Postanesthesia Care Unit and Anesthetic Management Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Differences by Race and Ethnicity.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of patient race and ethnicity with postanesthesia care unit (PACU) outcomes in common, noncardiac surgeries requiring general anesthesia. DESIGN: Single tertiary care academic medical center retrospective matched cohort. METHODS: We matched 1:1 1836 adult patients by race and/or ethnicity undergoing common surgeries. We compared racial and ethnic minority populations (62 American Indian, 250 Asian, 315 Black or African American, 281 Hispanic, and 10 Pacific Islander patients) to 918 non-Hispanic White patients. The primary outcomes were: the use of an appropriate number of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylactics; the incidence of PONV; and the use of a propofol infusion as part of the anesthetic (PROP). Secondary outcomes were: the use of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, including the use of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain control; the use of any local anesthetic, including the use of liposomal bupivacaine; the duration until readiness for discharge from the PACU; the time between arrival to PACU and first pain score; and the time between the first PACU pain score of ≥4 and administration of an analgesic. Logistic and linear regression were used for relevant outcomes of interest. FINDINGS: Overall, there were no differences in the appropriate number of PONV prophylactics, nor the incidence of PONV between the two groups. There was, however, a decreased use of PROP (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.94; P = .005), PACU length of stay was 9.56 minutes longer (95% CI: 2.62, 16.49; P = .007), and time between arrival to PACU and first pain score was 2.30 minutes longer in patients from racial and ethnic minority populations (95% CI: 0.99, 3.61; P = .001). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of appropriate number of PONV prophylactic medications as well as the incidence of PONV were similar in patients from racial and ethnic minority populations compared to non-Hispanic White patients. However, there was a lower use of PROP in racial and ethnic minority patients. It is important to have a health equity lens to identify differences in management that may contribute to disparities within each phase of perioperative care.

Perioperative Opioid Consumption and Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Patients With a Pre-existing Opioid-Based Intrathecal Drug Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, pain-sedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation. RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49-64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 [60-163] vs 93 [IQR, 53-142]; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03-1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36-3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41-4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS.

Peripheral Nerve Blockade with Combined Standard and Liposomal Bupivacaine in Major Lower-Extremity Amputation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Optimizing perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing major lower-extremity amputation remains a considerable challenge. The utility of liposomal bupivacaine as a component of peripheral nerve blockade for lower-extremity amputation is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an observational study comparing three different perioperative analgesic techniques for adults undergoing major lower-extremity amputation under general anesthesia between 2012 and 2017 at an academic medical center: (1) no regional anesthesia, (2) peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine, and (3) peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine. The primary outcome of cumulative opioid oral morphine milligram equivalent utilization in the first 72 hours postoperatively was compared across groups utilizing multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 631 unique anesthetics were included for 578 unique patients, including 416 (66%) without regional anesthesia, 131 (21%) with peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine, and 84 (13%) with peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine alone. Cumulative morphine equivalents were lower in those receiving peripheral nerve blockade with combined standard and liposomal bupivacaine compared with those not receiving regional anesthesia (multiplicative increase 0.67; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in opioid utilization between peripheral nerve blockade groups (P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral nerve blockade is associated with reduced opioid requirements after lower-extremity amputation compared with general anesthesia alone. However, the incorporation of liposomal bupivacaine is not significantly different to blockade employing only standard bupivacaine.