Does "Hoarding" Impact Interview Distribution Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants? A Modeling Study Based on a Large Database.

BACKGROUND: "Interview hoarding" is commonly used to refer to the concentration of interview offers among a small number of high-performing residency applicants. Theoretically, if the same applicants interview at every program, fewer rank lists will be submitted than open residency positions, leading to a "match crisis" with unfilled positions after the match. There are no published studies we are aware of that describe the observed distribution of residency interview offers among orthopaedic surgery applicants or the potential impact of "hoarding" on that distribution. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We examined the distribution of interview invitations extended to orthopaedic surgery residency applicants in the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 application cycles. The change in the shape of the interview invitation distribution was the primary outcome for two central questions: (1) Does the interview offer distribution curve among orthopaedic surgery applicants change meaningfully from baseline with implementation of an interview cap (Model 1)? (2) What is the impact on the distribution of invitations with a reduction in the number of applicants in the field (Model 2)? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of orthopaedic surgery interview invitations extended to applicants via the Thalamus interview management program during the 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 residency application cycles. The Thalamus database was chosen because it contains data on interview invitations for orthopaedic surgery residency positions and has the largest market share in orthopaedics compared with similar databases. Thalamus data represent 1565 applicants and 53 residency programs (90% and 25% of the national total, respectively) in 2021 to 2022 and 993 applicants and 46 programs (77% and 23%, respectively) in 2020 to 2021. It has been shown to contain a representative sample of orthopaedic residency programs. An interview cap (Model 1) was simulated by removing excess interviews held by applicants above the 75th and 95th percentiles, which were chosen to represent a formal cap and an informal cap, respectively. A reduction in the size of the applicant pool was similarly modeled by randomly removing 5% and 25% of applicants, chosen to simulate informal and formal application requirements, respectively. In both models, the excess interviews were redistributed among the remaining applicants. RESULTS: Applicants received a mean of 1.8 ± 2.2 Thalamus interview invitations in 2020 to 2021 and 1.7 ± 2.4 invitations in 2021 to 2022, with no change to the overall distribution curve. A total of 39% (606 of 1565) of applicants received no Thalamus interview invitations in 2021 to 2022, 75% (1176 of 1565) received two or fewer, and < 1% (14 of 1565) of applicants received 10 or more invitations. Redistributing excess interviews held by the top 5% of applicants resulted in 2% (61 of 2651) of interviews being redistributed (Model 1). Removing 5% of the total applicant pool resulted in a redistribution of 3% (87 of 2651) of the interview invitations (Model 2). CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgery interview data demonstrated an expected uneven distribution of interview invitations, with a small proportion of highly competitive applicants receiving a higher number of interview offers as well as a large group of applicants receiving no interview invitations in Thalamus. Concerns that "hoarding" would lead to a crisis resulting in many unmatched residency positions seemed unfounded, given the excess of applicants relative to positions and the minimal change in the distribution of interviews in the cap model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Medical students applying to orthopaedic residency should seek individual advising to improve their individual odds of matching, while understanding that interview hoarding does not seem to alter the distribution of interviews. Program directors and medical students' advisors should be cognizant that a small proportion of applicants are broadly interviewed and may benefit from steps taken to ensure applicants have genuine interest in the program.

Interview Data Highlight Importance of "Same-State" on Anesthesiology Residency Match.

BACKGROUND: The US residency application, interview, and match processes are costly and time-intensive. We sought to quantify the importance of an applicant being from the same-state as a residency program in terms of how this impacted the number of interviews needed to match. METHODS: We examined data from interview scheduling software used by 32 programs located in 31 US states and 1300 applicants for the US anesthesiology recruitment cycles from 2015 to 2018. Interviewee data (distance from program, region, numbers of interviews, and program at which interview occurred) were analyzed to quantify the effect of the interviewee being from the same state as the residency program on the odds of matching to that program. Other variables of interest (medical school, current address, US Medical Licensing Exam [USMLE] Step 1 and 2 clinical knowledge [CK] scores, Alpha Omega Alpha [AOA] status, medical school ranking) were also examined as controls. Confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the ratios of odds ratios. RESULTS: An interviewee living in the same state as the interviewing program could have 5.42 fewer total interviews (97.5% CI, 3.02-7.81) while having the same odds of matching. The same state effect had an equivalent value as an approximately 4.14 USMLE points-difference from the program's mean (97.5% CI was 2.34-5.94 USMLE points). Addition of whether the interviewee belonged to an affiliated medical school did not significantly improve the model; same-state remained significant (P < .0001) while affiliated medical school was not (P = .40). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of anesthesiology residency recruitment using previously unstudied interview data shows that same-state locality is a viable predictor of residency matching and should be strongly considered when evaluating whether to interview an applicant.

Using Machine Learning to Evaluate Attending Feedback on Resident Performance.

BACKGROUND: High-quality and high-utility feedback allows for the development of improvement plans for trainees. The current manual assessment of the quality of this feedback is time consuming and subjective. We propose the use of machine learning to rapidly distinguish the quality of attending feedback on resident performance. METHODS: Using a preexisting databank of 1925 manually reviewed feedback comments from 4 anesthesiology residency programs, we trained machine learning models to predict whether comments contained 6 predefined feedback traits (actionable, behavior focused, detailed, negative feedback, professionalism/communication, and specific) and predict the utility score of the comment on a scale of 1-5. Comments with ≥4 feedback traits were classified as high-quality and comments with ≥4 utility scores were classified as high-utility; otherwise comments were considered low-quality or low-utility, respectively. We used RapidMiner Studio (RapidMiner, Inc, Boston, MA), a data science platform, to train, validate, and score performance of models. RESULTS: Models for predicting the presence of feedback traits had accuracies of 74.4%-82.2%. Predictions on utility category were 82.1% accurate, with 89.2% sensitivity, and 89.8% class precision for low-utility predictions. Predictions on quality category were 78.5% accurate, with 86.1% sensitivity, and 85.0% class precision for low-quality predictions. Fifteen to 20 hours were spent by a research assistant with no prior experience in machine learning to become familiar with software, create models, and review performance on predictions made. The program read data, applied models, and generated predictions within minutes. In contrast, a recent manual feedback scoring effort by an author took 15 hours to manually collate and score 200 comments during the course of 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Harnessing the potential of machine learning allows for rapid assessment of attending feedback on resident performance. Using predictive models to rapidly screen for low-quality and low-utility feedback can aid programs in improving feedback provision, both globally and by individual faculty.

Anesthetic Considerations for Patients Undergoing Bronchial Thermoplasty.

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a novel, Food and Drug Administration-approved nondrug treatment for patients whose asthma remains uncontrolled despite traditional pharmacotherapy. BT involves application of controlled radiofrequency energy to reduce airway smooth muscle in large- and medium-sized airways. Although BT is often performed under general anesthesia, anesthetic management strategies for BT are poorly described. We describe the anesthetic management of 7 patients who underwent 19 BT treatments in a tertiary academic medical center.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 2 Safety: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, a public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a second meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds to develop recommendations for procedural sedation research. The previous meeting addressed efficacy and patient- and/or family-centered outcomes. This meeting addressed issues of safety, which was defined as "the avoidance of physical or psychological harm." A literature review identified 133 articles addressing safety measures in procedural sedation clinical trials. After basic reporting of vital signs, the most commonly measured safety parameter was oxygen saturation. Adverse events were inconsistently defined throughout the studies. Only 6 of the 133 studies used a previously validated measure of safety. The meeting identified methodological problems associated with measuring infrequent adverse events. With a consensus discussion, a set of core and supplemental measures were recommended to code for safety in future procedural clinical trials. When adopted, these measures should improve the integration of safety data across studies and facilitate comparisons in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Enhancing Feedback on Professionalism and Communication Skills in Anesthesia Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance, training faculty to provide feedback to residents remains challenging. We hypothesized that, overall, at 4 institutions, a faculty development program on providing feedback on professionalism and communication skills would lead to (1) an improvement in the quantity, quality, and utility of feedback and (2) an increase in feedback containing negative/constructive feedback and pertaining to professionalism/communication. As secondary analyses, we explored these outcomes at the individual institutions. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study (October 2013 to July 2014), we implemented a video-based educational program on feedback at 4 institutions. Feedback records from 3 months before to 3 months after the intervention were rated for quality (0-5), utility (0-5), and whether they had negative/constructive feedback and/or were related to professionalism/communication. Feedback records during the preintervention, intervention, and postintervention periods were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and χ tests. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or proportion/percentage. RESULTS: A total of 1926 feedback records were rated. The institutions overall did not have a significant difference in feedback quantity (preintervention: 855/3046 [28.1%]; postintervention: 896/3327 [26.9%]; odds ratio: 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.18; P = .31), feedback quality (preintervention: 2 [1-4]; intervention: 2 [1-4]; postintervention: 2 [1-4]; P = .90), feedback utility (preintervention: 1 [1-3]; intervention: 2 [1-3]; postintervention: 1 [1-2]; P = .61), or percentage of feedback records containing negative/constructive feedback (preintervention: 27%; intervention: 32%; postintervention: 25%; P = .12) or related to professionalism/communication (preintervention: 23%; intervention: 33%; postintervention: 24%; P = .03). Institution 1 had a significant difference in feedback quality (preintervention: 2 [1-3]; intervention: 3 [2-4]; postintervention: 3 [2-4]; P = .001) and utility (preintervention: 1 [1-3]; intervention: 2 [1-3]; postintervention: 2 [1-4]; P = .008). Institution 3 had a significant difference in the percentage of feedback records containing negative/constructive feedback (preintervention: 16%; intervention: 28%; postintervention: 17%; P = .02). Institution 2 had a significant difference in the percentage of feedback records related to professionalism/communication (preintervention: 26%; intervention: 57%; postintervention: 31%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We detected no overall changes but did detect different changes at each institution despite the identical intervention. The intervention may be more effective with new faculty and/or smaller discussion sessions. Future steps include refining the rating system, exploring ways to sustain changes, and investigating other factors contributing to feedback quality and utility.

A Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blinded Study of Physostigmine to Prevent Sedation-Induced Ventilatory Arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Physostigmine, a centrally acting acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, is most commonly used by anesthesiologists in the postanesthetic setting to reverse confusion caused by central anticholinergic medication effects. It has also been proposed as a treatment for sleep-disordered breathing. We investigated whether physostigmine was effective in decreasing the frequency of ventilatory arrhythmias produced during moderate sedation with midazolam and remifentanil during the conditions of breathing room air or 2 L/min nasal O2. METHODS: Ten healthy male volunteers participated in this randomized, double-blind control trial of physostigmine (0.24 µg·kg·min) versus placebo. Moderate sedation was achieved with infusions of midazolam and remifentanil and monitored with full and processed electroencephalogram. Analgesia was quantified with subjective pain score to thermal stimulation. Ventilatory arrhythmias, as measured by the sedation apnea-hypopnea index (S-AHI), were scored as the number of apneas and hypopneas during two 1-hour periods on room air or 2 L/min nasal O2. RESULTS: All subjects tolerated the sedation and physostigmine without significant adverse effects. Sedation during placebo infusion resulted in clinically significant (S-AHI > 15) ventilatory arrhythmias in 5 conditions in 3 subjects (2 on room air and then O2, and 1 on O2 only). Physostigmine did not significantly (P > 0.46) reduce the total number of ventilatory arrhythmias on either room air or O2 (13.4 ± 18.8 events/h [mean ± SEM], 95% confidence interval [CI] = -9.9 to 62.7; and 6.2 ± 8.0, 95% CI = -3.1 to 28.7, respectively). Physostigmine did reduce the S-AHI in all 5 instances of clinically significant ventilatory arrhythmias (S-AHI decreased by 67.0 ± 22.2; CI = 29.2-111.7; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Physostigmine does not appear to be useful as a pretreatment to prevent ventilatory arrhythmias during moderate sedation. However, it may be useful as a treatment for clinically significant ventilatory arrhythmias during moderate sedation.

Evaluating medical students' knowledge of patient-reported outcomes and the impact of curriculum intervention in consecutive cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection and utilization improves patient-provider communication, symptom reporting, and patient satisfaction. Despite their significance, the science and utility of PROs are not part of required curriculum in medical education. The authors describe the results of a survey distributed to medical students evaluating their experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PROs, report on outcomes of the impact of formal PRO education on medical student knowledge, and describe strategies to foster the spread of PRO education into other programs. METHODS: The authors developed and distributed a 20-question web-based survey distributed to medical students at two U.S. medical schools to evaluate students' experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PROs. To compare medical students' knowledge in their pre-clinical years (M1-M2) to those in their clinical years (M3-M4), the authors calculated odds ratios and determined significance determined using chi-squared tests. To determine the utility of formal education on medical students' knowledge of PROs, the authors invited 4th year medical students at a single institution to participate in a survey before and two weeks after receiving formal PRO education as part of the medical school curriculum, spanning three years. RESULTS: 137 (15%) medical students responded to the initial survey. Respondents' knowledge of PROs was low and did not differ when comparing pre-clinical to clinical years in school. Less than 10% had received education on PROs and only 16% felt prepared to use PROs in patient care. Respondents demonstrated positive attitudes towards PROs, with 84% expressing interest in learning about PROs. In the second phase education cohort of 231 (77% response rate) 4th -year medical students over three years, formal education improved correct response rates to PRO questions. After education, 90% (121/134) agreed PROs are an important component of high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a gap in knowledge about PROs among medical students irrespective of year in training. It also shows that structured education may help fill the PRO knowledge gap, potentially providing future clinicians with the skills to implement PROs into clinical practice, aligning with the broader shift towards patient-centric evidence-based healthcare practices.

Over-Application and Interviewing in the 2021 United States Primary Care Virtual Recruitment Season.

Importance Over-application and interviewing are believed to be widespread in residency recruitment. These may have increased during the 2021 virtual recruitment season. The increase does not correspond to an increase in available residency positions and likely results in more interviews with low probabilities of yielding matches. Prior work demonstrates that such marginal interviews are identifiable ­ from key explanatory factors like same-state for interviewee and program ­ in sufficient volume to allow programs to substantially decrease interviews. Objective To evaluate the importance of same-state relationships in primary care and to determine the extent of over-interviewing in the 2021 virtual recruitment season. Design The National Resident Matching Program and Thalamus merged match (outcomes) and interview (explanatory variables) data from primary care specialties (family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, trained on the 2017-2020 seasons, and projected on the 2021 season for testing. Setting The setting was the 2017-2021 main residency matches. Participants This comprised 4,442 interviewees applying to 167 residency programs in primary care. Intervention This included the transition to virtual recruitment from in-person recruitment in the 2021 residency recruitment season. Measurements A total of 20,415 interviews and 20,791 preferred programs with program and interviewee characteristics and match outcomes were included. Results Same-state geographic relations predicted match probability in primary care residency interviews better than medical school/residency affiliation, with 86.0% of interviewees matching consistently with their preferences for the same state. Same-state was more effective than medical school affiliations with programs in predicting matching. Eliminating interviews with less than a 5% probability of matching (upper 95% prediction limit) removed 31.5% of interviews. Conclusions and relevance The large number of low-match probability interviews demonstrates over-interviewing in primary care. We suggest that programs eliminate interview offers to applications falling below their chosen match probability threshold.

Validation of a measurement to predict upper airway collapsibility during sedation for colonoscopy.

Techniques to quantify the effects of sedation on upper airway collapsibility have been used as research tools in the laboratory and operating room. However, they have not been used previously in the usual clinical practice environment of colonoscopy sedation. The propensity for upper airway collapsibility, quantified as the critical pharyngeal pressure (P(crit)), was hypothesized to correlate with the need for clinical intervention to maintain ventilation. Twenty patients scheduled for colonoscopy with sedation were prospectively recruited to undergo measurement of upper airway collapsibility using negative airway pressure (NAP) provocation with a minimum pressure of -18 cmH(2)O. The P(crit) was the negative pressure that collapses the airway, either directly or by extrapolation from the pressure-flow relationship. An exponential transformation was applied to the P(crit) data for statistical analysis. A clinical intervention score (CIS) was used to quantify required interventions by the sedation nurse. The measurement of the P(crit) during sedation was significantly larger (less negative) than both the baseline ("awake") (P = 0.0029) and late recovery (P = 0.01) values. The CIS was not predicted by the transformed baseline or sedated P(crit) with or without including demographics associated with sleep apnea syndrome. Although the NAP technique showed the expected changes with sedation in this clinical situation, we did not find that it predicted the need for clinical intervention during endoscopy. Our study was not large enough to test for subpopulations in which the test might be predictive; further studies of these particular groups are needed to determine the clinical utility of the NAP measurement.

Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program Adherence to Universal Interview Offer Day Guidelines: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The 2020 to 2021 application cycle was marked by structural changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Adaptations included the American Orthopaedic Association Council of Residency Program Directors recommendations for a universal interview offer day (UIOD), synchronizing applicant interview offer release. As a novel process within orthopaedics, there are limited data on the execution and effect of a UIOD. Study goals include determining (1) residency program adherence to the Council of Residency Program Directors UIOD guidelines during the 2020 to 2021 cycle, (2) how quickly programs filled available interviews, and (3) any difference in time from release to booking between applicants using edu and com e-mail domains. METHODS: Orthopaedic residency programs and applicants using the Thalamus interview management software platform during the 2020 to 2021 residency application cycle were analyzed, representing 46 residency programs and 993 interviewees (22% and 77% of the national total, respectively). RESULTS: Of the programs included in this study, 19 (41%) were strictly adherent to the UIOD and time, 14 (30%) were weakly adherent and sent out offers outside of the assigned time, and 13 (28%) were nonadherent and sent out offers on dates other than the UIOD. The average time to fill to 80% capacity was 26 ± 14 minutes (range 3 to 77 minutes) for the 33 programs that released on the UIOD. Applicants with edu e-mail domains scheduled their first interview an average of 1.8 minutes after those with com e-mail domains (14.8 versus 13.0 minutes, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite more than 60% of the residency programs committing to participate, less than half of the programs that initially agreed to participate were strictly adherent to guidelines during the first UIOD in orthopaedic surgery. Although additional research is needed to analyze the unique, fully virtual 2020 to 2021 recruitment season, a phased or waved approach to the UIOD may improve the process for all stakeholders in future cycles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Risk factors for opioid-induced excessive respiratory depression.

Opioid use has increased significantly over the past ten years and so has the incidence of reportable adverse events, such as respiratory depression and/or arrest. It is important for nurses to understand and know how to assess patients for risk factors for respiratory depression secondary to opioid therapy. This paper presents the pharmacodynamics of opioids, the risk factors for excessive respiratory depression, recommendations for identifying patients at high risk, and interventions to prevent adverse effects. After reading this paper, nurses will have the knowledge to provide safe administration of opioid medications for the management of acute pain.

Venous Gas Embolism During Radical Robotic Prostatectomy: A Case Report and Evidence-Based Management Algorithm.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has gained rapid popularity in the last two decades after early reports of excellent survival rates, quick learning curves, and minimal invasion or tissue damage. Given the anatomical location of surgical prostatectomies and the utilization of intra-abdominal gas during laparoscopy, there is a risk of developing venous air embolism (VAE). We present a case of a 62-year-old male with hypothyroidism and benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent robotic suprapubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia. One hour after incision the ETCO2 suddenly dropped (40 mmHg to 25 mmHg) as did the SpO2 (98% to 90%). There were no other vital sign changes, nor was there significant blood loss. The surgical team was notified, which prompted the surgeon to inform us that he had just been dissecting around the pelvic venous plexus. At this point, with the clinical suspicion of VAE, abdominal insufflation pressure was lowered, and inspired oxygen was increased to 100%. After 10 minutes, SpO2 and ETCO2 normalized. A debrief and literature review inspired us to develop a laparoscopic-specific VAE management algorithm, with attention to robotic-case management issues. To the best of our knowledge, this is a rare case report describing a clinical VAE during RARP.

Reducing Over-Interviewing in the Anesthesiology Residency Match.

Background The U.S. residency recruitment process is expensive and time-consuming because of application inflation and over-invitation. Objective Using interview and match data, we quantify the predicted effects if anesthesiology residency programs excluded interviews for applicants who are very unlikely to match. Methods We previously published the validity and accuracy of the logistic regression model based on data from interview scheduling software used by 32 U.S. anesthesiology residency programs and 1300 applicants from 2015-18. Data used were program region, applicant address, numbers of interviews of the interviewee, medical school US News and World Report (USNWR) rank, the difference between United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 and 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, and the historical average of USMLE scores of program residents. In the current study completed in 2020, the predicted probabilities and their variances were summed among interviewees for 30 deidentified programs. Results For anesthesiology, the median residency program could reduce their interviews by 16.9% (97.5% confidence interval 8.5%-24.1%) supposing they would not invite applicants if the 99% upper prediction limit for the probability of matching was less than 10.0%. The corresponding median savings would be 0.80 interviews per matched spot (0.34-1.33). In doing so, the median program would sustain a risk of 5.3% (97.5% confidence interval 2.3%-7.9%) of having at least one interviewee removed from their final rank-to-match list. Conclusion Using novel interview data and analyses, we demonstrate that residency programs can substantively reduce interviews with less effect on rank-to-match lists. The data-driven approach to manage marginal interviews allows program leadership to better weigh costs and benefits when composing their annual list of interviewees.

Sleep Apnea and Fetal Growth Restriction (SAFER) study: protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial of positive airway pressure as an antenatal therapy for fetal growth restriction in maternal obstructive sleep apnoea.

INTRODUCTION: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a major contributor to fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality with intrauterine, neonatal and lifelong complications. This study explores maternal obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) as a potentially modifiable risk factor for FGR. We hypothesise that, in pregnancies complicated by FGR, treating mothers who have OSA using positive airway pressure (PAP) will improve birth weight and neonatal outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Sleep Apnea and Fetal Growth Restriction study is a prospective, block-randomised, single-blinded, multicentre, pragmatic controlled trial. We enrol pregnant women aged 18-50, between 22 and 31 weeks of gestation, with established FGR based on second trimester ultrasound, who do not have other prespecified known causes of FGR (such as congenital anomalies or intrauterine infection). In stage 1, participants are screened by questionnaire for OSA risk. If OSA risk is identified, participants proceed to stage 2, where they undergo home sleep apnoea testing. Participants are determined to have OSA if they have an apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥5 (if the oxygen desaturation index (ODI) is also ≥5) or if they have an AHI ≥10 (even if the ODI is <5). These participants proceed to stage 3, where they are randomised to nightly treatment with PAP or no PAP (standard care control), which is maintained until delivery. The primary outcome is unadjusted birth weight; secondary outcomes include fetal growth velocity on ultrasound, enrolment-to-delivery interval, gestational age at delivery, birth weight corrected for gestational age, stillbirth, Apgar score, rate of admission to higher levels of care (neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery) and length of neonatal stay. These outcomes are compared between PAP and control using intention-to-treat analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri; Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem; and the University of Rochester, New York. Recruitment began in Washington University in November 2019 but stopped from March to November 2020 due to COVID-19. Recruitment began in Hadassah Hebrew University in March 2021, and in the University of Rochester in May 2021. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences and scientific publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04084990.

The Physiology and Maintenance of Respiration: A Narrative Review.

Chronic pain is one of the most common reasons adults seek medical care and is often managed with opioid analgesics; however, opioids may cause respiratory depression by suppressing various components of respiration. Respiration is the physiological process that facilitates gas exchange and is mediated through the proper function of and communication among central neural control (respiratory drive), sensory input systems, the lungs, and the muscles involved in respiration. Normal respiratory function can be dampened with the use of central nervous system (CNS) depressants and/or underlying health conditions. Patients with chronic pain are often exposed to CNS depressants other than opioids, including benzodiazepines, barbiturates, nonbenzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics, and ethanol, which can function synergistically with opioids to increase the risk of respiratory depression. Some patients may also have underlying health issues, such as obstructive sleep apnea, that can be exacerbated with the use of opioids and other CNS depressants and further contribute to respiratory depression. Clinicians should have a thorough understanding of respiration, recognize how various CNS depressants suppress it, and take necessary steps to mitigate the risk of opioid-induced respiratory depression by collaborating with a multidisciplinary team (i.e., sleep and pain specialists), choosing appropriate medications, and educating patients on the proper use and storage of opioids.