The Year in Thoracic Anesthesia: Selected Highlights From 2020.

Selected highlights in thoracic anesthesia in 2020 include updates in the preoperative assessment and prehabilitation of patients undergoing thoracic surgery; updates in one-lung ventilation (OLV) pertaining to the devices used for OLV; the use of dexmedetomidine for lung protection during OLV and protective ventilation, recommendations for the care of thoracic surgical patients with coronavirus disease 2019; a review of recent meta-analyses comparing truncal blocks with paravertebral and thoracic epidural blocks; and a review of outcomes after initiating the enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines for lung and esophageal surgery.

The Year in Thoracic Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2019.

THIS special article is the 4th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr. Kaplan; the associate editor-in-chief, Dr. Augoustides; and the editorial board for the opportunity to expand this series, the research highlights of the year that specifically pertain to the specialty of thoracic anesthesia. The major themes selected for 2019 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights in this specialty for 2019 include updates in the preoperative assessment and optimization of patients undergoing lung resection and esophagectomy, updates in one lung ventilation (OLV) and protective ventilation during OLV, a review of recent meta-analyses comparing truncal blocks with paravertebral catheters and the introduction of a new truncal block, meta-analyses comparing nonintubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with those performed using endotracheal intubation, a review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) recent composite score rating for pulmonary resection of lung cancer, and an update of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for both lung and esophageal surgery.

Pain management after pneumothorax surgery: intercostal nerve block or thoracic epidural analgesia.

OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pneumothorax, the benefits and risks of single-shot intercostal nerve block as loco-regional analgesia are not well known. We retrospectively compared the effectiveness of intercostal nerve blocks as a viable alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) regarding pain control and enhanced recovery. METHODS: A retrospective multicentre analysis with single-centre propensity score matching was performed in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pneumothorax receiving either TEA or intercostal nerve block. The primary outcome was a proportion of pain scores ≥4 (scale 0-10) until postoperative day (POD) 3. Secondary outcomes included variation in pain over time, additional opioid use, length of stay, mobility, complications and recurrence rate. RESULTS: In 218 patients, TEA was compared to intercostal nerve block and showed no difference in the proportion of pain scores ≥4 {14.3% [interquartile range (IQR) 0.0-33.3] vs 11.1% (IQR 0.0-27.3) respectively, P = 0.24}, more frequently needed additional opioids on the day of surgery (18% vs 48%) and first POD (20% vs 42%), had a shorter length of stay (4.0 days [IQR 3.0-7.0] vs 3.0 days [IQR 2.8-4.0]) and were significantly more mobile until POD 3, while having similar recurrences. Intercostal nerve block had higher pain scores early in the course whereas TEA had higher late (rebound) pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In a multimodal analgesic setting with additional opioids, intercostal nerve block shows comparable moments of unacceptable pain from POD 0-3 compared to TEA and is linked to improved mobility. Results require randomized confirmation.

The essential role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in pain control following robotic thoracoscopic lung resections.

Background: Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery (ERATS) protocols use a combination of analgesics for pain control. We investigated the effect of non-steroidal analgesic drugs (NSAIDs) on pain control by comparing patient levels and opioid requirements after robotic pulmonary resections. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively maintained institutional database for elective, opioid-naïve robotic thoracoscopic pulmonary resections. All patients received postoperative NSAIDs unless contraindicated or at the discretion of the attending surgeons. Our original protocol (ERATS-V1) was modified to optimize opioid-sparing effect without affecting pain control (ERATS-V2). Demographics, operative outcomes, and postoperative opioid dispensed [morphine milligram equivalent (MME)] were collected. Results: A total of 491 patients (147 ERATS-V1; 344 ERATS-V2) were included in this study. There was no difference in patient characteristics or operative outcomes between ERATS cohorts. Protocol optimization was associated with a 2- to 10-fold reduction of postoperative opioid use without compromising pain control. In ERATS-V1 cohort, there was no difference in pain levels and opioid requirements with NSAID usage. In ERATS-V2 cohort, while pain levels were similar, higher in-hospital opioid consumption was observed in no-NSAID subgroup {MME: 20.5 [interquartile range (IQR), 4.8-40.5] vs. 12.0 (IQR, 2.0-32.2), P=0.0096, schedule II: 14.2 (IQR, 3.0-36.4) vs. 6.8 (IQR, 1.4-24.0), P=0.012} as well as total postoperative schedule II opioid requirement [17.8 (IQR, 3.0-43.5) vs. 8.8 (IQR, 1.5-30), P=0.032]. Conclusions: The opioid-sparing effect of NSAIDs was observed only in optimized ERATS patients. Modifications of our pre-existing ERATS was associated with a significant reduction of opioid consumption without affecting pain levels. This revealed the role of NSAIDs in postoperative pain management otherwise masked by excessive opioids use.

Multimodal prehabilitation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing anatomical resection: protocol of a non-randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The preoperative period can be used to enhance a patient's functional capacity with multimodal prehabilitation and consequently improve and fasten postoperative recovery. Especially, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical patients may benefit from this intervention, since the affected and resected organ is an essential part of the cardiorespiratory fitness. Drafting a prehabilitation programme is challenging, since many disciplines are involved, and time between diagnosis of NSCLC and surgery is limited. We designed a multimodal prehabilitation programme prior to NSCLC surgery and aimed to conduct a study to assess feasibility and indicative evidence of efficacy of this programme. Publication of this protocol may help other healthcare facilities to implement such a programme. METHODS: The multimodal prehabilitation programme consists of an exercise programme, nutritional support, psychological support, smoking cessation, patient empowerment and respiratory optimisation. In two Dutch teaching hospitals, 40 adult patients with proven or suspected NSCLC will be included. In a non-randomised fashion, 20 patients follow the multimodal prehabilitation programme, and 20 will be assessed in the control group, according to patient preference. Assessments will take place at four time points: baseline, the week before surgery, 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Feasibility and indicative evidence of efficacy of the prehabilitation programme will be assessed as primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Since the time between diagnosis of NSCLC and surgery is limited, it is a challenge to implement a prehabilitation programme. This study will assess whether this is feasible, and evidence of efficacy can be found. The non-randomised fashion of the study might result in a selection and confounding bias. However, the control group may help putting the results of the prehabilitation group in perspective. By publishing this protocol, we aim to facilitate others to evaluate and implement a multimodal prehabilitation programme for surgical NSCLC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study is registered as NL8080 in the Netherlands Trial Register on the 10th of October 2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8080 . Secondary identifiers: CCMO (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects) number NL70578.015.19, reference number of the Medical Ethical Review Committee of Máxima MC W19.045.

Optimization of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol for opioid-free pain management following robotic thoracic surgery.

Objectives: Our Enhanced Recovery After Thoracic Surgery protocol was implemented on February 1, 2018, and firmly established 7 months later. We instituted protocol modifications on January 1, 2020, aiming to further reduce postoperative opioid consumption. We sought to evaluate the influence of such efforts on clinical outcomes and the use of both schedule II and schedule IV opioids following robotic thoracoscopic procedures. Methods: A retrospective study of patients undergoing elective robotic procedures between September 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, was conducted. Essential components of pain management in the original protocol included nonopioid analgesics, intercostal nerve blocks with long-acting liposomal bupivacaine diluted with normal saline, and opioids (ie, scheduled tramadol administration and as-needed schedule II narcotics). Protocol optimization included replacing saline diluent with 0.25% bupivacaine and switching tramadol to as needed, keeping other aspects unchanged. Demographic characteristics, type of robotic procedures, postoperative outcomes, and in-hospital and postdischarge opioids prescribed (ie, milligrams of morphine equivalent [MME]) were extracted from electronic medical records. Results: Three hundred twenty-four patients met the inclusion criteria (159 in the original and 183 in the optimized protocol). There was no difference in postoperative outcomes or acute postoperative pain; there was a significant reduction of in-hospital and postdischarge opioid requirements in the optimized cohort. For anatomic resections: mean, 60.0 MME (range, 0-60.0 MME) versus mean, 105.0 MME (range, 60.0-150.0 MME), and other procedures: mean, 0 MME (range, 0-60 MME) versus mean, 140.0 (range, 60.0-150.0 MME) (P < .00001) with median schedule II opioids prescribed = 0. Conclusions: Small modifications to our protocol for pain management strategies are safe and associated with significant decrease of opioid requirements, particularly schedule II narcotics, during the postoperative period without influencing acute pain levels.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery care pathway for thoracotomy patients-achieving better pain control with less (schedule II) opioid utilization.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols incorporate evidence-based practices of pre-, intra- and post-operative care to achieve the most optimal surgical outcome, safe on-time discharge, and surgical cost efficiency. Such protocols have been adapted for specialty-specific needs and are implemented by a variety of surgical disciplines including general thoracic surgery. This study aims to evaluate the impact of our enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery (ERATS) protocol on postoperative outcomes, pain, and opioid utilization following thoracotomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective resection of intrathoracic neoplasms via posterolateral thoracotomy between 1/1/2016 and 3/1/2020. Our enhanced recovery protocol, with a focus on multimodal pain management (opioid-sparing analgesics, infiltration of local anesthetics into intercostal spaces and surgical wounds, and elimination of thoracic epidural analgesia) was initiated on 2/1/2018. Demographics, clinicopathology data, subjective pain levels, peri-operative outcomes, in-hospital and post-discharge opioid utilization were obtained from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (43 pre- and 55 post-protocol implementation) were included in this study. There was no difference in perioperative outcomes or percentage of opioid utilization between the two cohorts. The enhanced recovery group had significantly less acute pain. A significant reduction of in-hospital potent schedule II opioid use was noted following ERATS implementation [average MME: 10.5 (3.5-16.5) (ERATS) vs. 19.5 (12.6-36.0) (pre-ERATS), P<0.0001]. More importantly, a drastic reduction of total and schedule II opioids dispensed at discharge was noted in the ERATS group [total MME: 150 (100.0-330.0) vs. 800.0 (450.0-975.0), P<0.0001 and schedule II MME: 90.0 (0-242.2) vs. 800.0 (450.0-975.0), P<0.0001; ERATS vs. pre-ERATS respectively]. A shorter hospital stay (median difference of 1 day, P=0.0012 and a mean difference of 2.4 days, P=0.0054) was observed in the enhanced recovery group. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for thoracotomy patients is safe and associated with elimination of thoracic epidural analgesia, decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, drastic reduction of post-discharge opioid dispensed and decreased dependence on addiction-prone schedule II narcotics.

Many steps can be taken to enhance recovery after thoracic surgery.

Our letter to the editor comments on issues raised in the May 14, 2020, article by Budacan et al. addressing the development of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a nationwide survey identified issues. Here, we expand on the authors' findings.

Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ERATS decreased length of stay, postoperative complications, and readmission.

Wide Variation in Perioperative Care in Anatomical Lung Resections in the Netherlands: A National Survey.

This study aimed to describe perioperative care after anatomical lung resection in the Netherlands, before publication of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery/European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ERAS/ESTS) guidelines in 2019. An online survey was sent to all 43 Dutch lung surgical centers in December 2017, addressing topics in the 4 phases of perioperative care (preoperative, admission, perioperative, postoperative). Respondents were requested to report care that would be delivered to a standardized patient without perioperative complications. To compare current care with ERAS/ESTS guidelines, we assigned an ERAS/ESTS score per hospital, weighted for evidence level per recommendation. Higher scores indicate higher application of recommendations. Response rate of centers was 100%, median response rate per question was 98% (interquartile range 94-100). Some perioperative recommendations are commonly applied (>85%), such as minimally invasive surgery and regional anesthesia; others, such as admission carbohydrate drinks, are not (<35%). Wide variation was observed regarding patient counselling, pre- and postoperative admission logistics, anemia correction, fluid management, pain management, and chest drain management. Median 62% (interquartile range 53%-72%) of the maximum ERAS/ESTS score was achieved. Large variation in ERAS/ESTS score between hospitals were found in all phases (preoperative: 6.0 [6.5-10.5] points, admission: 5.0 [1.0-6.0] points, perioperative: 21.5.0 [16.0-22.5] points, postoperative: 8.0 [5.0-8.5] points). Large variation exists in perioperative care after anatomical lung resection in the Netherlands. Given previously published data linking variation in perioperative care to variation in outcomes, standardization of perioperative care in lung surgery, preferably based on the ERAS/ESTS guidelines, may be warranted but requires further study.

Variation in length of stay after minimally invasive lung resection: a reflection of perioperative care routines?

OBJECTIVES: Good perioperative care is aimed at rapid recovery, without complications or readmissions. Length of stay (LOS) is influenced not only by perioperative care routines but also by patient factors, tumour factors, treatment characteristics and complications. The present study examines variation in LOS between hospitals after minimally invasive lung resections for both complicated and uncomplicated patients to assess whether LOS is a hospital characteristic influenced by local perioperative routines or other factors. METHODS: Dutch Lung Cancer Audit (surgery) data were used. Median LOS was calculated on hospital level, stratified by the severity of complications. Lowest quartile (short) LOS per hospital, corrected for case-mix factors by multivariable logistic regression, was presented in funnel plots. We correlated short LOS in complicated versus uncomplicated patients to assess whether short LOS clustered in the same hospitals regardless of complications. RESULTS: Data from 6055 patients in 42 hospitals were included. Median LOS in uncomplicated patients varied from 3 to 8 days between hospitals and increased most markedly for patients with major complications. Considerable between-hospital variation persisted after case-mix correction, but more in uncomplicated than complicated patients. Short LOS in uncomplicated and complicated patients were significantly correlated (r = 0.53, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LOS after minimally invasive anatomical lung resections varied between hospitals particularly in uncomplicated patients. The significant correlation between short LOS in uncomplicated and complicated patients suggests that LOS is a hospital characteristic potentially influenced by local processes. Standardizing and optimizing perioperative care could help limit practice variation with improved LOS and complication rates.