Use of herbal medication in the perioperative period: Potential adverse drug interactions.

Use of herbal medications and supplements has experienced immense growth over the last two decades, with retail sales in the USA exceeding $13 billion in 2021. Since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 reduced FDA oversight, these products have become less regulated. Data from 2012 shows 18% of U.S. adults used non-vitamin, non-mineral natural products. Prevalence varies regionally, with higher use in Western states. Among preoperative patients, the most commonly used herbal medications included garlic, ginseng, ginkgo, St. John's wort, and echinacea. However, 50-70% of surgical patients fail to disclose their use of herbal medications to their physicians, and most fail to discontinue them preoperatively. Since herbal medications can interact with anesthetic medications administered during surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) recommend stopping herbal medications 1-2 weeks before elective surgical procedures. Potential adverse drug effects related to preoperative use of herbal medications involve the coagulation system (e.g., increasing the risk of perioperative bleeding), the cardiovascular system (e.g., arrhythmias, hypotension, hypertension), the central nervous system (e.g., sedation, confusion, seizures), pulmonary (e.g., coughing, bronchospasm), renal (e.g., diuresis) and endocrine-metabolic (e.g., hepatic dysfunction, altered metabolism of anesthetic drugs). During the preoperative evaluation, anesthesiologists should inquire about the use of herbal medications to anticipate potential adverse drug interactions during the perioperative period.

Impact of chronic medications in the perioperative period -anesthetic implications (Part II).

Background: This review article discusses the pharmacodynamic effects of the most commonly used chronic medications by patients undergoing elective surgical procedures, namely cardiovascular drugs (e.g., beta blockers, alpha-2 agonist, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, diuretics, etc.), lipid-lowering drugs, gastrointestinal medications (H2-blockers, proton pump inhibitors), pulmonary medications (inhaled ß-agonists, anticholinergics,), antibiotics (tetracyclines, clindamycin and macrolide, linezolid.), opioids and non-opioids analgesics (NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, acetaminophen), gabapentanoids, erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs, psychotropic drugs (tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOI], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], and cannabinol-containing drugs).  In addition, the potential adverse drug-interactions between these chronic medications and commonly used anesthetic drugs during the perioperative period will be reviewed. Finally, recommendations regarding the management of chronic medications during the preoperative period will be provided.Materials and Methods: An online search was conducted from January 2000 through February 2021 with the Medline database through PubMed and Google Scholar using the following search terms/keywords: "chronic medications in the perioperative period", and "chronic medications and anesthetic implications." In addition, we searched for anesthetic side effects associated with the major drug groups.Results and Conclusions: An understanding of the pharmacodynamic effects of most used chronic medications is important to avoid untoward outcomes in the perioperative period. These drug interactions may result in altered efficacy and toxicity of the anesthetic medications administered during surgery. These drug-drug interactions can also affect the morbidity, mortality, recovery time of surgical patients and acute relapse of chronic illnesses which could lead to last minute cancellation of surgical procedures. Part II of this two-part review article focuses on the reported interactions between most commonly taken chronic medications by surgical patients and anesthetic and analgesic drugs, as well as recommendations regarding the handling these chronic medications during the perioperative period.

Impact of chronic medications in the perioperative period: mechanisms of action and adverse drug effects (Part I).

Background: This review article discusses the pharmacology of the most commonly used chronic medications in patients undergoing elective surgical procedures. The mechanism of action and adverse side effects of cardiovascular medications (e.g., beta blockers, alpha-2 agonist, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, diuretics), lipid-lowering drugs, gastrointestinal medications (H2-blockers, proton pump inhibitors), pulmonary medications (inhaled ß-agonists, anticholinergics,), antibiotics (tetracyclines, clindamycin and macrolide, linezolid), opioids and non-opioids analgesics (NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, acetaminophen), gabapentanoids, erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs, and psychotropic drugs (tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOI], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], and cannabinol-containing drugs) will be reviewed.Materials and Methods: An online search was conducted from January 2000 through February 2021 with the Medline database through PubMed and Google Scholar using the following search terms/keywords: "chronic medications in the perioperative period", and "chronic medications and anesthetic implications." In addition, we searched for anesthetic side effects associated with the major drug groups.Results and Conclusions: An understanding of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of most used chronic medications is important to avoid untoward outcomes in the perioperative period. These drug interactions may result in altered efficacy and toxicity of the anesthetic medications administered during surgery. These drug-drug interactions can also effect the morbidity, mortality, and recovery time of surgical patients. Part I of this two-part review article focuses on the mechanisms of action and adverse side effects of the chronic medications most commonly taken by surgical patients in the preoperative period.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient's risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Regional Anesthesia Did Not Delay Diagnosis of Compartment Syndrome: A Case Report of Anterior Compartment Syndrome in the Thigh Not Masked by an Adductor Canal Catheter.

BACKGROUND Acute compartment syndrome (ACS) of the thigh after elective primary total knee arthroplasty is rare. If not recognized and treated promptly, devastating consequences may result. Certain regional anesthesia techniques are thought to mask the symptoms of acute compartment syndrome, but there are no cases reported of adductor canal catheters masking the symptoms of thigh compartment syndrome. We report a case where symptoms and diagnosis of acute anterior thigh compartment syndrome were not masked by a functioning adductor canal catheter. CASE REPORT A 56-year-old male developed anterior thigh compartment syndrome after an elective primary total knee arthroplasty. Surgery was performed under spinal anesthesia with periarticular local infiltration analgesia. Postoperatively, an adductor canal catheter was placed, atraumatically, under ultrasound guidance in the recovery room with a plan to begin a continuous infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine 10 hours after the periarticular injection. Six hours after surgery, the patient complained of tightness and 10/10 pain in his right thigh, which was initially managed with parenteral opioids with moderate success. Continuous infusion through the adductor canal catheter was started and pain improved to 6/10 aching pain. Nonetheless, two hours after starting the continuous infusion, the patient reported tightness, swelling, and 10/10 pressure-like pain that was not relieved by the peripheral catheter infusion or PRN boluses of additional opioids. Due to the patient's symptomatology compartment pressures were measured. The anterior compartment pressure was 47 mm Hg and emergent anterior compartment fasciotomy was performed. CONCLUSIONS In this case, a functioning adductor canal catheter did not mask symptoms of, or delay diagnosis of, acute compartment syndrome in the thigh.

An Expedited Care Pathway with Ambulatory Brachial Plexus Analgesia Is a Cost-effective Alternative to Standard Inpatient Care after Complex Arthroscopic Elbow Surgery: A Randomized, Single-blinded Study.

BACKGROUND: Common standard practice after complex arthroscopic elbow surgery includes hospital admission for 72 h. The authors hypothesized that an expedited care pathway, with 24 h of hospital admission and ambulatory brachial plexus analgesia and continuous passive motion at home, results in equivalent elbow range of motion (ROM) 2 weeks after surgery compared with standard 72-h hospital admission. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded study was conducted after obtaining approval from the research ethics board. Forty patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated list of random numbers into an expedited care pathway group (24-h admission) and a control group (72-h admission). They were treated equally aside from the predetermined hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Patients in the control (n = 19) and expedited care pathway (n = 19) groups achieved similar elbow ROM 2 weeks (119 ± 18 degrees and 121 ± 15 degrees, P = 0.627) and 3 months (130 ± 18 vs. 130 ± 11 degrees, P = 0.897) postoperatively. The mean difference in elbow ROM at 2 weeks was 2.6 degrees (95% CI, -8.3 to 13.5). There were no differences in analgesic outcomes, physical function scores, and patient satisfaction up to 3 months postoperatively. Total hospital cost of care was 15% lower in the expedited care pathway group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that an expedited care pathway with early hospital discharge followed by ambulatory brachial plexus analgesia and continuous passive motion at home is a cost-effective alternative to 72 h of hospital admission after complex arthroscopic elbow surgery.

A novel approach to life support training using "action-linked phrases".

BACKGROUND: Observations of cardiopulmonary arrests (CPAs) reveal concerning patterns when clinicians identify a problem, (e.g. loss of pulse) but do not immediately initiate appropriate therapy (e.g. compressions) resulting in delays in life saving therapy. METHODS: We hypothesized that when individuals utilized specific, short, easy-to-state action phrases stating an observation followed by an associated intervention, there would be a higher likelihood that appropriate action would immediately occur. Phase I: A retrospective analysis of residents in simulated CPAs measured what proportion verbalized "There's no pulse", statements and/or actions that followed and whether "Action-Linked Phrases" were associated with faster initiation of compressions. Phase II: Two prospective, quasi-experimental studies evaluated if teaching three Action-Linked Phrases for Basic Life Support (BLS) courses or six Action-Linked Phrases for Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) courses was associated with increased use of these phrases. RESULTS: Phase I: 62% (42/68) of residents verbalized "there's no pulse" during initial assessment of a pulseless patient, and only 16/42 (38%) followed that by stating "start compressions". Residents verbalizing this Action-Linked Phrase started compressions sooner than others: (30s [IQR:19-42] vs. 150 [IQR:51-242], p < 0.001). Phase II: In BLS courses, the three Action-Linked Phrases were used more frequently in the intervention group: (226/270 [84%] vs. 14/195 [7%]; p < 0.001). In ACLS courses, the six Action-Linked Phrases were uttered more often in the intervention group: (43% [157/368] vs. 23% [46/201], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Action-Linked Phrases innately used by residents in simulated CPAs were associated with faster initiation of compressions. Action-Linked Phrases were verbalized more frequently if taught as part of a regular BLS or ACLS course. This simple, easy to teach, and easy to implement technique holds promise for impacting cardiac arrest teams' performance of key actions.