Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors: an overview and perioperative implications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs used in the management of diabetes mellitus. This review will highlight key pharmacologic characteristics of this class of drugs; discuss their potential role in management of patients with cardiac disease; and raise several perioperative concerns for anesthesiologists caring for patients on SGLT-2 inhibitors. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent trials have shown a strong mortality benefit in diabetic patients on SGLT 2 inhibitors especially in patients with a high cardiovascular burden. In addition, there is a reduction in HbA1c levels, blood pressure, weight and readmissions secondary to heart failure in this patient population. However, these drugs have been also associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, urinary tract infections, acute kidney injury and limb amputations. SUMMARY: SGLT 2 inhibitors are being increasingly prescribed secondary to their significant salutatory effect in patients with type II diabetes mellitus. Although there are no perioperative consensus guidelines for management of patients on SGLT2 inhibitors, they should be discontinued at least 24-48 h prior to major surgeries. Their overall management in the perioperative period should be carried out on a case-to-case basis using a multidisciplinary approach.

Adherence to Guidelines for the Administration of Intraoperative Antibiotics in a Nationwide US Sample.

Importance: Despite widespread adherence to Surgical Care Improvement Project antibiotic measures, prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) remains a clinical challenge. Several components of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines are incompletely monitored and reported within the Surgical Care Improvement Project program. Objectives: To describe adherence to each component of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in regard to procedure-specific antibiotic choice, weight-adjusted dosing, and timing of first and subsequent administrations in a nationwide, multicenter cohort of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adult patients undergoing general, urological, orthopedic, and gynecological surgical procedures involving skin incision between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, across 31 academic and community hospitals identified within the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group registry. Data were analyzed between April 2 and April 21, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall adherence to Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, including (1) appropriateness of antibiotic choice, (2) weight-based dose adjustment, (3) timing of administration with respect to surgical incision, and (4) timing of redosing when indicated. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects regression to investigate patient, clinician, and institutional factors associated with guideline adherence. Results: In the final cohort of 414 851 encounters across 31 institutions, 51.8% of patients were women, the mean (SD) age was 57.5 (15.7) years, 1.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity, and 10.2% were Black. In this cohort, 148 804 encounters (35.9%) did not adhere to guidelines: 19.7% for antibiotic choice, 17.1% for weight-adjusted dosing, 0.6% for timing of first dose, and 26.8% for redosing. In adjusted analyses, overall nonadherence was associated with emergency surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.29-1.41; P < .001), surgery requiring blood transfusions (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.25-1.36; P < .001), off-hours procedures (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P < .001), and procedures staffed by a certified registered nurse anesthetist (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17; P < .001). Overall adherence to guidelines for antibiotic administration improved over the study period from 53.1% (95% CI, 52.7%-53.5%) in 2014 to 70.2% (95% CI, 69.8%-70.6%) in 2018 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, although adherence to perioperative antibiotic administration guidelines improved over the study period, more than one-third of surgical encounters remained discordant with Infectious Diseases Society of America recommendations. Future quality improvement efforts targeting gaps in practice in relation to guidelines may lead to improved adherence and possibly decreased SSIs.

Topical Lidocaine Patch for Postthoracotomy and Poststernotomy Pain in Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transdermal lidocaine patches have few systemic toxicities and may be useful analgesics in cardiac surgery patients. However, few studies have evaluated their efficacy in the perioperative setting. Objective To compare the efficacy of topical lidocaine 5% patch plus standard care (opioid and nonopioid analgesics) with standard care alone for postthoracotomy or poststernotomy pain in adult patients in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort evaluation was conducted from January 2015 through December 2015 in the adult cardiothoracic intensive care unit at a tertiary academic medical center. Cardiac surgery patients with new sternotomies or thoracotomies were included. Patients in the lidocaine group received 1 to 3 topical lidocaine 5% patches near sternotomy and/or thoracotomy sites daily. Patches remained in place for 12 hours daily. Patients in the control group received standard care alone. RESULTS: The primary outcome was numeric pain rating for sternotomy/thoracotomy sites. Secondary outcomes were cardiothoracic intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay and total doses of analgesics received. Forty-seven patients were included in the lidocaine group; 44 were included in the control group. Mean visual analogue scores for pain did not differ between groups (lidocaine, 2; control, 1.9; P = .58). Lengths of stay were similar for both groups (cardiothoracic intensive care unit: lidocaine, 3.06 days; control, 3.11 days; P = .86; hospital: lidocaine, 8.26 days; control, 7.61 days; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lidocaine 5% patches did not reduce acute pain in postthoracotomy and post-sternotomy patients in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit.

The Use of Intravenous Acetaminophen for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Acetaminophen (APAP) is a mainstay for pain management worldwide. The intravenous (IV) formulation has been widely used in Europe for more than 20 years in adults and children. In the United States, IV APAP obtained full approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2010. There is emerging literature to suggest the use of IV APAP for pain reduction in the emergency department (ED). This evidence-based review examines the evidence pertaining to the use of IV APAP for acute pain control in the ED. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that described or evaluated the use of IV APAP for acute pain in the ED were included. Duplicate articles, unpublished reports, abstracts, review articles, and non-English literature were excluded. The primary outcome of interest in this review was the difference in pain score between IV APAP and active comparator or placebo from baseline to a cutoff time specified in the original trials. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of adverse events and reduction in the amount of adjuvant analgesics consumed by patients who received IV APAP. Methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with various methodologic flaws, which enrolled a total of 1,472 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The level of evidence for the individual trials ranged from very low to moderate. In three of the 14 trials, a significant reduction in pain scores was observed in patients who received IV APAP. The first trial found a significant reduction in mean pain scores when IV APAP was compared to IV morphine at 30 minutes after drug administration (4.7 ± 2.3 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2). In the second trial, patients who received IV APAP reported of lower pain scores (31.7 ± 18 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.2 to 25.2 mm) compared to those who received IV morphine (48.3 ± 14.1 mm, 95% CI = 8.2 to 25.2 mm), 15 minutes after drug administration. A third trial found a significant reduction (p = 0.005) in the mean pain scores when IV APAP was compared to intramuscular piroxicam at 90 minutes after drug administration. In the remaining eight trials, pain scores were not statistically different when IV APAP was compared to other pain medications. The incidence of side effects associated with IV APAP was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen RCTs with various methodologic flaws provided limited evidence to support the use of IV APAP as the primary analgesic for acute pain control in patients who present to the ED.