Preoperative Assessment of Older Adults.

Older patients undergoing surgery have reduced physiologic reserve caused by the combined impact of physiologic age-related changes and the increased burden of comorbid conditions. The preoperative assessment of older patients is directed at evaluating the patient's functional reserve and identifying opportunities to minimize any potential for complications. In addition to a standard preoperative evaluation that includes cardiac risk and a systematic review of systems, the evaluation should be supplemented with a review of geriatric syndromes. Age-based laboratory testing protocols can lead to unnecessary testing, and all testing should be requested if indicated by underlying disease and surgical risk.

Cost-Effectiveness Research in Anesthesiology.

Perioperative interventions aimed at decreasing costs and improving outcomes have become increasingly popular in recent years. Anesthesiologists are often faced with a choice among different treatment strategies with little data available on the comparative cost-effectiveness. We performed a systematic review of the English language literature between 1980 and 2014 to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesiology and perioperative medicine interventions. We excluded interventions related to critical care or pediatric anesthesiology, and articles on interventions not normally ordered or performed by anesthesiologists. Of the >5000 cost-effectiveness analyses published to date, only 28 were applicable to anesthesiology and perioperative medicine and met inclusion criteria. Multidisciplinary interventions were the most cost-effective overall; 8 of 8 interventions were "dominant" (improved outcomes, reduced cost) or cost-effective, including accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles. Intraoperative measures were dominant in 3 of 5 cases, including spinal anesthesia for benign abdominal hysterectomy. With regard to prevention of perioperative infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decolonization was dominant or cost-effective in 2 of 2 studies. Three studies assessing various antibiotic prophylaxis regimens had mixed results. Autologous blood donation was not found to be cost-effective in 5 of 7 studies, and intraoperative cell salvage therapy was also not cost-effective in 2 of 2 reports. Overall, there remains a paucity of cost-effectiveness literature in anesthesiology, particularly relating to intraoperative interventions and multidisciplinary perioperative interventions. Based on the available studies, multidisciplinary perioperative optimization interventions such as accelerated, standardized perioperative recovery pathways, and perioperative delirium prevention bundles tended to be most cost-effective. Our review demonstrates that there is a need for more rigorous cost-effective analyses in many areas of anesthesiology and that anesthesiologists should continue to lead collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts in perioperative medicine.

Prospective Assessment of Pain and Comfort in Chronic Pain Patients Undergoing Interventional Pain Management Procedures.

Objective: Interventional pain management procedures have an important role in the management of chronic pain. The present study seeks to identify the proportion of patients who experience severe pain during pain procedures either with or without sedation. There is then an attempt to identify any association of high pain levels with factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, and baseline pharmaceuticals taken for both pain and/or mood disorder management. Methods: This is a prospective survey study evaluating patients' discomfort during interventional pain procedures in an outpatient academic facility. Patient discomfort was assessed by the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) and modified for nonsedation cases. Results: There were 155 patients in the survey, with 20 of these receiving nonspinal injections. Of the remaining 135 patients who underwent spinal injections, only 10 received conscious sedation. On average, 14.2% experienced severe pain during spinal injections, whereas 20% experienced severe pain with nonspinal injections. Though few patients received conscious sedation, most of these (60%) experienced high levels of pain. There was no correlation between level of procedural pain with age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, or medication type used. Conclusions: The majority of patients who undergo nonsedated interventional pain management procedures do not experience severe pain. There is a small but appreciable group of subjects who seem to experience severe pain that cannot be correlated to any particular clinical characteristic in a standard patient evaluation. Even with standard conscious sedation, there is no clear best method to ensure patient comfort for this high-pain level group.

Anesthesia Lost in Translation: Perspective and Comprehension.

BACKGROUND: Care of non-English speaking patients poses a unique challenge to the anesthesiologist in the perioperative setting. Communication limitations can be frustrating to both the patient and provider, and at times can compromise the quality of care, resulting in health care disparities. An often overlooked, but critical component is the interaction between the anesthesia provider and the interpreter. The goal of our study was to identify misconceptions regarding anesthesia and determine common knowledge gaps amongst medical interpreters. METHODS: A survey inquiring about past perioperative experiences, level of training, and barriers to effective communication was sent to the Department of Interpreter Services (IS). Concurrently, a survey was sent to the Department of Anesthesia, about their experiences with interpreters in the perioperative setting. RESULTS: Our survey had 29 respondents from IS and 42 respondents from Anesthesia. 85% of interpreters had >5 years experience, but 96% denied having anesthesia specific training. Additionally, 42.5% of our interpreters felt that less than half of their patients were sufficiently literate to read and consent in their native language. Anesthesia providers were primarily concerned about the fidelity of the interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstanding one another's field appears to play a significant role in the communication issues surrounding interpretation for anesthesia. Educating both departments may prove beneficial to resolving misconceptions, improving perioperative interactions and ultimately improving patient care. Based on the gathered information, a continuing education lecture was created by the Anesthesia Department in order to improve our interpreters' understanding of anesthesia, associated procedures and vocabulary.

Capnographic Monitoring of Moderate Sedation During Low-Risk Screening Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Safety or Patient Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate monitoring during sedation has been recognized as vital to patient safety in procedures outside of the operating room. Capnography can identify hypoventilation prior to hypoxemia; however, it is not clear whether the addition of capnography improves safety or is cost effective during routine colonoscopy, a high volume, low-risk procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the value of EtCO2 monitoring during colonoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of sedation safety and patient satisfaction before and after the introduction of EtCO2 monitoring during outpatient colonoscopy with midazolam and fentanyl using the validated PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). Complications of sedation and PROSAS scores were compared among colonoscopies with and without capnography. RESULTS: A total of 966 patients participated in our study, 465 in the pre-EtCO2 group and 501 in the EtCO2 group. On multivariate analysis, patients and nurses reported higher levels of procedural discomfort after adoption of capnography (1.71 vs. 1.00, P<0.001). No serious adverse events were seen, and minor sedation-related adverse events occurred with similar frequency in both groups (8.2% pre-EtCO2 vs. 11.2% EtCO2, P=0.115). The cost of implementing EtCO2 in our unit was $40,169.95 and added $11.68 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy with moderate sedation is a low-risk procedure, and the addition of EtCO2 did not improve safety or patient satisfaction but did increase cost. These data suggest that routine capnography in this setting may not be cost effective and that EtCO2 might be reserved for patients at higher risk of adverse events.

Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

BACKGROUND: More than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). DESIGN: Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort. SETTING: GI endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Survey characteristics of the PROSAS. RESULTS: Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.

A prospective assessment of sedation-related adverse events and patient and endoscopist satisfaction in ERCP with anesthesiologist-administered sedation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of anesthesiologist-administered sedation for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP, limited prospective data exist on the effectiveness, safety, and cost of this approach. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs), patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with SRAEs, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction with anesthesiologist-administered sedation. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 528 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesiologist-administered MAC or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: SRAEs, endoscopist and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There were 120 intraprocedure SRAEs during 109 of the 528 ERCPs (21% of cases). Intraprocedure SRAEs included hypotension (38 events), arrhythmia (20 events), O(2) desaturation to less than 85% (66 events), unplanned intubation (16 events), and procedure termination (1 event). Thirty postprocedure SRAEs occurred in a total of 22 patients (4% of cases), including hypotension (5 events), endotracheal intubation (2 events), and arrhythmia (12 events). Patient-related variables associated with adverse intraprocedure events were American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .004) and body mass index (kg/m(2)) (P = .02). On a 10-point scale, mean endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was 9.2 (standard deviation 1.8) and patient satisfaction with sedation was 9.9 (standard deviation 0.7). LIMITATIONS: The approach to sedation was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS: Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and body mass index are associated with an increased rate of cardiac and respiratory events during ERCP. Cardiac and respiratory events are generally minor, and MAC can be considered a safe option for most ERCP patients. Despite the frequency of minor sedation-related events, procedure interruption or premature termination was rare in the setting of anesthesiologist-administered sedation.