Impact of sugammadex and neostigmine on outcome after major orthopaedic surgery: A population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular blockade after surgery remains a major concern given its association with pulmonary complications. However, current clinical practices with and the comparative impact on perioperative risk of various reversal agents remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the use of sugammadex and neostigmine in the USA, and their impact on postoperative complications by examining national data. DESIGN: This population-based retrospective study used national Premier Healthcare claims data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA), or lumbar spine fusion surgery between 2016 and 2019 in the United States who received neuromuscular blocking agents. INTERVENTION: The effects of sugammadex and neostigmine for pharmacologically enhanced reversal were compared with each other and with controls who received no reversal agent. MAIN OUTCOMES: included pulmonary complications, cardiac complications, and a need for postoperative ventilation. Mixed-effects regression models compared the outcomes between neostigmine, sugammadex, and controls. We report odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Bonferroni-adjusted P values of 0.008 were used to indicate significance. RESULTS: Among 361 553 patients, 74.5% received either sugammadex (20.7%) or neostigmine (53.8%). Sugammadex use increased from 4.4% in 2016 to 35.4% in 2019, whereas neostigmine use decreased from 64.5% in 2016 to 43.4% in 2019. Sugammadex versus neostigmine or controls was associated with significantly reduced odds for cardiac complications (OR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.92 and OR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.89, respectively). Both sugammadex and neostigmine versus controls were associated with reduced odds for pulmonary complications (OR 0.85, 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94 and OR 0.91, CI 0.85 to 0.98, respectively). A similar pattern of sugammadex and neostigmine was observed for a reduction in severe pulmonary complications, including the requirement of invasive ventilation (OR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.64 and OR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based data indicate that sugammadex and neostigmine both appear highly effective in reducing the odds of severe life-threatening pulmonary complications. Sugammadex, especially, was associated with reduced odds of cardiac complications.

Evidence-based Perioperative Practice Utilization among Various Racial Populations-A Retrospective Cohort Trending Analysis of Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated racial disparities in perioperative care and outcomes. The authors hypothesize that among lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients, evidence-based perioperative practice utilization increased over time among all racial groups, and that standardized evidence-based perioperative practice care protocols resulted in reduction of racial disparities and improved outcomes. METHODS: The study analyzed 3,356,805 lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients from the Premier Healthcare database (Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc., USA). The exposure of interest was race (White, Black, Asian, other). Outcomes were evidence-based perioperative practice adherence (eight individual care components; more than 80% of these implemented was defined as "high evidence-based perioperative practice"), any major complication (including acute renal failure, delirium, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, stroke, or in-hospital mortality), in-hospital mortality, and prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Evidence-based perioperative practice adherence rate has increased over time and was associated with reduced complications across all racial groups. However, utilization among Black patients was below that for White patients between 2006 and 2021 (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.95]; 45.50% vs. 47.90% on average). Independent of whether evidence-based perioperative practice components were applied, Black patients exhibited higher odds of major complications (1.61 [95% CI, 1.55 to 1.67] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.43 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.48] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), mortality (1.70 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.25] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.29 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.51] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), and prolonged length of stay (1.45 [95% CI, 1.42 to 1.48] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.38 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.40] without high evidence-based perioperative practice) compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based perioperative practice utilization in lower extremity joint arthroplasty has been increasing during the last decade. However, racial disparities still exist with Black patients consistently having lower odds of evidence-based perioperative practice adherence. Black patients (compared to the White patients) exhibited higher odds of composite major complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, independent of evidence-based perioperative practice use, suggesting that evidence-based perioperative practice did not impact racial disparities regarding particularly the Black patients in this surgical cohort.

Neuraxial Use Among Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Multiple Sclerosis or Myasthenia Gravis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients with preexisting neurological diseases create greater challenges to perioperative management, and choice of anesthetic is often complicated. We investigated neuraxial anesthesia use in total knee and hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA) recipients with multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis compared to the general population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing a TKA/THA with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis (Premier Health Database, 2006-2019). The primary outcome was neuraxial anesthesia use in multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis patients compared to the general population. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation. We measured the association between the aforementioned subgroups and neuraxial anesthesia use. Subsequently, subgroup-specific associations between neuraxial anesthesia and secondary outcomes were measured. We report odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 2,184,193 TKA/THAs, 7559 and 3176 had a multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis diagnosis, respectively. Compared to the general population, neuraxial anesthesia use was lower in multiple sclerosis patients (OR, 0.61; CI, 0.57-0.65; P < .0001) and no different in myasthenia gravis patients (OR, 1.05; CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .304). Multiple sclerosis patients administered neuraxial anesthesia (compared to those without neuraxial anesthesia) had lower odds of prolonged length of stay (OR, 0.63; CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .0001) mirroring neuraxial anesthesia benefits seen in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial anesthesia use was lower in surgical patients with multiple sclerosis compared to the general population but no different in those with myasthenia gravis. Neuraxial use was associated with lower odds of prolonged length of stay.

Health Services Research in Anesthesia: A Brief Overview of Common Methodologies.

The use of large data sources such as registries and claims-based data sets to perform health services research in anesthesia has increased considerably, ultimately informing clinical decisions, supporting evaluation of policy or intervention changes, and guiding further research. These observational data sources come with limitations that must be addressed to effectively examine all aspects of health care services and generate new individual- and population-level knowledge. Several statistical methods are growing in popularity to address these limitations, with the goal of mitigating confounding and other biases. In this article, we provide a brief overview of common statistical methods used in health services research when using observational data sources, guidance on their interpretation, and examples of how they have been applied to anesthesia-related health services research. Methods described involve regression, propensity scoring, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, interrupted time series, and machine learning.

The Perioperative Use of Benzodiazepines for Major Orthopedic Surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous indications for perioperative benzodiazepine use, associated risks may be exacerbated in elderly and comorbid patients. In the absence of national utilization data, we aimed to describe utilization patterns using national claims data from total hip/knee arthroplasty patients (THA/TKA), an increasingly older and vulnerable surgical population. METHODS: We included data on 1,863,996 TKAs and 985,471 THAs (Premier Healthcare claims data, 2006-2019). Benzodiazepine utilization (stratified by long- and short-acting agents) was assessed by patient- and health care characteristics, and analgesic regimens. Given the large sample size, standardized differences instead of P values were utilized to signify meaningful differences between groups (defined by value >0.1). RESULTS: Among 1,863,996 TKA and 985,471 THA patients, the utilization rate of benzodiazepines was 80.5% and 76.1%, respectively. In TKA, 72.6% received short-acting benzodiazepines, while 7.9% received long-acting benzodiazepines, utilization rates 68.4% and 7.7% in THA, respectively. Benzodiazepine use was particularly more frequent among younger patients (median age [interquartile range {IQR}]: 66 [60-73]/64 [57-71] among short/long-acting compared to 69 [61-76] among nonusers), White patients (80.6%/85.4% short/long-acting versus 75.7% among nonusers), commercial insurance (36.5%/34.0% short/long-acting versus 29.1% among nonusers), patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia (56.9%/56.5% short/long-acting versus 51.5% among nonusers), small- and medium-sized (≤500 beds) hospitals (68.5% in nonusers, and 74% and 76.7% in short- and long-acting benzodiazepines), and those in the Midwest (24.6%/25.4% short/long-acting versus 16% among nonusers) in TKA; all standardized differences ≥0.1. Similar patterns were observed in THA except for race and comorbidity burden. Notably, among patients with benzodiazepine use, in-hospital postoperative opioid administration (measured in oral morphine equivalents [OMEs]) was substantially higher. This was even more pronounced in patients who received long-acting agents (median OME with no benzodiazepines utilization 192 [IQR, 83-345] vs 256 [IQR, 153-431] with short-acting, and 329 [IQR, 195-540] with long-acting benzodiazepine administration). Benzodiazepine use was also more frequent in patients receiving multimodal analgesia (concurrently 2 or more analgesic modes) and regional anesthesia. Trend analysis showed a persistent high utilization rate of benzodiazepines over the last 14 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a representative sample, 4 of 5 patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery in the United States receive benzodiazepines perioperatively, despite concerns for delirium and delayed postoperative neurocognitive recovery. Notably, benzodiazepine utilization was coupled with substantially increased opioid use, which may project implications for perioperative pain management.

An Overview of Commonly Used Data Sources in Observational Research in Anesthesia.

Anesthesia research using existing databases has drastically expanded over the last decade. The most commonly used data sources in multi-institutional observational research are administrative databases and clinical registries. These databases are powerful tools to address research questions that are difficult to answer with smaller samples or single-institution information. Given that observational database research has established itself as valuable field in anesthesiology, we systematically reviewed publications in 3 high-impact North American anesthesia journals in the past 5 years with the goal to characterize its scope. We identified a wide range of data sources used for anesthesia-related research. Research topics ranged widely spanning questions regarding optimal anesthesia type and analgesic protocols to outcomes and cost of care both on a national and a local level. Researchers should choose their data sources based on various factors such as the population encompassed by the database, ability of the data to adequately address the research question, budget, acceptable limitations, available data analytics resources, and pipeline of follow-up studies.

Perioperative Management of the Patient With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Narrative Review.

The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has reached 1 billion people worldwide, implying significant risk for the perioperative setting as patients are vulnerable to cardiopulmonary complications, critical care requirement, and unexpected death. This review summarizes main aspects and considerations for the perioperative management of OSA, a condition of public health concern. Critical determinants of perioperative risk include OSA-related changes in upper airway anatomy with augmented collapsibility, diminished capability of upper airway dilator muscles to respond to airway obstruction, disparities in hypoxemia and hypercarbia arousal thresholds, and instability of ventilatory control. Preoperative OSA screening to identify patients at increased risk has therefore been implemented in many institutions. Experts recommend that in the absence of severe symptoms or additional compounding health risks, patients may nevertheless proceed to surgery, while heightened awareness and the adjustment of postoperative care is required. Perioperative caregivers should anticipate difficult airway management in OSA and be prepared for airway complications. Anesthetic and sedative drug agents worsen upper airway collapsibility and depress central respiratory activity, while the risk for postoperative respiratory compromise is further increased with the utilization of neuromuscular blockade. Consistently, opioid analgesia has proven to be complex in OSA, as patients are particularly prone to opioid-induced respiratory depression. Moreover, basic features of OSA, including intermittent hypoxemia and repetitive sleep fragmentation, gradually precipitate a higher sensitivity to opioid analgesic potency along with an increased perception of pain. Hence, regional anesthesia by blockade of neural pathways directly at the site of surgical trauma as well as multimodal analgesia by facilitating additive and synergistic analgesic effects are both strongly supported in the literature as interventions that may reduce perioperative complication risk. Health care institutions are increasingly allocating resources, including those of postoperative enhanced monitoring, in an effort to increase patient safety. The implementation of evidence-based perioperative management strategies is however burdened by the rising prevalence of OSA, the large heterogeneity in disease severity, and the lack of evidence on the efficacy of costly perioperative measures. Screening and monitoring algorithms, as well as reliable risk predictors, are urgently needed to identify OSA patients that are truly in need of extended postoperative surveillance and care. The perioperative community is therefore challenged to develop feasible pathways and measures that can confer increased patient safety and prevent complications in patients with OSA.

Modifiable factors associated with postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair: An age-stratified retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium in hip fracture patients is common and is associated with substantial morbidity and consumption of resources. OBJECTIVE: Using data from the USA, we aimed to examine the relationship between postoperative delirium and (modifiable) peri-operative factors mentioned in the American Geriatrics Society Best Practice Statement on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults, stratified by 'young old' (<80 years) and 'old-old' (≥80 years) categories. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from 2006 to 2016. SETTING: Population-based claims data from the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing 505 152 hip fracture repairs between 2006 and 2016 as recorded in the Premier Healthcare Database. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was postoperative delirium; modifiable factors of interest were peri-operative opioid use (high, medium or low; <25th, 25 to 75th or >75th percentile of oral morphine equivalents), anaesthesia type (general, neuraxial, both), use of benzodiazepines (long acting, short acting, both), pethidine, nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics, ketamine, corticosteroids and gabapentinoids. Multilevel models assessed associations between these factors and postoperative delirium, in the full cohort, and separately in those aged less than 80 and at least 80 years. Odds ratios (ORs) and Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) are reported. RESULTS: Overall, postoperative delirium incidence was 15.7% (n = 79 547). After adjustment for relevant covariates, the use of long-acting (OR 1.82, CI 1.74 to 1.89) and combined short and long-acting benzodiazepines (OR 1.56, CI 1.48 to 1.63) and ketamine (OR 1.09, CI 1.03 to 1.15), in particular, was associated with increased odds for postoperative delirium, while neuraxial anaesthesia (OR 0.91 CI 0.85 to 0.98) and opioid use (OR 0.95, CI 0.92 to 0.98 and OR 0.88, CI 0.84 to 0.92 for medium and high dose compared with low dose) were associated with lower odds; all P < 0.05. When analysing data separately by age group, effects of benzodiazepines persisted, while opioid use was only relevant in those aged less than 80 years. CONCLUSION: We identified modifiable factors associated with postoperative delirium incidence among patients undergoing hip fracture repair surgery.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Regional anesthesia and pain management in patients with sleep apnea: can they improve outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In several guidelines, regional anesthesia and analgesia have been suggested as safer alternatives for general anesthesia and systemic analgesia for their safety profile in patients suffering from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, the underlying scientific basis is still evolving. The present review is intended to provide an up-to-date account on the question whether the use of regional anesthesia improves outcomes in patients with OSA. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of studies found favorable effects of regional anesthesia used in patients with OSA, including reduced incidence of major perioperative complications such as the need for mechanical ventilation, reintubation and pulmonary/cardiac complications. No negative effects of regional anesthesia specific to patients with OSA were found. Regional anesthesia was most effective when used as a sole technique, but also carried benefits when added to general anesthesia. The majority of available literature focuses on orthopedic surgery and neuraxial anesthesia. SUMMARY: Regional anesthesia can be recommended as a good strategy to treat patients with OSA whenever feasible, as it reduces the incidence of potentially catastrophic perioperative complications. However, the breadth of both surgical and regional anesthetic techniques analyzed is limited; further research should focus on extending the knowledge base beyond neuraxial anesthesia and orthopedics.

Association of Multimodal Pain Management Strategies with Perioperative Outcomes and Resource Utilization: A Population-based Study.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is increasingly considered routine practice in joint arthroplasties, but supportive large-scale data are scarce. The authors aimed to determine how the number and type of analgesic modes is associated with reduced opioid prescription, complications, and resource utilization. METHODS: Total hip/knee arthroplasties (N = 512,393 and N = 1,028,069, respectively) from the Premier Perspective database (2006 to 2016) were included. Analgesic modes considered were opioids, peripheral nerve blocks, acetaminophen, steroids, gabapentin/pregabalin, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, or ketamine. Groups were categorized into "opioids only" and 1, 2, or more than 2 additional modes. Multilevel models measured associations between multimodal analgesia and opioid prescription, cost/length of hospitalization, and opioid-related adverse effects. Odds ratios or percent change and 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 85.6% (N = 1,318,165) of patients received multimodal analgesia. In multivariable models, additions of analgesic modes were associated with stepwise positive effects: total hip arthroplasty patients receiving more than 2 modes (compared to "opioids only") experienced 19% fewer respiratory (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94; unadjusted 1.0% [N = 1,513] vs. 2.0% [N = 1,546]), 26% fewer gastrointestinal (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.84; unadjusted 1.5% [N = 2,234] vs. 2.5% [N = 1,984]) complications, up to a -18.5% decrease in opioid prescription (95% CI, -19.7% to -17.2%; 205 vs. 300 overall median oral morphine equivalents), and a -12.1% decrease (95% CI, -12.8% to -11.5%; 2 vs. 3 median days) in length of stay (all P < 0.05). Total knee arthroplasty analyses showed similar patterns. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors seemed to be the most effective modalities used. CONCLUSIONS: While the optimal multimodal regimen is still not known, the authors' findings encourage the combined use of multiple modalities in perioperative analgesic protocols.

Do Hospitals Performing Frequent Neuraxial Anesthesia for Hip and Knee Replacements Have Better Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial anesthesia is increasingly recommended for hip/knee replacements as some studies show improved outcomes on the individual level. With hospital-level studies lacking, we assessed the relationship between hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia utilization and outcomes. METHODS: National data on 808,237 total knee and 371,607 hip replacements were included (Premier Healthcare 2006 to 2014; 550 hospitals). Multivariable associations were measured between hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia volume (subgrouped into quartiles) and outcomes (respiratory/cardiac complications, blood transfusion/intensive care unit need, opioid utilization, and length/cost of hospitalization). Odds ratios (or percent change) and 95% CI are reported. Volume-outcome relationships were additionally assessed by plotting hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia volume against predicted hospital-specific outcomes; trend tests were applied with trendlines' R statistics reported. RESULTS: Annual hospital-specific neuraxial anesthesia volume varied greatly: interquartile range, 3 to 78 for hips and 6 to 163 for knees. Increasing frequency of neuraxial anesthesia was not associated with reliable improvements in any of the study's clinical outcomes. However, significant reductions of up to -14.1% (95% CI, -20.9% to -6.6%) and -15.6% (95% CI, -22.8% to -7.7%) were seen for hospitalization cost in knee and hip replacements, respectively, both in the third quartile of neuraxial volume. This coincided with significant volume effects for hospitalization cost; test for trend P < 0.001 for both procedures, R 0.13 and 0.41 for hip and knee replacements, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Increased hospital-level use of neuraxial anesthesia is associated with lower hospitalization cost for lower joint replacements. However, additional studies are needed to elucidate all drivers of differences found before considering hospital-level neuraxial anesthesia use as a potential marker of quality.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Does Not Reduce Inpatient Opioid Prescription or Related Complications after Knee Arthroplasty: A Database Analysis.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS MANUSCRIPT TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Although some trials suggest benefits of liposomal bupivacaine, data on real-world use and effectiveness is lacking. This study analyzed the impact of liposomal bupivacaine use (regardless of administration route) on inpatient opioid prescription, resource utilization, and opioid-related complications among patients undergoing total knee arthroplasties with a peripheral nerve block. It was hypothesized that liposomal bupivacaine has limited clinical influence on the studied outcomes. METHODS: The study included data on 88,830 total knee arthroplasties performed with a peripheral nerve block (Premier Healthcare Database 2013 to 2016). Multilevel multivariable regressions measured associations between use of liposomal bupivacaine and (1) inpatient opioid prescription (extracted from billing) and (2) length of stay, cost of hospitalization, as well as opioid-related complications. To reflect the difference between statistical and clinical significance, a relative change of -15% in outcomes was assumed to be clinically important. RESULTS: Overall, liposomal bupivacaine was used in 21.2% (n = 18,817) of patients that underwent a total knee arthroplasty with a peripheral nerve block. Liposomal bupivacaine use was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in inpatient opioid prescription (group median, 253 mg of oral morphine equivalents, adjusted effect -9.3% CI -11.1%, -7.5%; P < 0.0001) and length of stay (group median, 3 days, adjusted effect -8.8% CI -10.1%, -7.5%; P < 0.0001) with no effect on cost of hospitalization. Most importantly, liposomal bupivacaine use was not associated with decreased odds for opioid-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine was not associated with a clinically relevant improvement in inpatient opioid prescription, resource utilization, or opioid-related complications in patients who received modern pain management including a peripheral nerve block.

Opioids for Acute Pain Management in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review.

The intrinsic nature of opioids to suppress respiratory function is of particular concern among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The association of OSA with increased perioperative risk has raised the question of whether patients with OSA are at higher risk for opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) compared to the general population. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize current evidence with respect to perioperative OIRD, changes in sleep-disordered breathing, and alterations in pain and opioid sensitivity in patients with OSA. A systematic literature search of studies published between 1946 and October 2017 was performed utilizing the following databases: Medline, ePub Ahead of Print/Medline In-process, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed-NOT-Medline and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Of 4321 initial studies, 40 met the inclusion criteria. The Oxford level of evidence was assessed. Overall, high-quality evidence on the comparative impact of acute opioid analgesia in OSA versus non-OSA patients is lacking. The current body of evidence is burdened by significant limitations including risk of bias and large heterogeneity among studies with regard to OSA severity, perioperative settings, outcome definitions, and the presence or absence of various perioperative drivers. These factors complicate an accurate interpretation and robust analysis of the true complication risk. Nevertheless, there is some consistency among studies with regard to a detrimental effect of opioids in the presence of OSA. Notably, the initial 24 hours after opioid administration appear to be most critical with regard to life-threatening OIRD. Further, OSA-related increased pain perception and enhanced opioid sensitivity could predispose patients with OSA to a higher risk for OIRD without overdosing. While high-quality evidence is needed, retrospective analyses indicate that critical, life-threatening OIRD may be preventable with a more cautious approach to opioid use, including adequate monitoring.

Intravenous Acetaminophen Does Not Reduce Inpatient Opioid Prescription or Opioid-Related Adverse Events Among Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Having entered the US market relatively recently, the perioperative role of intravenous acetaminophen (ivAPAP) remains to be established for several surgeries. Using national data, we therefore assessed current utilization and whether it reduces inpatient opioid prescription and opioid-related side effects in a procedure with relatively high opioid utilization. METHODS: Patients undergoing a lumbar/lumbosacral spinal fusion (n = 117,269; 2011-2014) were retrospectively identified in a nationwide database and categorized by the amount and timing of ivAPAP administration (1 or >1 dose on postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, or 1+). Multivariable models measured associations between ivAPAP utilization categories and opioid prescription and perioperative complications; odds ratios (or % change) and 95% confidence intervals are reported. RESULTS: Overall, ivAPAP was used in 18.9% (n = 22,208) of cases of which 1 dose on POD 0 was the most common (73.6%; n = 16,335). After covariate adjustment, use of ivAPAP on POD 0 and 1 was associated with minimal changes in opioid prescription, length and cost of hospitalization particularly favoring >1 ivAPAP dose with a modestly (-5.2%, confidence interval, -7.2% to -3.1%; P < .0001) decreased length of stay. Use of ivAPAP did not coincide with a consistent pattern of significantly reduced odds for complications. In comparison, the most commonly used nonopioid analgesic, pregabalin/gabapentin, did demonstrate reduced opioid prescription combined with lower complication risk. CONCLUSIONS: We could not show that perioperative ivAPAP reduces inpatient opioid prescription with subsequent reduced odds for adverse outcomes. It remains to be determined if and under what circumstances ivAPAP has a meaningful clinical role in everyday practice.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.