'intubation, une sécurité améliorée et une bonne dynamique d'équipe au sein de l'équipe ERIT. Parmi les difficultés rencontrées, citons la perte du champ d'action (principalement les médecins et les infirmières des services d'urgence) et les flux de travail non familiers, les retards perçus dans l'arrivée de l'équipe d'ERIT ou l'intubation du patient, la confusion des rôles, les problèmes de transfert et les difficultés de communication entre les équipes des services d'urgence et d'ERIT. Les possibilités d'amélioration perçues comprennent la formation interprofessionnelle, l'élaboration de directives claires sur l'activation, la clarification des rôles entre les équipes et les directives sur les processus de transfert après l'intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Les prestataires de soins de santé ont perçu qu'une nouvelle collaboration interprofessionnelle pour les intubations des patients COVID-19 présentait à la fois des avantages et des défis.

Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk factors for healthcare worker (HCW) infection in viral respiratory pandemics: severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1. To improve understanding of HCW risk management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and noninfected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. We used the GRADE framework to rate certainty of evidence. (PROSPERO no. CRD42020176232, 6 April 2020.). RESULTS: In total, 54 comparative studies were included (n = 191,004 HCWs). Compared to nonfrontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24-2.22), and the risk was greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference, 35.2%; 95% CI, 21.4-47.9). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.33, P = .004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centers (OR, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.52 to -0.08; P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.

A specialized airway management team for COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study of the experience of two Canadian hospitals in Toronto.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of individuals required endotracheal intubation. To safely face these challenges, expert intubation teams were formed in some institutions. Here, we report on the experience of emergency rapid intubation teams (ERITs) in two Canadian hospitals. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on all airway management procedures in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients performed by ERITs at two academic hospitals between 3 April and 17 June 2020. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of periprocedural adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest within 15 min of intubation) and first-attempt intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included number of intubation attempts, device used to achieve successful airway management, and adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols. RESULTS: During the study period, 123 patients were assessed for airway management, with 117 patients receiving airway interventions performed by the ERIT. The first-attempt success rate for intubation was 92%, and a videolaryngoscope was the final successful device in 93% of procedures. Hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2] < 90%) occurred in 28 patients (24%) and severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 70%) occurred in ten patients (9%). Hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg) occurred in 37 patients (32%) and severe hypotension (SBP < 65 mm Hg) in 11 patients (9%). Adherence to recommended PPE use among providers was high. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of critically ill patients with respiratory failure requiring time-sensitive airway management, specialized ERIT teams showed high rates of successful airway management with high adherence to PPE use. Hypoxemia and hemodynamic instability were common and should be anticipated within the first 15 min following intubation. STUDY REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04689724); registered 30 December 2020.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, un nombre sans précédent de patients ont dû bénéficier d'une intubation endotrachéale. Pour faire face en toute sécurité à ces défis, des équipes d'experts en intubation ont été formées dans certains établissements. Nous rendons compte ici de l'expérience d'équipes d'intubation rapide d'urgence (ou ERIT, pour Emergency Rapid Intubation Team) dans deux hôpitaux canadiens. MéTHODE: Nous avons colligé rétrospectivement les données concernant toutes les interventions de prise en charge des voies aériennes chez les patients COVID-19 confirmés ou suspectés réalisées par les ERIT dans deux hôpitaux universitaires entre le 3 avril et le 17 juin 2020. Les deux critères d'évaluation principaux étaient l'incidence d'événements indésirables péri-procédure (hypoxémie, hypotension et arrêt cardiaque dans les 15 minutes suivant l'intubation) et le taux de réussite de l'intubation à la première tentative. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient le nombre de tentatives d'intubation, le dispositif utilisé pour parvenir au succès de la prise en charge des voies aériennes et le respect des protocoles concernant les équipements de protection individuelle (EPI). RéSULTATS: Au cours de la période à l'étude, 123 patients ont été évalués pour une prise en charge des voies aériennes, et 117 patients ont bénéficié d'interventions au niveau des voies aériennes réalisées par l'ERIT. Le taux de réussite de la première tentative d'intubation était de 92 %, et un vidéolaryngoscope a été le dispositif menant à une intubation réussie dans 93 % des interventions. Des épisodes d'hypoxémie (saturation périphérique en oxygène [SpO2] < 90 %) sont survenus chez 28 patients (24 %) et dix patients (9 %) ont souffert d'hypoxémie sévère (SpO2 < 70 %). Des épisodes d'hypotension (tension artérielle systolique [TAS] < 90 mmHg) sont survenus chez 37 patients (32 %) et 11 patients (9 %) ont souffert d'hypotension sévère (TAS < 65 mmHg). Le respect de l'utilisation recommandée des EPI chez les soignants était élevé. CONCLUSION: Dans cette cohorte de patients gravement malades atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire et nécessitant une prise en charge des voies aériennes urgente, les équipes spécialisées de l'ERIT ont montré des taux élevés de succès de prise en charge des voies aériennes, avec une adhésion élevée aux protocoles d'utilisation des EPI. L'hypoxémie et l'instabilité hémodynamique étaient fréquentes et devaient être anticipées dans les 15 premières minutes suivant l'intubation. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov  (NCT04689724); enregistrée le 30 décembre 2020.

Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: The effects of spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia on the ability to walk in older adults undergoing surgery for hip fracture have not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized superiority trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia in previously ambulatory patients 50 years of age or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive spinal or general anesthesia. The primary outcome was a composite of death or an inability to walk approximately 10 ft (3 m) independently or with a walker or cane at 60 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death within 60 days, delirium, time to discharge, and ambulation at 60 days. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled; 795 were assigned to receive spinal anesthesia and 805 to receive general anesthesia. The mean age was 78 years, and 67.0% of the patients were women. A total of 666 patients (83.8%) assigned to spinal anesthesia and 769 patients (95.5%) assigned to general anesthesia received their assigned anesthesia. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population for whom data were available, the composite primary outcome occurred in 132 of 712 patients (18.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and 132 of 733 (18.0%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.83). An inability to walk independently at 60 days was reported in 104 of 684 patients (15.2%) and 101 of 702 patients (14.4%), respectively (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36), and death within 60 days occurred in 30 of 768 (3.9%) and 32 of 784 (4.1%), respectively (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.57). Delirium occurred in 130 of 633 patients (20.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and in 124 of 629 (19.7%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia for hip-fracture surgery in older adults was not superior to general anesthesia with respect to survival and recovery of ambulation at 60 days. The incidence of postoperative delirium was similar with the two types of anesthesia. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; REGAIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02507505.).

Bilateral continuous erector spinae plane block using a programmed intermittent bolus regimen versus intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia in living donor laparoscopic hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if continuous bilateral erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks would improve the postoperative analgesia in the first 48 h after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, compared to intrathecal morphine (ITM). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A single tertiary care center from October 2019 and September 2020. PATIENTS: A total of 60 donors scheduled to undergo elective laparoscopic right hepatectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Sixty donors were randomized to receive either bilateral continuous T8 ESP blocks with a programmed intermittent bolus regimen of 10 mL 0.2% ropivacaine every 3 h for 48 h (n = 30) or 400 µg ITM (n = 30), in addition to IV fentanyl PCA and multimodal analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption over the first 48 h, expressed as IV morphine equivalents. Secondary outcomes included pain scores, Quality of Recovery-15 scores, ambulation within 24 h, time to first flatus, and opioid-related adverse drug events over 72 h. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-nine donors were analyzed. Cumulative 48-h opioid consumption was similar between the ITM and ESP groups (29.8 ± 18.2 vs. 35.1 ± 21.9 mg, mean difference (ESP-ITM) (95% CI), 5.3 (-11.5 to 22) mg; p > 0.99). Resting pain scores at 48 and 72 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the ESP group (0 [0-2] vs. 3 [1.5-3], and 0 [0-2] vs. 3 [1-3] respectively, both p<0.001) (Goldaracena and Barbas, 2019; Ko et al., 2009; Choi et al., 2007 [1-3]) respectively, both p < 0.001). The ESP group had significantly lower incidences of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pruritus at all timepoints. There were no differences in recovery outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous ESP blocks did not reduce cumulative 48-h opioid consumption compared to 400 µg ITM after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, but it was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative nausea, vomiting and pruritus. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL: Clinical Trial Registry of Korea; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index.jsp and identifier: KCT0004313; date of registration: October 15, 2019; principal investigator's name: Justin Sangwook Ko.

Anatomical basis of fascial plane blocks.

Fascial plane blocks (FPBs) are regional anesthesia techniques in which the space ("plane") between two discrete fascial layers is the target of needle insertion and injection. Analgesia is primarily achieved by local anesthetic spread to nerves traveling within this plane and adjacent tissues. This narrative review discusses key fundamental anatomical concepts relevant to FPBs, with a focus on blocks of the torso. Fascia, in this context, refers to any sheet of connective tissue that encloses or separates muscles and internal organs. The basic composition of fascia is a latticework of collagen fibers filled with a hydrated glycosaminoglycan matrix and infiltrated by adipocytes and fibroblasts; fluid can cross this by diffusion but not bulk flow. The plane between fascial layers is filled with a similar fat-glycosaminoglycan matric and provides gliding and cushioning between structures, as well as a pathway for nerves and vessels. The planes between the various muscle layers of the thorax, abdomen, and paraspinal area close to the thoracic paravertebral space and vertebral canal, are popular targets for ultrasound-guided local anesthetic injection. The pertinent musculofascial anatomy of these regions, together with the nerves involved in somatic and visceral innervation, are summarized. This knowledge will aid not only sonographic identification of landmarks and block performance, but also understanding of the potential pathways and barriers for spread of local anesthetic. It is also critical as the basis for further exploration and refinement of FPBs, with an emphasis on improving their clinical utility, efficacy, and safety.

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks.

BACKGROUND: There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. RESULTS: Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.