Anesthesia Techniques for Vitreoretinal Surgery in the United States: A Report from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: To explore the patterns of anesthesia use and their determinants during vitreoretinal (VR) surgeries in academic and community hospitals across the US, using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG). DESIGN: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study. METHODS: We queried the MPOG database of 107,066 patients undergoing VR surgeries. Patients (≥18 years) undergoing VR surgery with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2021 were included. Patient-level, case-based, and institutional-level covariates were collected. We performed multivariable mixed-effects models to determine predictors of anesthesia type use. The primary outcome was the type of anesthesia (MAC or GA) used during VR surgeries. As a secondary outcome, MAC cases were further classified based on the additional use of sedation into MAC with or without sedation. RESULTS: We found that 67.45% of VR surgery cases received MAC, and 73.63% of institutions administered MAC to more than half of cases. Random effect modeling revealed that 47.76% of the variation in MAC use was attributed to institutions. A trend toward increased use of MAC with increasing age was observed. Patients diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease, liver disease, or a history of drug abuse were less likely to receive MAC. Conversely, we found that patients with reported alcohol abuse disorder, diabetes with complications, and those with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of 4 (vs. 1, 2, or 3) were more likely to use MAC. Compared to non-complex VR surgeries, there was a notably decreased likelihood of MAC use in complex PPV (P = .004), PPV + scleral buckle (SB) for retinal detachment (P < .0001), and primary SB surgery (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2/3 of VR anesthesia is under MAC, but GA is still preferred for SBs, complex vitrectomy, and younger patients. We show that large interinstitutional variation for using MAC in practice exists.

Prolonged Opioid Use and Pain Outcome and Associated Factors after Surgery under General Anesthesia: A Prospective Cohort Association Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient prospective evidence regarding the relationship between surgical experience and prolonged opioid use and pain. The authors investigated the association of patient characteristics, surgical procedure, and perioperative anesthetic course with postoperative opioid consumption and pain 3 months postsurgery. The authors hypothesized that patient characteristics and intraoperative factors predict opioid consumption and pain 3 months postsurgery. METHODS: Eleven U.S. and one European institution enrolled patients scheduled for spine, open thoracic, knee, hip, or abdominal surgery, or mastectomy, in this multicenter, prospective observational study. Preoperative and postoperative data were collected using patient surveys and electronic medical records. Intraoperative data were collected from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group database. The association between postoperative opioid consumption and surgical site pain at 3 months, elicited from a telephone survey conducted at 3 months postoperatively, and demographics, psychosocial scores, pain scores, pain management, and case characteristics, was analyzed. RESULTS: Between September and October 2017, 3,505 surgical procedures met inclusion criteria. A total of 1,093 cases were included; 413 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 680 (64%) for outcome analysis. Preoperatively, 135 (20%) patients were taking opioids. Three months postsurgery, 96 (14%) patients were taking opioids, including 23 patients (4%) who had not taken opioids preoperatively. A total of 177 patients (27%) reported surgical site pain, including 45 (13%) patients who had not reported pain preoperatively. The adjusted odds ratio for 3-month opioid use was 18.6 (credible interval, 10.3 to 34.5) for patients who had taken opioids preoperatively. The adjusted odds ratio for 3-month surgical site pain was 2.58 (1.45 to 4.4), 4.1 (1.73 to 8.9), and 2.75 (1.39 to 5.0) for patients who had site pain preoperatively, knee replacement, or spine surgery, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative opioid use was the strongest predictor of opioid use 3 months postsurgery. None of the other variables showed clinically significant association with opioid use at 3 months after surgery.

Scheduled, Simultaneous Dosing of Pregabalin, Celecoxib, and Acetaminophen Markedly Reduces or Eliminates Opioid Use After ACL Reconstruction Using Allograft or Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Opioid analgesics continue to be prescribed after ambulatory surgery despite untoward adverse effects, risk of overdose, and association with substance use disorder. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to investigate the use of a novel system to provide scheduled and simultaneous dosing of acetaminophen, celecoxib, and pregabalin after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). It was hypothesized that this system would markedly reduce pain and opioid use compared with existing best practice. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Included were 100 patients scheduled for elective, primary ACLR using allograft or hamstring tendon autograft. Selection criteria included age between 18 and 65 years and weight between 65 and 120 kg. Exclusion criteria were a known allergy to any drug used in the study or the use of opioid analgesics before surgery. Patients in the intervention group received a blister pack with scheduled, simultaneous doses of acetaminophen, celecoxib, and pregabalin; patients were also given oxycodone 5 mg as needed for breakthrough pain. Patients in the control group were prescribed ibuprofen and oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg as needed for pain. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcomes were nausea, itching, and daily oxycodone use. Patients were asked to quantify their average pain at rest, nausea, and itching on an 11-point verbal scale (from 0 to 10). These data were recorded for 6 days during daily telephone contacts with patients after hospital discharge. Results: Cumulative results for 6 days showed significantly lower values in the intervention group compared with the control group for pain (median [interquartile range], 28 [14-35] vs 35 [28-41], respectively; P = .009) and oxycodone use (median [interquartile range] number of tablets, 0 [0-2] vs 8 [1.25-16], respectively; P < .001). Based on these data, the upper tolerance limits for the number of oxycodone tablets required by 90% of patients in the intervention and control groups were 8 tablets and 30 tablets, respectively. Cumulative results for nausea and itching were also significantly lower for the intervention group. Most patients in the intervention group used no opioids during recovery. Conclusion: Simultaneous dosing of 3 nonopioid analgesics resulted in reduced postoperative pain and markedly lower opioid use. Registration: NCT04015908 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Demonstration and Performance Evaluation of Two Novel Algorithms for Removing Artifacts From Automated Intraoperative Temperature Data Sets: Multicenter, Observational, Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The automated acquisition of intraoperative patient temperature data via temperature probes leads to the possibility of producing a number of artifacts related to probe positioning that may impact these probes' utility for observational research. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the performance of two de novo algorithms for filtering such artifacts. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, the intraoperative temperature data of adults who received general anesthesia for noncardiac surgery were extracted from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group registry. Two algorithms were developed and then compared to the reference standard-anesthesiologists' manual artifact detection process. Algorithm 1 (a slope-based algorithm) was based on the linear curve fit of 3 adjacent temperature data points. Algorithm 2 (an interval-based algorithm) assessed for time gaps between contiguous temperature recordings. Sensitivity and specificity values for artifact detection were calculated for each algorithm, as were mean temperatures and areas under the curve for hypothermia (temperatures below 36 C) for each patient, after artifact removal via each methodology. RESULTS: A total of 27,683 temperature readings from 200 anesthetic records were analyzed. The overall agreement among the anesthesiologists was 92.1%. Both algorithms had high specificity but moderate sensitivity (specificity: 99.02% for algorithm 1 vs 99.54% for algorithm 2; sensitivity: 49.13% for algorithm 1 vs 37.72% for algorithm 2; F-score: 0.65 for algorithm 1 vs 0.55 for algorithm 2). The areas under the curve for time × hypothermic temperature and the mean temperatures recorded for each case after artifact removal were similar between the algorithms and the anesthesiologists. CONCLUSIONS: The tested algorithms provide an automated way to filter intraoperative temperature artifacts that closely approximates manual sorting by anesthesiologists. Our study provides evidence demonstrating the efficacy of highly generalizable artifact reduction algorithms that can be readily used by observational studies that rely on automated intraoperative data acquisition.

Practice Patterns and Variability in Intraoperative Opioid Utilization: A Report From the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group.

BACKGROUND: Opioids remain the primary mode of analgesia intraoperatively. There are limited data on how patient, procedural, and institutional characteristics influence intraoperative opioid administration. The aim of this retrospective, longitudinal study from 2012 to 2016 was to assess how intraoperative opioid dosing varies by patient and clinical care factors and across multiple institutions over time. METHODS: Demographic, surgical procedural, anesthetic technique, and intraoperative analgesia data as putative variables of intraoperative opioid utilization were collected from 10 institutions. Log parenteral morphine equivalents (PME) was modeled in a multivariable linear regression model as a function of 15 covariates: 3 continuous covariates (age, anesthesia duration, year) and 12 factor covariates (peripheral block, neuraxial block, general anesthesia, emergency status, race, sex, remifentanil infusion, major surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status, non-opioid analgesic count, Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group [MPOG] institution, surgery category). One interaction (year by MPOG institution) was included in the model. The regression model adjusted simultaneously for all included variables. Comparison of levels within a factor were reported as a ratio of medians with 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: A total of 1,104,324 cases between January 2012 and December 2016 were analyzed. The median (interquartile range) PME and standardized by weight PME per case for the study period were 15 (10-28) mg and 200 (111-347) µg/kg, respectively. As estimated in the multivariable model, there was a sustained decrease in opioid use (mean, 95% CrI) dropping from 152 (151-153) µg/kg in 2012 to 129 (129-130) µg/kg in 2016. The percent of variability in PME due to institution was 25.6% (24.8%-26.5%). Less opioids were prescribed in men (130 [129-130] µg/kg) than women (144 [143-145] µg/kg). The men to women PME ratio was 0.90 (0.89-0.90). There was substantial variability in PME administration among institutions, with the lowest being 80 (79-81) µg/kg and the highest being 186 (184-187) µg/kg; this is a PME ratio of 0.43 (0.42-0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a reduction in intraoperative opioid administration over time, with variability in dose ranging between sexes and by procedure type. Furthermore, there was substantial variability in opioid use between institutions even when adjusting for multiple variables.

Airway driving pressure is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery: a multicentre retrospective observational cohort study.

Background: High airway driving pressure is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, but large multicentre studies investigating airway driving pressure during major surgery are lacking. We hypothesised that increased driving pressure is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods: In this preregistered multicentre retrospective observational cohort study, the authors reviewed major abdominal surgical procedures in 11 hospitals from 2004 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications, defined as postoperative pneumonia, unplanned tracheal intubation, or prolonged mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h. Associations between intraoperative dynamic driving pressure and outcomes, adjusted for patient and procedural factors, were evaluated. Results: Among 14 218 qualifying cases, 389 (2.7%) experienced postoperative pulmonary complications. After adjustment, the mean dynamic driving pressure was associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio for every 1 cm H2O increase: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.06; P<0.001). Neither tidal volume nor PEEP was associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Increased BMI, shorter height, and female sex were predictors for higher dynamic driving pressure (ß=0.35, 95% CI 0.32-0.39, P<0.001; ß=-0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00, P=0.005; and ß=0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.86, P<0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Dynamic airway driving pressure, but not tidal volume or PEEP, is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in models controlling for a large number of risk predictors and covariates. Such models are capable of risk prediction applicable to individual patients.

A Lower Tidal Volume Regimen during One-lung Ventilation for Lung Resection Surgery Is Not Associated with Reduced Postoperative Pulmonary Complications.

BACKGROUND: Protective ventilation may improve outcomes after major surgery. However, in the context of one-lung ventilation, such a strategy is incompletely defined. The authors hypothesized that a putative one-lung protective ventilation regimen would be independently associated with decreased odds of pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery. METHODS: The authors merged Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database and Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group intraoperative data for lung resection procedures using one-lung ventilation across five institutions from 2012 to 2016. They defined one-lung protective ventilation as the combination of both median tidal volume 5 ml/kg or lower predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure 5 cm H2O or greater. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day major postoperative pulmonary complications. RESULTS: A total of 3,232 cases were available for analysis. Tidal volumes decreased modestly during the study period (6.7 to 6.0 ml/kg; P < 0.001), and positive end-expiratory pressure increased from 4 to 5 cm H2O (P < 0.001). Despite increasing adoption of a "protective ventilation" strategy (5.7% in 2012 vs. 17.9% in 2016), the prevalence of pulmonary complications did not change significantly (11.4 to 15.7%; P = 0.147). In a propensity score matched cohort (381 matched pairs), protective ventilation (mean tidal volume 6.4 vs. 4.4 ml/kg) was not associated with a reduction in pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.32). In an unmatched cohort, the authors were unable to define a specific alternative combination of positive end-expiratory pressure and tidal volume that was associated with decreased risk of pulmonary complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter retrospective observational analysis of patients undergoing one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery, the authors did not detect an independent association between a low tidal volume lung-protective ventilation regimen and a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects. OBJECTIVES: • To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK1 receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reducevomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK1 receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Erythropoietin plus iron versus control treatment including placebo or iron for preoperative anaemic adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery suffer from preoperative anaemia. Preoperative anaemia is a risk factor for mortality and adverse outcomes in different surgical specialties and is frequently the reason for blood transfusion. The most common causes are renal, chronic diseases, and iron deficiency. International guidelines recommend that the cause of anaemia guide preoperative anaemia treatment. Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) with iron supplementation has frequently been used to increase preoperative haemoglobin concentrations in patients in order to avoid the need for perioperative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of preoperative rHuEPO therapy (subcutaneous or parenteral) with iron (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic RBC transfusions in preoperatively anaemic adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid Embase, ISI Web of Science: SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S, and clinical trial registries WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 29 August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative rHuEPO + iron therapy to control treatment (placebo, no treatment, or standard of care with or without iron) for preoperatively anaemic adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We used the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of anaemia: haemoglobin concentration (g/dL) less than 13 g/dL for males, and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females (decision of inclusion based on mean haemoglobin concentration). We defined two subgroups of rHuEPO dosage: 'low' for 150 to 300 international units (IU)/kg body weight, and 'high' for 500 to 600 IU/kg body weight. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected data from the included studies. Our primary outcome was the need for RBC transfusion (no autologous transfusion, fresh frozen plasma or platelets), measured in transfused participants during surgery (intraoperative) and up to five days after surgery. Secondary outcomes of interest were: haemoglobin concentration (directly before surgery), number of RBC units (where one unit contains 250 to 450 mL) transfused per participant (intraoperative and up to five days after surgery), mortality (within 30 days after surgery), length of hospital stay, and adverse events (e.g. renal dysfunction, thromboembolism, hypertension, allergic reaction, headache, fever, constipation). MAIN RESULTS: Most of the included trials were in orthopaedic, gastrointestinal, and gynaecological surgery and included participants with mild and moderate preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin from 10 to 12 g/dL). The duration of preoperative rHuEPO treatment varied across the trials, ranging from once a week to daily or a 5-to-10-day period, and in one trial preoperative rHuEPO was given on the morning of surgery and for five days postoperatively. We included 12 trials (participants = 1880) in the quantitative analysis of the need for RBC transfusion following preoperative treatment with rHuEPO + iron to correct preoperative anaemia in non-cardiac surgery; two studies were multiarmed trials with two different dose regimens. Preoperative rHuEPO + iron given to anaemic adults reduced the need RBC transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.80; participants = 1880; studies = 12; I2 = 84%; moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). This analysis suggests that on average, the combined administration of rHuEPO + iron will mean 231 fewer individuals will need transfusion for every 1000 individuals compared to the control group. Preoperative high-dose rHuEPO + iron given to anaemic adults increased the haemoglobin concentration (mean difference (MD) 1.87 g/dL, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.49; participants = 852; studies = 3; I2 = 89%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and risk of bias) but not low-dose rHuEPO + iron (MD 0.11 g/dL, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.69; participants = 334; studies = 4; I2 = 69%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and risk of bias). There was probably little or no difference in the number of RBC units when rHuEPO + iron was given preoperatively (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.05; participants = 1420; studies = 6; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).  There was probably little or no difference in the risk of mortality within 30 days of surgery (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.63; participants = 230; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision) or of adverse events including local rash, fever, constipation, or transient hypertension (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; participants = 1722; studies = 10; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). The administration of rHuEPO + iron before non-cardiac surgery did not clearly reduce the length of hospital stay of preoperative anaemic adults (MD -1.07, 95% CI -4.12 to 1.98; participants = 293; studies = 3; I2 = 87%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that preoperative rHuEPO + iron therapy for anaemic adults prior to non-cardiac surgery reduces the need for RBC transfusion and, when given at higher doses, increases the haemoglobin concentration preoperatively. The administration of rHuEPO + iron treatment did not decrease the mean number of units of RBC transfused per patient. There were no important differences in the risk of adverse events or mortality within 30 days, nor in length of hospital stay. Further, well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required to estimate the impact of this combined treatment more precisely.

Transient neurological symptoms (TNS) following spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine versus other local anaesthetics in adult surgical patients: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition, occurring during the immediate postoperative period, is termed transient neurological symptoms (TNS) and is typically observed after the use of spinal lidocaine. Alternatives to lidocaine that can provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development are needed. This review was originally published in 2005, and last updated in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine and compare it with other types of local anaesthetics by performing a meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons, and conducting network meta-analysis (NMA) to rank interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and LILACS on 25 November 2018. We searched clinical trial registries and handsearched the reference lists of trials and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine to other local anaesthetics. Studies had to have two or more arms that used distinct local anaesthetics (irrespective of the concentration and baricity of the solution) for spinal anaesthesia in preparation for surgery. We included adults who received spinal anaesthesia and considered all pregnant participants as a subgroup. The follow-up period for TNS was at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from the included studies. We performed meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons of local anaesthetics, as well as NMA. We used an inverse variance weighting for summary statistics and a random-effects model as we expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity across the included studies resulting in varying effect sizes between studies of pair-wise comparisons. The NMA used all included studies based on a graph theoretical approach within a frequentist framework. Finally, we ranked the competing treatments by P scores. MAIN RESULTS: The analysis included 24 trials reporting on 2226 participants of whom 239 developed TNS. Two studies are awaiting classification and one is ongoing. Included studies mostly had unclear to high risk of bias. The NMA included 24 studies and eight different local anaesthetics; the number of pair-wise comparisons was 32 and the number of different pair-wise comparisons was 11. This analysis showed that, compared to lidocaine, the risk ratio (RR) of TNS was lower for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine with RRs in the range of 0.10 to 0.23 while 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine did not differ in terms of RR of TNS development compared to lidocaine. Pair-wise meta-analysis showed that compared with lidocaine, most local anaesthetics were associated with a reduced risk of TNS development (except 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine) (bupivacaine: RR 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.28; 12 studies; moderate-quality evidence; 2-chloroprocaine: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.51; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; levobupivacaine: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; mepivacaine: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.82; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence; prilocaine: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence; procaine: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.52; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence; ropivacaine: RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.78; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We were unable to perform any of our planned subgroup analyses due to the low number of TNS events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from both NMA and pair-wise meta-analysis indicate that the risk of developing TNS after spinal anaesthesia is lower when bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine are used compared to lidocaine. The use of 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine had a similar risk to lidocaine in terms of TNS development after spinal anaesthesia. Patients should be informed of TNS as a possible adverse effect of local anaesthesia with lidocaine and the choice of anaesthetic agent should be based on the specific clinical context and parameters such as the expected duration of the procedure and the quality of anaesthesia. Due to the very low- to moderate-quality evidence (GRADE), future research efforts in this field are required to assess alternatives to lidocaine that would be able to provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development. The two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Serum ropivacaine levels after local infiltration analgesia during total knee arthroplasty with and without adductor canal block.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A common analgesic technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to inject local anesthetic into the periarticular tissue during surgery, known as local infiltration analgesia (LIA). Since the solution used typically contains a large amount of local anesthetic, concerns arise about exceeding the maximum dosage when adding a peripheral nerve block. Little research exists that addresses serum ropivacaine concentrations following LIA combined with peripheral nerve block. We hypothesized that after combining LIA and adductor canal blockade (ACB), serum ropivacaine concentrations would remain below levels associated with local anesthetic toxicity. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study that included 14 subjects undergoing TKA with intraoperative LIA containing 270 mg ropivacaine with epinephrine. Patients weighing less than 80 kg were excluded due to standardized dosing by our pharmacy. Seven patients were assigned consecutively to receive LIA alone (Group LIA) and seven were assigned to receive LIA plus ACB with 100 mg ropivacaine with epinephrine (Group LIA+ACB). Venous serum ropivacaine concentrations were measured over 24 hours. RESULTS: Peak serum concentrations (Cmax) in Group LIA ranged from 0.23 to 0.75 µg/mL and occurred at times from 4 to 24 hours. Cmax in Group LIA+ACB ranged from 0.46 to 1.00 µg/mL and occurred at times from 4 to 8 hours. No participants demonstrated signs or symptoms of local anesthetic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Total serum concentration of ropivacaine after LIA using 270 mg ropivacaine with and without an additional 100 mg perineural ropivacaine remained well below the toxicity threshold of 3.0 µg/mL at all time points. Additional studies are needed to ascertain the safety of combining LIA with peripheral nerve blockade.

Succinylcholine Use and Dantrolene Availability for Malignant Hyperthermia Treatment: Database Analyses and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although dantrolene effectively treats malignant hyperthermia (MH), discrepant recommendations exist concerning dantrolene availability. Whereas Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States guidelines state dantrolene must be available within 10 min of the decision to treat MH wherever volatile anesthetics or succinylcholine are administered, a Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia protocol permits Class B ambulatory facilities to stock succinylcholine for airway rescue without dantrolene. The authors investigated (1) succinylcholine use rates, including for airway rescue, in anesthetizing/sedating locations; (2) whether succinylcholine without volatile anesthetics triggers MH warranting dantrolene; and (3) the relationship between dantrolene administration and MH morbidity/mortality. METHODS: The authors performed focused analyses of the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (2005 through 2016), North American MH Registry (2013 through 2016), and Anesthesia Closed Claims Project (1970 through 2014) databases, as well as a systematic literature review (1987 through 2017). The authors used difficult mask ventilation (grades III and IV) as a surrogate for airway rescue. MH experts judged dantrolene treatment. For MH morbidity/mortality analyses, the authors included U.S. and Canadian cases that were fulminant or scored 20 or higher on the clinical grading scale and in which volatile anesthetics or succinylcholine were given. RESULTS: Among 6,368,356 queried outcomes cases, 246,904 (3.9%) received succinylcholine without volatile agents. Succinylcholine was used in 46% (n = 710) of grade IV mask ventilation cases (median dose, 100 mg, 1.2 mg/kg). Succinylcholine without volatile anesthetics triggered 24 MH cases, 13 requiring dantrolene. Among 310 anesthetic-triggered MH cases, morbidity was 20 to 37%. Treatment delay increased complications every 10 min, reaching 100% with a 50-min delay. Overall mortality was 1 to 10%; 15 U.S. patients died, including 4 after anesthetics in freestanding facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Providers use succinylcholine commonly, including during difficult mask ventilation. Succinylcholine administered without volatile anesthetics may trigger MH events requiring dantrolene. Delayed dantrolene treatment increases the likelihood of MH complications. The data reported herein support stocking dantrolene wherever succinylcholine or volatile anesthetics may be used.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults.

BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients.

BACKGROUND: The unanticipated difficult airway is a potentially life-threatening event during anaesthesia or acute conditions. An unsuccessfully managed upper airway is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. Several bedside screening tests are used in clinical practice to identify those at high risk of difficult airway. Their accuracy and benefit however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to characterize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Mallampati classification and other commonly used airway examination tests for assessing the physical status of the airway in adult patients with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities. We performed this individually for each of the four descriptors of the difficult airway: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched major electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, as well as regional, subject specific, and dissertation and theses databases from inception to 16 December 2016, without language restrictions. In addition, we searched the Science Citation Index and checked the references of all the relevant studies. We also handsearched selected journals, conference proceedings, and relevant guidelines. We updated this search in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered full-text diagnostic test accuracy studies of any individual index test, or a combination of tests, against a reference standard. Participants were adults without obvious airway abnormalities, who were having laryngoscopy performed with a standard laryngoscope and the trachea intubated with a standard tracheal tube. Index tests included the Mallampati test, modified Mallampati test, Wilson risk score, thyromental distance, sternomental distance, mouth opening test, upper lip bite test, or any combination of these. The target condition was difficult airway, with one of the following reference standards: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed screening and selection of the studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality (using QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. We designed a Microsoft Access database for data collection and used Review Manager 5 and R for data analysis. For each index test and each reference standard, we assessed sensitivity and specificity. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where possible, we performed meta-analyses to calculate pooled estimates and compare test accuracy indirectly using bivariate models. We investigated heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 133 (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) studies involving 844,206 participants. We evaluated a total of seven different prespecified index tests in the 133 studies, as well as 69 non-prespecified, and 32 combinations. For the prespecified index tests, we found six studies for the Mallampati test, 105 for the modified Mallampati test, six for the Wilson risk score, 52 for thyromental distance, 18 for sternomental distance, 34 for the mouth opening test, and 30 for the upper lip bite test. Difficult face mask ventilation was the reference standard in seven studies, difficult laryngoscopy in 92 studies, difficult tracheal intubation in 50 studies, and failed intubation in two studies. Across all studies, we judged the risk of bias to be variable for the different domains; we mostly observed low risk of bias for patient selection, flow and timing, and unclear risk of bias for reference standard and index test. Applicability concerns were generally low for all domains. For difficult laryngoscopy, the summary sensitivity ranged from 0.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33; mouth opening test) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; upper lip bite test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85; modified Mallampati test) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test for diagnosing difficult laryngoscopy provided the highest sensitivity compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, summary sensitivity ranged from 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.43; thyromental distance) to 0.51 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.61; modified Mallampati test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; modified Mallampati test) to 0.93 (0.87 to 0.96; mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity for diagnosing difficult tracheal intubation compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult face mask ventilation, we could only estimate summary sensitivity (0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95) for the modified Mallampati test. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Bedside airway examination tests, for assessing the physical status of the airway in adults with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities, are designed as screening tests. Screening tests are expected to have high sensitivities. We found that all investigated index tests had relatively low sensitivities with high variability. In contrast, specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities across all tests. The standard bedside airway examination tests should be interpreted with caution, as they do not appear to be good screening tests. Among the tests we examined, the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties. Given the paucity of available data, future research is needed to develop tests with high sensitivities to make them useful, and to consider their use for screening difficult face mask ventilation and failed intubation. The 27 studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review, once we have assessed them.

Serum Bupivacaine Concentration After Periarticular Injection With a Mixture of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl During Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A relatively new technique to reduce postoperative pain for total knee arthroplasty is to inject a mixture of 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine and 125 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine HCl with epinephrine 1:300,000 around the knee joint at the time of surgery. Currently, no publications report serum bupivacaine concentrations over time after periarticular injection of liposomal mixed with free bupivacaine. This information is important to ensure safe serum bupivacaine concentrations are maintained especially when considering supplemental or rescue peripheral nerve blocks. METHODS: A total of 40 subjects scheduled for primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty with intraoperative periarticular injection of the liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine HCl mixture were included. Total serum bupivacaine concentrations were measured after the last injection at selected time points and calculated by gas chromatography. Quantile regression techniques were used to analyze the data over time. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02626559). RESULTS: Peak serum concentration ranged from 0.17 to 1.2 µg/mL and occurred from 10 minutes to 48 hours. Across all time points, the 48-hour interval had the highest mean concentration of total serum bupivacaine at 0.55 µg/mL (SD, 0.27). Quantile regression showed total serum bupivacaine concentrations increased over the 48 hours measured. None of the participants demonstrated signs or symptoms of local anesthetic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Total serum concentrations of bupivacaine after periarticular administration of liposomal bupivacaine mixed with bupivacaine HCl remained below the described toxicity threshold (2.5 µg/mL) within the first 48 hours, and no patients demonstrated signs or symptoms of toxicity. However, peak serum concentration time was not achieved within the 48-hour interval. Additional studies are needed to describe the course of serum bupivacaine levels after 48 hours and to ascertain the risk of toxicity when combining this method of periarticular injection with peripheral nerve blocks.

Assessing unmet anaesthesia need in Sierra Leone: a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, cross-sectional, countrywide survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the unmet anaesthesia need in a low resource region. INTRODUCTION: Surgery and anæsthesia services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-equipped, under-staffed, and unable to meet current surgical need. There is little objective measure as to the true extent and nature of unmet need. Without such an understanding it is impossible to formulate solutions. Therefore, we re-examined Surgeons OverSeas (SOSAS) unmet surgical need data to extrapolate unmet anaesthesia need. METHODS: For the untreated surgical conditions identified by SOSAS, we assigned anaesthetic technique required to carry out the procedure. The chosen anaesthetic was based on common practice in the region. Procedures were categorized into minimal anaesthesia, spinal anæsthesia, regional anaesthesia, ketamine/monitored anaesthesia care (MAC), and general endotracheal anæsthesia (GETA). DISCUSSIONS: Ninety-two per cent (687 of 745) of untreated surgical conditions in Sierra Leone would require some form of anaesthesia. Seventeen per cent (125 of 745) would require MAC, 22% (167 of 745) would require spinal anaesthesia, and 53% (395 of 745) would require GETA. CONCLUSION: Analyses such as this can provide guidance as to the rational and efficient production and distribution of personnel, drugs and equipment.

Factors associated with improved survival after resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a multivariable model.

BACKGROUND: Several retrospective studies suggest that perioperative care and anesthetic management for cancer resection may influence cancer recurrence or patient survival. Various intraoperative techniques such as paravertebral blocks, decreased opioid use, immunomodulation, and perioperative antiinflammatory administration, have previously been assessed for improved patient survival. The aim of this study was to assess associations between perioperative management and survival in patients undergoing resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Survival data and anesthetic records for 144 patients who had surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 2001 to 2012 were obtained and associations were sought between survival and 19 predefined variables. The authors performed a propensity weighted multivariable statistical analysis using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Median length of survival was 562 days with 95% confidence interval (471, 680). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model of survival, the authors found increased survival in patients who received perioperative epidural analgesia and/or intraoperative dexamethasone. There was a 44% hazard ratio reduction, hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (0.38, 0.87), with dexamethasone. Adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy was associated with longer survival. A decrease in survival was noted in patients who received intraoperative blood transfusions, had poorer histologic grade, and advanced tumor stage. CONCLUSIONS: The authors report an association between perioperative dexamethasone administration and improved survival in human pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. An association between use of epidural anesthesia during primary pancreatic cancer surgery and prolonged survival was also observed. Previously identified associations between perioperative blood transfusions and poor tumor histologic grade and decreased survival were confirmed. Further investigations regarding the use of perioperative dexamethasone and neuraxial anesthesia in this patient population are warranted.

Peripheral venous and arterial blood gas analysis in adults: are they comparable? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peripheral venous blood gas (PVBG) analysis is increasingly being used as a substitute for arterial blood sampling; however, comparability has not been clearly established. To determine if the pH, PCO2 and PO2 obtained from PVBG analysis is comparable with arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. A search was conducted of electronic databases as well as hand-searching of journals and reference lists through December 2012 to identify studies comparing PVBG with ABG analysis in adult subjects. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A meta-analysis using a random effects model was used to calculate the average difference (bias) and the limits of agreement for the venous and arterial pH, PCO2 and PO2 . A total of 18 studies comprising 1768 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies with I(2) approaching 100%. There was little difference between the pH obtained from the PVBG and the ABG, with the arterial pH typically 0.03 higher than the venous pH (95% confidence interval 0.029-0.038). The venous and arterial PCO2 were not comparable because the 95% prediction interval of the bias for venous PCO2 was unacceptably wide, extending from -10.7 mm Hg to +2.4 mm Hg. The PO2 values compared poorly, the arterial PO2 typically 36.9 mm Hg greater than the venous with significant variability (95% confidence interval from 27.2 to 46.6 mm Hg). PVBG analysis compares well with ABG analysis for pH estimations in adults but not to the PCO2 or PO2 . These differences are sufficiently large to be of clinical significance.

High intraoperative inspired oxygen does not increase postoperative supplemental oxygen requirements.

BACKGROUND: Although a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) could reduce surgical site infection, there is concern it could increase postoperative pulmonary complications, including hypoxemia. Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure can improve postoperative pulmonary function. A practical measure of postoperative pulmonary function and the degree of hypoxemia is supplemental oxygen requirement. We performed a double-blind randomized 2 × 2 factorial study on the effects of intraoperative FIO2 0.3 versus more than 0.9 with and without positive end-expiratory pressure on the primary outcome of postoperative supplemental oxygen requirements in patients undergoing lower risk surgery. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and consent, 100 subjects were randomized using computer-generated lists into four treatment groups (intraoperative FIO2 0.3 vs. more than 0.9, with and without 3-5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure). Thirty minutes and 24 h after extubation, supplemental oxygen was discontinued. Arterial oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry was recorded 15 min later. If oxygen saturation decreased to less than 90%, supplemental oxygen was added incrementally to maintain saturation more than 90%. RESULTS: Nearly all subjects required supplemental oxygen in the postanesthesia care unit. Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test demonstrated no statistically significant difference between groups in supplemental oxygen requirements at 45 min and 24 h after tracheal extubation (P = 0.56 and 0.98, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of intraoperative FIO2 more than 0.9 was not associated with increased oxygen requirement, suggesting it does not induce postoperative hypoxemia beyond anesthetic induction and surgery. Therefore, it may be reasonable to use high inspired oxygen in surgical patients with relatively normal pulmonary function.