Antiemetic Administration and Its Association with Race: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a patient- centered outcome measure and a main driver of unplanned admissions. Antiemetic administration is under the sole domain of anesthesiologists. In a U.S. sample, Medicaid insured versus commercially insured patients and those with lower versus higher median income had reduced antiemetic administration, but not all risk factors were controlled for. This study examined whether a patient's race is associated with perioperative antiemetic administration and hypothesized that Black versus White race is associated with reduced receipt of antiemetics. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 2004 to 2018 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data. The primary outcome of interest was administration of either ondansetron or dexamethasone; secondary outcomes were administration of each drug individually or both drugs together. The confounder-adjusted analysis included relevant patient demographics (Apfel postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors: sex, smoking history, postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness history, and postoperative opioid use; as well as age) and included institutions as random effects. RESULTS: The Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data contained 5.1 million anesthetic cases from 39 institutions located in the United States and The Netherlands. Multivariable regression demonstrates that Black patients were less likely to receive antiemetic administration with either ondansetron or dexamethasone than White patients (290,208 of 496,456 [58.5%] vs. 2.24 million of 3.49 million [64.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Black as compared to White patients were less likely to receive any dexamethasone (140,642 of 496,456 [28.3%] vs. 1.29 million of 3.49 million [37.0%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.78; P < 0.001), any ondansetron (262,086 of 496,456 [52.8%] vs. 1.96 million of 3.49 million [56.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.85; P < 0.001), and dexamethasone and ondansetron together (112,520 of 496,456 [22.7%] vs. 1.0 million of 3.49 million [28.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a perioperative registry data set, Black versus White patient race was associated with less antiemetic administration, after controlling for all accepted postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors.

A randomized trial of standard vs restricted opioid prescribing following midurethral sling.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative opioid prescribing has historically lacked information crucial to balancing the pain control needs of the individual patient with our professional responsibility to judiciously prescribe these high-risk medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pain control, satisfaction with pain control, and opioid use among patients undergoing isolated midurethral sling randomized to 1 of 2 different opioid-prescribing regimens. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent isolated midurethral sling placement from June 1, 2020, to November 22, 2021, were offered enrollment into this prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority clinical trial. Participants were randomized to receive either a standard prescription of ten 5-mg oxycodone tablets provided preoperatively (standard) or an opioid prescription provided only during patient request postoperatively (restricted). Preoperatively, all participants completed baseline demographic and pain surveys, including the 9-Question Central Sensitization Index, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Likert pain score (scale 0-10). The participants completed daily surveys for 1 week after surgery to determine the average daily pain score, number of opioids used, other forms of pain management, satisfaction with pain control, perception of the number of opioids prescribed, and need to return to care for pain management. The online Prescription Drug Monitoring Program was used to determine opioid filling in the postoperative period. The primary outcome was average postoperative day 1 pain score, and an a priori determined margin of noninferiority was set at 2 points. RESULTS: Overall, 82 patients underwent isolated midurethral sling placement and met the inclusion criteria: 40 were randomized to the standard arm, and 42 were randomized to the restricted group. Concerning the primary outcome of average postoperative day 1 pain score, the restricted arm (mean pain score, 3.9±2.4) was noninferior to the standard arm (mean pain score, 3.7±2.7; difference in means, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, -∞ to 1.34). Of note, 23 participants (57.5%) in the standard arm vs 8 participants (19.0%) in the restricted arm filled an opioid prescription (P<.001). Moreover, 18 of 82 participants (22.0%) used opioids during the 7-day postoperative period, with 10 (25.0%) in the standard arm and 8 (19.0%) in the restricted arm using opioids (P=.52). Of participants using opioids, the average number of tablets used was 3.4±2.3, and only 3 participants used ≥5 tablets. On a scale of 1="prescribed far more opioids than needed" to 5="prescribed far less opioids than needed," the means were 1.9±1.0 in the standard arm and 2.7±1.0 in the restricted arm (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Restricted opioid prescription was noninferior to standard opioid prescription in the setting of pain control and satisfaction with pain control after isolated midurethral placement. Participants in the restricted arm filled fewer opioid prescriptions than participants in the standard arm. On average, only 3.4 tablets were used by those that filled prescriptions in both groups. Restrictive opioid-prescribing practices may reduce unused opioids in the community while achieving similar pain control.

Health equity research in obstetric anesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Health equity is an important priority for obstetric anesthesia, but describing disparities in perinatal care process and health outcome is insufficient to achieve this goal. Conceptualizing and framing disparity is a prerequisite to pose meaningful research questions. We emphasize the need to hypothesize and test which mechanisms and drivers are instrumental for disparities in perinatal processes and outcomes, in order to target, test and refine effective countermeasures. RECENT FINDINGS: With an emphasis on methodology and measurement, we sketch how health systems and disparity research may advance maternal health equity by narrating, conceptualizing, and investigating social determinants of health as key drivers of perinatal disparity, by identifying the granular mechanism of this disparity, by making the economic case to address them, and by testing specific interventions to advance obstetric health equity. SUMMARY: Measuring social determinants of health and meaningful perinatal processes and outcomes precisely and accurately at the individual, family, community/neighborhood level is a prerequisite for healthcare disparity research. A focus on elucidating the precise mechanism driving disparity in processes of obstetric care would inform a more rational effort to promote health equity. Implementation scientists should rigorously investigate in prospective trials, which countermeasures are most efficient and effective in mitigating perinatal outcome disparities.

Antiemetic Prophylaxis as a Marker of Health Care Disparities in the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry.

BACKGROUND: US health care disparities persist despite repeated countermeasures. Research identified race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status as factors, mediated through individual provider and/or systemic biases; little research exists in anesthesiology. We investigated antiemetic prophylaxis as a surrogate marker for anesthesia quality by individual providers because antiemetics are universally available, indicated contingent on patient characteristics (gender, age, etc), but independent of comorbidities and not yet impacted by regulatory or financial constraints. We hypothesized that socioeconomic indicators (measured as insurance status or median income in the patients' home zip code area) are associated with the utilization of antiemetic prophylaxis (as a marker of anesthesia quality). METHODS: We tested our hypothesis in several subsets of electronic anesthesia records from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry (NACOR), fitting frequentist and novel Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: NACOR contained 12 million cases in 2013. Six institutions reported on antiemetic prophylaxis for 441,645 anesthesia cases. Only 173,133 cases included details on insurance information. Even fewer (n = 92,683) contained complete data on procedure codes and provider identifiers. Bivariate analysis, multivariable logistic regression, and our Bayesian hierarchical model all showed a large and statistically significant association between socioeconomic markers and antiemetic prophylaxis (ondansetron and dexamethasone). For Medicaid versus commercially insured patients, the odds ratio of receiving the antiemetic ondansetron is 0.85 in our Bayesian hierarchical mixed regression model, with a 95% Bayesian credible interval of 0.81-0.89 with similar inferences in classical (frequentist) regression models. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of NACOR anesthesia records raise concerns that patients with lower socioeconomic status may receive inferior anesthesia care provided by individual anesthesiologists, as indicated by less antiemetics administered. Effects persisted after we controlled for important patient characteristics and for procedure and provider influences. Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Our results challenge the notion that anesthesia providers do not contribute to health care disparities.

Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 39 studies, enrolling a total of 3027 participants in our inclusive analysis.Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.

Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 41 studies, enrolling a total of 3143 participants in our inclusive analysis.Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.

The Effect of Initiatives to Overcome Language Barriers and Improve Attendance: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Adherence in an Inner City Chronic Pain Clinic.

Language barriers can prevent pain physicians and patients from forming meaningful rapport and drive health care disparities. Non-adherence with scheduled pain clinic appointments deprives patients with chronic pain of needed specialist care. Objective: We evaluated the benefit of comprehensive initiatives to overcome language barriers to improve patient adherence with initial scheduled chronic pain clinic appointments. Design: After implementation of our initiative, we performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis and fit logistic regression models to investigate the association between demographic factors and adherence. Setting: We collected retrospective data from an observational cohort with a scheduled appointment at the adult inner-city underserved outpatient Pain Center at Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. Patients: Between March 2012 and March 2014, 14,459 appointments were scheduled; 3,035 of these appointments represented initial first visits; patients had a mean age of 53 years; 15% were predominantly Spanish-speaking, 65% were female. Interventions: Our initiative to overcome language barriers in our pain clinic included appointment reminders in the patient's preferred language, Spanish-speaking staff, and unified locations with equitable access. Outcome Measures: Our dependent variable was adherence with a first scheduled pain clinic appointment. Results: We found that after implementation of our initiative, speaking Spanish was now statistically significantly associated with higher rates of adherence with appointments (Odds Ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval [1.06­1.64]). Conclusions: We infer from our results that coordinated initiatives to overcome language barriers can be beneficial in improving appointment adherence and access to care by enhancing rapport and communication between pain physicians and their patients. Perspective: The results of this retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients' adherence with scheduled appointments in an inner-city chronic pain clinic suggests that targeted initiatives including a pre-clinic reminder phone call in the patient's own language may help to overcome language barriers and improve access to care.

Swallowed Fluticasone Propionate Is an Effective Long-Term Maintenance Therapy for Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: Although effective in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children, limited data exist on long-term safety and efficacy of swallowed topical corticosteroids. We investigated whether long-term use of swallowed fluticasone in children with EoE leads to sustained reduction in esophageal eosinophils, and endoscopic and clinical improvement. METHODS: In an open-label, prospective, single-center study, we offered pediatric patients with active EoE fluticasone 2 puffs to swallow twice a day (strengths in µg/puff: 2-4 years: 44, 5-11 years: 110, ≥12 years: 220). Clinical, endoscopic, and histological assessments were performed at baseline and shortly after therapy. If histological remission was seen, fluticasone was continued with clinical follow-ups every 4 months and endoscopic and histological follow-ups yearly. Clinical scores were derived from eight symptoms (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, regurgitation, chest pain, dysphagia, food impaction, and early satiety). Endoscopic scores were derived from six features (rings, exudates, furrows, edema, stricture, and shearing). Scores were expressed as ratio (features present/total). In addition to peak eosinophils/high power field (HPF) (primary outcome), histological features (eosinophilic microabscesses, degranulation, superficial layering, basal zone hyperplasia, dilated intercellular spaces, and lamina propria fibrosis) were assessed. Median clinical and endoscopic scores and individual histologic features were compared over 4 time intervals: <4 months, 4-12 months, 13-24 months, and >24 months. Growth and adverse effects were monitored. RESULTS: We enrolled 54 patients, 80% male, median age 6.5 years (range 2-17 years), 85% atopic (57% asthma, 68% allergic rhinitis, and 31% atopic dermatitis), and 74% with food allergy. Mean follow-up was 20.4 months, the longest being 68 months (5.7 years). Esophageal eosinophil counts significantly decreased (median peak eosinophils/HPF at baseline 72, <4 months: 0.5, 4-12 months: 1.75, 13-24 months: 10, and >24 months: 12, all P<0.01). All histological features significantly decreased from baseline to all follow-up time points (all P<0.01). Lamina propria fibrosis significantly decreased (% patients with fibrosis at baseline 92, <4 months: 41, 4-12 months: 50, 13-24 months: 45, and >24 months: 39, all P<0.01). Endoscopic features improved (score at baseline 0.37, <4 months: 0.17, 4-12 months: 0.17, 13-24 months: 0, and >24 months: 0.1, all P<0.01, except at >24 months: P<0.05). Symptoms improved (score at baseline 0.22, <4 months: 0, 4-12 months: 0.11, 13-24 months: 0.11, and >24 months: 0.11, all P<0.05 except at >24 months: P=0.05). In a mixed linear regression model that accounts for correlation of repeated observations in the patient in a per-patient analysis, we found that treatment with swallowed fluticasone led to a statistically significant and sustained decrease in peak esophageal eosinophil counts. Asymptomatic esophageal candidiasis was seen in three children but resolved with anti-fungal therapy. Height and weight z-scores followed expected growth curves. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that swallowed fluticasone is effective as a long-term maintenance therapy for children with EoE, without growth impediment or serious side effects.

Regional versus general anaesthesia for improved cognitive function after procedures other than cardiac surgery or neurosurgery in adult and paediatric patients.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of this review is to compare the effects of regional versus general anaesthesia on cognitive function after procedures other than cardiac surgery or neurosurgery in adult and in paediatric patients.

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs.

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.

Regional analgesia for improvement of long-term functional outcome after elective large joint replacement.

BACKGROUND: Regional analgesia is more effective than conventional analgesia for controlling pain and may facilitate rehabilitation after large joint replacement in the short term. It remains unclear if regional anaesthesia improves functional outcomes after joint replacement beyond three months after surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of regional anaesthesia and analgesia on long-term functional outcomes 3, 6 and 12 months after elective major joint (knee, shoulder and hip) replacement surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search of several databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), and handsearched reference lists and conference abstracts. We updated our search in June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing regional analgesia versus conventional analgesia in patients undergoing total shoulder, hip or knee replacement. We included studies that reported a functional outcome with a follow-up of at least three months after surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with 350 participants followed for at least three months. All of these studies enrolled participants undergoing total knee replacement. Studies were at least partially blinded. Three studies had a high risk of performance bias and one a high risk of attrition bias, but the risk of bias was otherwise unclear or low.Only one study assessed joint function using a global score. Due to heterogeneity in outcome and reporting, we could only pool three out of six RCTs, with range of motion assessed at three months after surgery used as a surrogate for joint function. All studies had a high risk of detection bias. Using the random-effects model, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups (mean difference 3.99 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.23 to 10.21; P value = 0.21, 3 studies, 140 participants, very low quality evidence).We did not perform further analyses because immediate adverse effects were not part of the explicit outcomes of any of these typically small studies, and long-term adverse events after regional anaesthesia are rare.None of the included studies elicited or reported long-term adverse effects like persistent nerve damage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: More high-quality studies are needed to establish the effects of regional analgesia on function after major joint replacement, as well as on the risk of adverse events (falls).

Liberal vs. restricted opioid prescribing following midurethral sling dataset.

Postoperative opioid prescribing has historically lacked information critical to balancing the pain control needs of the individual patient with our professional responsibility to judiciously prescribe these high-risk medications. This data evaluates pain control, satisfaction with pain control, and opioid utilization among patients undergoing isolated mid-urethral sling (MUS) randomized to one of two different opioid prescribing regimens. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277975). Women undergoing isolated MUS by a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery physician at a Penn State Health hospital from June 1, 2020 to November 22, 2021 were offered enrollment into this prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial. Participants gave informed consent and were enrolled by a member of the study team. Allocation was concealed to patient and study personnel until randomization on the day of surgery. Preoperatively, all participants completed baseline demographic and pain surveys including CSI-9, PCS, and Likert pain score (scale 0-10). Participants were randomized to either receive a standard prescription of ten 5 mg tablets oxycodone provided preoperatively (standard) or opioid prescription provided only upon patient request postoperatively (restricted). Randomization was performed by the study team surgeon using the REDCap randomization module on the day of surgery. Following MUS, subjects completed a daily diary for 1 week, i.e., postoperative day (POD) 0 through 7. Within the dairy, subjects provided the following information: average daily pain score, opioid use and amount of opioid utilized, other forms of pain management, satisfaction with pain control, perception of the amount of opioid prescribed, and need for pain management hospital/clinic visits. The online Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) was queried for all patients to determine if prescriptions for opioids were filled during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was average postoperative day 1 pain score and an a priori determined margin of non-inferiority was set at 2 points. Secondary outcomes included whether subject filled an opioid prescription (indicated by the online PDMP), opioid use (yes/no), satisfaction with pain control (on a scale of 1= "much worse" to 5= "much better" than expected), and how subjects felt about the amount of opioid prescribed (on a scale of 1="prescribed far more" to 3="prescribed the right amount" to 5="prescribed far less" opioid than needed). 82 participants underwent isolated MUS placement and met inclusion criteria; 40 were randomized to the standard arm and 42 to the restricted group. Within this manuscript, we detail the data obtained from this randomized clinical trial and the methods utilized.

Social determinants of health: modeling and targeting patient propensity to attend pain clinic appointments.

Aim: We sought to investigate the impact of social determinants of health on pain clinic attendance. Materials & methods: Retrospective data were collected from the Pain Center at Montefiore Medical Center from 2016 to 2020 and analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Results: African-Americans were less likely to attend appointments compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.70-0.77; p < 0.001). Males had decreased attendance compared with females (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.87-0.92; p < 0.001). Compared with commercial, those with Medicaid (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.66-0.72; p < 0.001) and Medicare (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80; p < 0.001) insurance had decreased attendance. Conclusion: Significant disparities exist in pain clinic attendance based upon social determinants of health including race, gender and insurance type.

We aimed to investigate social determinants of health, such as race and type of insurance, and their role in patients' attendance of pain clinic appointments. Data were collected over several years and statistical analysis was performed on over 145,000 patient encounters. It was found that patients with Medicaid and Medicare were less likely to attend appointments compared with patients with commercial insurance. Black or African­American patients were also less likely to attend compared with White patients. Spanish speaking patients were more likely to attend compared with English speaking patients, showing that previous interventions aimed at reducing the language barrier for Spanish speaking patients continue to be successful after many years. Overall, significant disparities exist in pain clinic attendance based upon social determinants of health. Further research is needed to investigate reasons and potential areas of interventions. Patients insured with Medicare and Medicaid may also have greater transportation issues, a potential focus for further studies and targeted interventions.

Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.

Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia for preventing chronic pain after surgery.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery, a frequent and debilitating condition. OBJECTIVES: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of persistent pain six or 12 months after surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), PubMed (1966 to April 2012), EMBASE (1966 to May 2012) and CINAHL (1966 to May 2012) without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. The results were limited to randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included trials, review articles and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing local anaesthetics or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome at six or 12 months after surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, including information on adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. Results are presented as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We grouped studies according to surgical interventions. We employed the Chi(2) test and calculated the I(2) statistic to investigate study heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 RCTs studying local anaesthetics or regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery. Data from a total of 1090 patients with outcomes at six months and of 441 patients with outcomes at 12 months were presented. No study included children. We pooled data from 250 participants after thoracotomy, with outcomes at six months. Data favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of chronic pain at six months after thoracotomy with an OR of 0.33 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.56). We pooled two studies on paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery; the pooled data of 89 participants with outcomes at five to six months favoured paravertebral block with an OR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.94).The methodological quality of the included studies was intermediate. Adverse effects were not studied systematically and were reported sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered the assessment of effects, especially at 12 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing chronic pain after thoracotomy in about one patient out of every four patients treated. Paravertebral block may reduce the risk of chronic pain after breast cancer surgery in about one out of every five women treated. Our conclusions are significantly weakened by performance bias, shortcomings in allocation concealment, considerable attrition and incomplete outcome data. We caution that our evidence synthesis is based on only a few, small studies. More studies with high methodological quality, addressing various types of surgery and different age groups, including children, are needed.

Factors Influencing Geriatric Orthopaedic Trauma Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the independent risk factors related to survival and mortality and (2) predict survival in geriatric orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to our institution's ICU as a Level 1 or 2 trauma activation. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients age >60, over a 10 year period, who were involved in a multi-trauma with orthopaedic injuries. Variables evaluated include: sex, age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism of injury, number and type of orthopaedic injury, anticoagulant use, comorbidities, length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU), type of ICU, ventilator use, vasopressors use, incidence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), number of surgeries, and 1-month and 6-month mortality. A Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to predict and assess survival probability. RESULTS: 174 patients were included, with an average mortality of 47.7%. Deceased patients had a significantly greater age, ISS, vasopressor usage, ICU stay, incidence of MODF, incidence of genitourinary disease, anticoagulant usage, ventilator usage, number of orthopaedic surgeries, and orthopaedic injuries. The relative risk for mortality within the first month was significantly associated with increased age, ISS, high-energy trauma, length of ICU stay, MODS, psychiatric disease, and anticoagulant use. Patients with an ISS ≤30 were significantly more likely to survive than patients with an ISS of >30. Greater age, ISS, length of ICU stay, incidence of MODS, anticoagulant, and ventilator use were significantly predictive of lower survival rates. Mechanism of injury, number of orthopaedic surgeries and orthopaedic injuries, and type of orthopaedic injury were not found to be predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: An ISS >30 at admission is strongly predictive of a lower probability of survival. Genitourinary disease was associated with increased mortality. Low age, ISS, length of stay in ICU, incidence of MODS, anticoagulant use, and ventilator use, are significantly predictive of survival. Number of orthopaedic surgeries, orthopaedic injuries, and type of orthopaedic injury were not found to be predictive of survival. These indications help us to better understand factors predictive of death among geriatric orthopaedic trauma patients, and improve the way we can diagnose and care for them.