The Role and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to explore the interface between artificial intelligence (AI) and chronic pain, seeking to identify areas of focus for enhancing current treatments and yielding novel therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: In the United States, the prevalence of chronic pain is estimated to be upwards of 40%. Its impact extends to increased healthcare costs, reduced economic productivity, and strain on healthcare resources. Addressing this condition is particularly challenging due to its complexity and the significant variability in how patients respond to treatment. Current options often struggle to provide long-term relief, with their benefits rarely outweighing the risks, such as dependency or other side effects. Currently, AI has impacted four key areas of chronic pain treatment and research: (1) predicting outcomes based on clinical information; (2) extracting features from text, specifically clinical notes; (3) modeling 'omic data to identify meaningful patient subgroups with potential for personalized treatments and improved understanding of disease processes; and (4) disentangling complex neuronal signals responsible for pain, which current therapies attempt to modulate. As AI advances, leveraging state-of-the-art architectures will be essential for improving chronic pain treatment. Current efforts aim to extract meaningful representations from complex data, paving the way for personalized medicine. The identification of unique patient subgroups should reveal targets for tailored chronic pain treatments. Moreover, enhancing current treatment approaches is achievable by gaining a more profound understanding of patient physiology and responses. This can be realized by leveraging AI on the increasing volume of data linked to chronic pain.

Increased Postoperative Opioid Consumption in the Presence of Co-administration of 5-HT3 Antagonists with Acetaminophen: A Hospital Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen and 5-hydroxytryptamine-type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are administered as standard prophylaxes for postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Preclinical studies however suggest that 5-HT3 antagonists may compromise acetaminophen's analgesic effect. This hospital registry study investigates whether 5-HT3 antagonists mitigate the analgesic effect of prophylactic acetaminophen in a perioperative setting. METHODS: This study included 55,016 adult patients undergoing general anesthesia for ambulatory procedures at a tertiary healthcare center in Massachusetts, United States of America, from 2015 to 2022. Using binary exposure variables and a comprehensive selection of pre-planned patient- and procedure-related covariates for confounder control, we investigated whether intraoperative 5-HT3 antagonists affected the association between pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen and postoperative opioid consumption, gauged by opioid dose in mg oral morphine equivalents (OME) administered in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). A multivariable, zero-inflated negative binomial regression model was applied. RESULTS: 3,166 (5.8%) patients received only acetaminophen, 15,438 (28.1%) only 5-HT3 antagonists, 31,850 (57.9%) both drugs, and 4,562 (8.3%) neither drug. The median PACU opioid dose was 7.5 mg OME (interquartile range 7.5 to 14.3 mg OME) among 16,640/55,016 (30.3%) patients who received opioids and the average opioid dose was 3.2 mg OME across all patients (maximum cumulative dose: 20.4 mg OME). Acetaminophen administration was associated with a 5.5% (95%CI -9.6% to -1.4%;p=0.009; adjusted absolute difference -0.19 mg OME;95%CI -0.33 to -0.05;p=0.009) reduction in opioid consumption among patients who did not receive a 5-HT3 antagonist, while there was no effect in patients who received a 5-HT3 antagonist (adjusted absolute difference 0.00 mg OME; 95%CI -0.06 to 0.05;p=0.93,p-for-interaction=0.012). CONCLUSION: A dose-dependent association of pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen with decreased postoperative opioid consumption was not observed when 5-HT3 antagonists were co-administered, suggesting that physicians might consider reserving 5-HT3 antagonists as rescue medication for postoperative nausea or vomiting when acetaminophen is administered for pain prophylaxis.

Adjustments of Ventilator Parameters during Operating Room-to-ICU Transition and 28-Day Mortality.

Rationale: Lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been proven beneficial in the operating room (OR) and the ICU. However, differential practices in ventilator management persist, often resulting in adjustments of ventilator parameters when transitioning patients from the OR to the ICU. Objectives: To characterize patterns of ventilator adjustments during the transition of mechanically ventilated surgical patients from the OR to the ICU and assess their impact on 28-day mortality. Methods: Hospital registry study including patients undergoing general anesthesia with continued, controlled mechanical ventilation in the ICU between 2008 and 2022. Ventilator parameters were assessed 1 hour before and 6 hours after the transition. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,103 patients, 212 (10.1%) died within 28 days. Upon OR-to-ICU transition, VT and driving pressure decreased (-1.1 ml/kg predicted body weight [IQR, -2.0 to -0.2]; P < 0.001; and -4.3 cm H2O [-8.2 to -1.2]; P < 0.001). Concomitantly, respiratory rates increased (+5.0 breaths/min [2.0 to 7.5]; P < 0.001), resulting overall in slightly higher mechanical power (MP) in the ICU (+0.7 J/min [-1.9 to 3.0]; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, increases in MP were associated with a higher 28-day mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.14; P < 0.001; adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0, both per 1 J/min). Conclusion: During transition of mechanically ventilated patients from the OR to the ICU, ventilator adjustments resulting in higher MP were associated with a greater risk of 28-day mortality.

Intraoperative Opioid Waste and Association of Intraoperative Opioid Dose with Postoperative Adverse Outcomes: A Hospital Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative opioid use has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Additionally, opioid disposal carries significant costs, due to the waste of pharmaceutical products and the time needed by skilled labor to report the waste. In this study, we aimed to estimate costs and predict factors of opioid-associated intraoperative product waste, as well as to evaluate whether higher intraoperative opioid doses are associated with increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We included 170,607 patients undergoing general anesthesia and receiving intraoperative fentanyl, hydromorphone, or morphine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, between January 2010 and June 2020. We estimated product waste-associated costs based on various opioid syringe sizes and determined predictors of opioid waste. Further, we evaluated whether higher opioid doses were associated with postoperative adverse events according to the severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program classification. The primary outcome included post-extubation desaturation, postoperative nausea or vomiting, or postoperative somnolence or sedation. RESULTS: The use of the smallest syringe sizes (50 mcg for fentanyl, 0.2 mg for hydromorphone, and 2 mg for morphine) resulted in the lowest product waste-associated costs. The main predictor of opioid waste was the administration of more than one intraoperative opioid (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.64, 95% CI 7.40-7.89, P < 0.001). Intraoperative doses of fentanyl > 50-100 mcg (aOR = 1.17 [1.10-1.25], P < 0.001, adjusted risk difference [ARD] 2%) and > 100 mcg (aOR = 1.24 [1.16-1.33], P < 0.001, ARD 3%), hydromorphone > 1 mg (aOR = 1.13 [1.06-1.20], P < 0.001, ARD 2%), and morphine > 2-4 mg (aOR = 1.26 [1.02-1.56], P = 0.04, ARD 3%) and > 4 mg (aOR = 1.45 [1.18-1.77], P < 0.001, ARD 5%) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Smaller syringe sizes of intraoperative opioids may help to reduce product waste and associated costs, as well postoperative adverse events through utilization of lower intraoperative opioid doses.

Recovery and safety with prolonged high-frequency jet ventilation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A hospital registry study from a New England healthcare network.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate post-procedural recovery as well as peri-procedural respiratory and hemodynamic safety parameters with prolonged use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) versus conventional ventilation in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Hospital registry study. SETTING: Tertiary academic teaching hospital in New England. PATIENTS: 1822 patients aged 18 years and older undergoing catheter ablation between January 2013 and June 2020. INTERVENTIONS: HFJV versus conventional mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. In secondary analyses we assessed the effect of HFJV on intra-procedural hypoxemia, defined as the occurrence of peripheral hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) <90%, post-procedural respiratory complications (PRC) as well as intra-procedural hypocarbia and hypotension. Multivariable negative binomial and logistic regression analyses, adjusted for patient and procedural characteristics, were applied. MAIN RESULTS: 1157 patients (63%) received HFJV for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of 307 (253-360) minutes. The median (IQR) length of stay in the PACU was 244 (172-370) minutes in patients who underwent ablation with conventional mechanical ventilation and 226 (163-361) minutes in patients receiving HFJV. In adjusted analyses, patients undergoing HFJV had a longer PACU length of stay (adjusted absolute difference: 37.7 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.7-65.8; p = 0.008). There was a higher risk of intra-procedural hypocarbia (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] 5.90; 95%CI 2.63-13.23; p < 0.001) and hypotension (ORadj 1.88; 95%CI 1.31-2.72; p = 0.001) in patients undergoing HFJV. No association was found between the use of HFJV and intra-procedural hypoxemia or PRC (p = 0.51, and p = 0.97, respectively). CONCLUSION: After confounder adjustment, HFJV for catheter ablation procedures for treatment of atrial fibrillation was associated with a longer length of stay in the PACU. It was further associated with an increased risk of intra-procedural abnormalities including abnormal carbon dioxide homeostasis, as well as intra-procedural arterial hypotension.

Intraoperative Use of Phenylephrine versus Ephedrine and Postoperative Delirium: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of intraoperative hypotension with phenylephrine may impair cerebral perfusion through vasoconstriction, which has been linked to postoperative delirium. The hypothesis was that intraoperative administration of phenylephrine, compared to ephedrine, is associated with higher odds of postoperative delirium. METHODS: A total of 103,094 hospitalized adults undergoing general anesthesia for noncardiac, non-neurosurgical procedures between 2008 and 2020 at two tertiary academic healthcare networks in Massachusetts were included in this multicenter hospital registry study. The primary exposure was the administration of phenylephrine versus ephedrine during surgery, and the primary outcome was postoperative delirium within 7 days. Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for a priori defined confounding variables including patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedural factors including magnitude of intraoperative hypotension were applied. RESULTS: Between the two healthcare networks, 78,982 (76.6%) patients received phenylephrine, and 24,112 (23.4%) patients received ephedrine during surgery; 770 patients (0.8%) developed delirium within 7 days. The median (interquartile range) total intraoperative dose of phenylephrine was 1.0 (0.2 to 3.3) mg and 10.0 (10.0 to 20.0) mg for ephedrine. In adjusted analyses, the administration of phenylephrine, compared to ephedrine, was associated with higher odds of developing postoperative delirium within 7 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.71; and adjusted absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.3%; P = 0.015). A keyword and manual chart review-based approach in a subset of 45,465 patients further validated these findings (delirium incidence, 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.37; P < 0.001). Fractional polynomial regression analysis further indicated a dose-dependent effect of phenylephrine (adjusted coefficient, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = 0.013, per each µg/kg increase in the cumulative phenylephrine dose). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of phenylephrine compared to ephedrine during general anesthesia was associated with higher odds of developing postoperative delirium. Based on these data, clinical trials are warranted to determine whether favoring ephedrine over phenylephrine for treatment of intraoperative hypotension can reduce delirium after surgery.

Association of Obstructive Sleep Apnea With Postoperative Delirium in Procedures of Moderate-to-High Complexity: A Hospital-Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) experience chronic sleep disturbances and desaturation, factors that have been associated with postoperative delirium and that can be aggravated after anesthesia for complex procedures. We investigated whether OSA is associated with delirium after anesthesia, and whether this association is modified by procedural complexity. METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥60 years who underwent general anesthesia or procedural sedation for procedures of moderate-to-high complexity between 2009 and 2020 at a tertiary health care network in Massachusetts were included. The primary exposure was OSA, defined based on International Classification of Diseases ( Ninth/Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ) ( ICD-9 / 10-CM ) diagnostic codes, structured nursing interviews, anesthesia alert notes, and a validated risk score (BOSTN [body mass index, observed apnea, snoring, tiredness, and neck circumference]). The primary end point was delirium within 7 days after the procedure. Multivariable logistic regression and effect modification analyses adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedural factors were applied. RESULTS: A total of 46,352 patients were included, of which 1694 patients (3.7%) developed delirium, 537 (3.2%) with OSA, and 1,157 (4.0%) without OSA. In adjusted analyses, OSA was not associated with postprocedural delirium in the overall cohort (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.20; P = .35). However, a high procedural complexity modified the primary association ( P value for interaction = .002). OSA patients had a higher risk of delirium after high-complexity procedures (≥40 work relative value units) such as cardiac (OR adj , 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .007, P value for interaction = .005) or thoracic surgery (OR adj , 1.89; 95% CI, 1.19-3.00; P = .007, P value for interaction = .009), but no increased risk after moderate complexity procedures, including general surgery (OR adj , 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55-1.35; P = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-OSA patients, a history of OSA is associated with a higher risk after high-complexity procedures such as cardiac or thoracic surgery but not after procedures of moderate complexity.

High Mechanical Power and Driving Pressures are Associated With Postoperative Respiratory Failure Independent From Patients' Respiratory System Mechanics.

OBJECTIVES: High mechanical power and driving pressure (ΔP) have been associated with postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) and may be important parameters guiding mechanical ventilation. However, it remains unclear whether high mechanical power and ΔP merely reflect patients with poor respiratory system mechanics at risk of PRF. We investigated the effect of mechanical power and ΔP on PRF in cohorts after exact matching by patients' baseline respiratory system compliance. DESIGN: Hospital registry study. SETTING: Academic hospital in New England. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing general anesthesia between 2008 and 2020. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was high (≥ 6.7 J/min, cohort median) versus low mechanical power and the key-secondary exposure was high (≥ 15.0 cm H 2 O) versus low ΔP. The primary endpoint was PRF (reintubation or unplanned noninvasive ventilation within seven days). Among 97,555 included patients, 4,030 (4.1%) developed PRF. In adjusted analyses, high intraoperative mechanical power and ΔP were associated with higher odds of PRF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37 [95% CI, 1.25-1.50]; p < 0.001 and aOR 1.45 [95% CI, 1.31-1.60]; p < 0.001, respectively). There was large variability in applied ventilatory parameters, dependent on the anesthesia provider. This facilitated matching of 63,612 (mechanical power cohort) and 53,260 (ΔP cohort) patients, yielding identical baseline standardized respiratory system compliance (standardized difference [SDiff] = 0.00) with distinctly different mechanical power (9.4 [2.4] vs 4.9 [1.3] J/min; SDiff = -2.33) and ΔP (19.3 [4.1] vs 11.9 [2.1] cm H 2 O; SDiff = -2.27). After matching, high mechanical power and ΔP remained associated with higher risk of PRF (aOR 1.30 [95% CI, 1.17-1.45]; p < 0.001 and aOR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.12-1.46]; p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: High mechanical power and ΔP are associated with PRF independent of patient's baseline respiratory system compliance. Our findings support utilization of these parameters for titrating mechanical ventilation in the operating room and ICU.

Intensity of one-lung ventilation and postoperative respiratory failure: A hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: Studies linked a high intensity of mechanical ventilation, measured as high mechanical power (MP) to postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) in the setting of two-lung ventilation. We investigated whether a higher MP during one-lung ventilation (OLV) is associated with PRF. METHODS: In this registry-based study, adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with OLV for thoracic surgeries between 2006 and 2020 at a New England tertiary healthcare network were included. The association between MP during OLV and PRF (emergency non-invasive ventilation or reintubation within seven days) was assessed in a cohort weighted through a generalized propensity score conditional on a priori defined preoperative and intraoperative factors. Dominance of components of MP and intensity of OLV versus two-lung ventilation in predicting PRF was investigated. RESULTS: Out of 878 included patients, 106 (12.1%) developed PRF. The median (IQR) MP during OLV was 9.8 J/min (7.5-11.8) and 8.3 J/min (6.6-10.2) in patients with and without PRF respectively. A higher MP during OLV was associated with PRF (ORadj 1.22 per 1 J/min increase; 95%CI 1.13-1.31; p < 0.001) and characterized by a U-shaped dose-response curve, with the lowest probability of PRF (7.5%) at 6.4 J/min. Dominance analysis of PRF predictors showed a stronger contribution of driving pressure over respiratory rate and tidal volume, the dynamic over the static component of MP, and MP during OLV over two-lung ventilation (contribution to Pseudo-R2: 0.017, 0.021, and 0.036, respectively). CONCLUSION: A higher intensity of OLV, mainly driven by driving pressure, is dose-dependently associated with PRF and might constitute a target for mechanical ventilation.

Mechanical power and 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with and without Coronavirus Disease-2019: a hospital registry study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied. RESULTS: 1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3). CONCLUSION: A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.