Anesthetic choice for arteriovenous access creation: A National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate differences in primary anesthetic type used in arteriovenous access creation with the hypothesis that administration of regional anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with local anesthesia as the primary anesthetic has increased over time. METHODS: National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry data were retrospectively evaluated. Covariates were selected a priori within multivariate models to determine predictors of anesthetic type in adults who underwent elective arteriovenous access creation between 2010 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 144,392 patients met criteria; 90,741 (62.8%) received general anesthesia. The use of regional anesthesia and MAC decreased over time (8.0%-6.8%, 36.8%-27.8%, respectively; both p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent regional anesthesia were more likely to have ASA physical status >III and to reside in rural areas (52.3% and 12.9%, respectively; both p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent MAC were more likely to be older, male, receive care outside the South, and reside in urban areas (median age 65, 56.8%, 68.1%, and 70.8%, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that being male, having an ASA physical status >III, and each 5-year increase in age resulted in increased odds of receiving alternatives to general anesthesia (regional anesthesia adjusted odds ratios (AORs) 1.06, 1.12, and 1.26, MAC AORs 1.09, 1.2, and 1.1, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Treatment in the Midwest, South, or West was associated with decreased odds of receiving alternatives to general anesthesia compared to the Northeast (regional anesthesia AORs 0.28, 0.38, and 0.03, all p < 0.0001; MAC 0.76, 0.13, and 0.43, respectively; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Use of regional anesthesia and MAC with local anesthesia for arteriovenous access creation has decreased over time with general anesthesia remaining the primary anesthetic type. Anesthetic choice, however, varies with patient characteristics and geography.

Updates on efficacy and safety outcomes of new and emerging disease modifying therapies and stem cell therapy for Multiple Sclerosis: A review.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative autoimmune disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) and the most common cause of serious physical disability in working-age adults. Drug development and research in this field have rapidly evolved over the past two decades, leading to the broad array of treatment options available today. These disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) work through distinct mechanisms of action and exhibit varying safety and efficacy profiles to help manage symptoms and reduce exacerbations in MS patients. Our extensive understanding of this condition has also led to novel approaches, such as the discovery of specific biomarkers that allow us to monitor the therapeutic response towards DMTs. The development of new DMTs continues to progress quickly today, and it can be difficult for clinicians to remain up to date on the most recent advancements and new treatment options for their patients. In this comprehensive review, we provide an outline of current MS medications in the pipeline including emerging DMTs and stem cell therapy, as well as the unique characteristics of these medications, including their indications, pharmacokinetic effects, and the relevant advancements.