A multisociety organizational consensus process to define guiding principles for acute perioperative pain management.

The US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force initiated a public-private partnership which led to the publication of its report in 2019. The report emphasized the need for individualized, multimodal, and multidisciplinary approaches to pain management that decrease the over-reliance on opioids, increase access to care, and promote widespread education on pain and substance use disorders. The Task Force specifically called on specialty organizations to work together to develop evidence-based guidelines. In response to this report's recommendations, a consortium of 14 professional healthcare societies committed to a 2-year project to advance pain management for the surgical patient and improve opioid safety. The modified Delphi process included two rounds of electronic voting and culminated in a live virtual event in February 2021, during which seven common guiding principles were established for acute perioperative pain management. These principles should help to inform local action and future development of clinical practice recommendations.

Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

This consensus statement presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of guidelines for the care of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in both adult and pediatric populations. The guidelines are established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of the American Society of Enhanced Recovery and Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia based on a comprehensive search and review of literature up to September 2019. The guidelines provide recommendation on identifying high-risk patients, managing baseline PONV risks, choices for prophylaxis, and rescue treatment of PONV as well as recommendations for the institutional implementation of a PONV protocol. In addition, the current guidelines focus on the evidence for newer drugs (eg, second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 [5-HT3] receptor antagonists, neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists, and dopamine antagonists), discussion regarding the use of general multimodal PONV prophylaxis, and PONV management as part of enhanced recovery pathways. This set of guidelines have been endorsed by 23 professional societies and organizations from different disciplines (Appendix 1).Guidelines currently available include the 3 iterations of the consensus guideline we previously published, which was last updated 6 years ago; a guideline published by American Society of Health System Pharmacists in 1999; a brief discussion on PONV management as part of a comprehensive postoperative care guidelines; focused guidelines published by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland and the Association of Perianesthesia Nursing; and several guidelines published in other languages.The current guideline was developed to provide perioperative practitioners with a comprehensive and up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on the risk stratification, prevention, and treatment of PONV in both adults and children. The guideline also provides guidance on the management of PONV within enhanced recovery pathways.The previous consensus guideline was published 6 years ago with a literature search updated to October 2011. Several guidelines, which have been published since, are either limited to a specific populations or do not address all aspects of PONV management. The current guideline was developed based on a systematic review of the literature published up through September 2019. This includes recent studies of newer pharmacological agents such as the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, a dopamine antagonist, neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists as well as several novel combination therapies. In addition, it also contains an evidence-based discussion on the management of PONV in enhanced recovery pathways. We have also discussed the implementation of a general multimodal PONV prophylaxis in all at-risk surgical patients based on the consensus of the expert panel.

Incidence, risk factors, and consequences of residual neuromuscular block in the United States: The prospective, observational, multicenter RECITE-US study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence burden and associated risk factors of residual neuromuscular block (rNMB) during routine U.S. hospital care. DESIGN: Blinded multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Operating and recovery rooms of ten community and academic U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Two-hundred fifty-five adults, ASA PS 1-3, underwent elective abdominal surgery with general anesthesia and ≥1 dose of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) for endotracheal intubation and/or maintenance of NMB between August 2012 and April 2013. INTERVENTIONS: TOF measurements using acceleromyography were performed on patients already receiving routine anesthetic care for elective open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Measurements allowed assessment of the presence of residual neuromuscular block (rNMB), defined as a train-of-four (TOF) ratio <0.9 at tracheal extubation. We recorded patient and procedural characteristics and assessed TOF ratios (T4/T1) at various times throughout the procedure and at tracheal extubation. Differences in patient and clinical characteristics were compared using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression assessed risk factors associated with rNMB at extubation. MAIN RESULTS: Most of the study population, 64.7% (n = 165) had rNMB (TOF ratio < 0.9), among them, 31.0% with TOF ratio <0.6. Among those receiving neostigmine and/or qualitative peripheral nerve stimulation per clinical decision, 65.0% had rNMB. After controlling for confounders, we observed male gender (odds ratio: 2.60, P = 0.008), higher BMI (odds ratio: 1.04/unit, P = 0.043), and surgery at a community hospital (odds ratio: 3.15, P = 0.006) to be independently associated with increased odds of rNMB. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing TOF ratios blinded to the care team, we found that the majority of patients (64.7%) in this study had rNMB at tracheal extubation, despite neostigmine administration and qualitative peripheral nerve stimulation used for routine clinical care. Qualitative neuromuscular monitoring and clinical judgement often fails to detect rNMB after neostigmine reversal with potential severe consequences to the patient. Our data suggests that clinical care could be improved by considering quantitative neuromuscular monitoring for routine care.

Safety and Efficacy of Rocuronium With Sugammadex Reversal Versus Succinylcholine in Outpatient Surgery-A Multicenter, Randomized, Safety Assessor-Blinded Trial.

Complex surgical procedures are increasingly performed in an outpatient setting, with emphasis on rapid recovery and case turnover. In this study, the combination of rocuronium for neuromuscular blockade (NMB) reversed by single-dose sugammadex was compared with succinylcholine followed by spontaneous recovery in outpatient surgery. This multicenter, randomized, safety assessor-blinded study enrolled adults undergoing a short elective outpatient surgical procedure requiring NMB and tracheal intubation. Patients were randomized to NMB with either rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg for tracheal intubation with incremental doses of rocuronium 0.15 mg/kg and subsequent reversal with sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg at 1-2 posttetanic counts or succinylcholine 1.0 mg/kg for intubation with spontaneous recovery. The primary efficacy end point was the time from sugammadex administration to recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9; for succinylcholine, time from administration to recovery of the first twitch (T1) to 90% was assessed. From 167 patients enrolled, 150 received treatment. The all-subjects-treated population comprised 70 patients in the rocuronium-sugammadex group and 80 in the succinylcholine group. Geometric mean (95% confidence interval) time from the start of sugammadex administration to recovery of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9 was 1.8 (1.6-2.0) minutes. Geometric mean (95% confidence interval) time from succinylcholine administration to recovery of T1 to 90% was 10.8 (10.1-11.5) minutes. Health outcome variables were similar between the groups. Adverse events were reported in 87.1% and 93.8% of patients for rocuronium-sugammadex and succinylcholine, respectively. In conclusion, rocuronium for intubation followed by sugammadex for reversal of NMB offers a viable treatment option in outpatient surgery without prolonging recovery duration or jeopardizing safety.

Qualitative analysis of barriers to efficient operating room turnovers in a tertiary care academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: The operating room (OR) turnover is a critical period in patient care and OR management. Turnover time (TOT) is a traditional quantitative measure of OR efficiency but is lacking when used to describe the TOT process. METHODS: Frontline staff members involved with OR turnover were interviewed regarding turnover duties, barriers to performing these duties, ways to facilitate these duties, and satisfaction with the turnover process. A grounded theory approach was used to identify common themes, which were then tabulated. RESULTS: Interviews were completed for 38 frontline staff, including anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses, and OR assistants. We identified the following common themes among barriers to successful OR turnover: communications, patient transport, preoperative preparations, staffing, workflow, and workload. CONCLUSIONS: Interview data of OR staff can supplement quantitative efficiency measures and identify areas of opportunity in OR management and patient safety.

An anesthesia medication cost scorecard--concepts for individualized feedback.

There is a growing emphasis on both cost containment and better quality health care. The creation of better methods for alerting providers and their departments to the costs associated with patient care is one tool for improving efficiency. Since anesthetic medications used in the OR setting are one easily monitored factor contributing to OR costs, anesthetic cost report cards can be used to assess the cost and, potentially the quality of care provided by each practitioner. An ongoing challenge is the identification of the most effective strategies to control costs, promote cost awareness and at the same time maximize quality. To test the scorecard concept, we utilized existing informatics systems to gather and analyze drug costs for anesthesia providers in the OR. Drug costs were analyzed by medication class for each provider. Individual anesthesiologist's anesthetic costs were collected and compared to the average costs of the overall group and individual trends over time were noted. We presented drug usage data in an electronic report card format. Real-time individual reports can be provided to anesthesiologists to allow for anesthetic cost feedback. Data provided can include number of cases, average case time, total anesthetic medication costs, and average anesthetic cost per case. Also included can be subcategories of pre-medication, antibiotics, hypnotics, local anesthetics, neuromuscular blocking drugs, analgesics, vasopressors, beta-blockers, anti-emetics, volatile anesthetics, and reversal agents. The concept of anesthetic cost report card should be further developed for individual feedback, and could include many other dimensions. Such a report card can be utilized to encourage lower anesthetic costs, quality improvement among anesthesia providers, and for cost containment in the operating room.

The shortened infusion time of intravenous ibuprofen, part 2: a multicenter, open-label, surgical surveillance trial to evaluate safety.

PURPOSE: The literature and clinical data support the use of intravenous (IV) infusions of ibuprofen to control pain and reduce the opioid requirements associated with surgical pain. According to current guidelines, IV ibuprofen can be administered via a slow IV infusion performed during a 30-minute period. Although recent studies indicate that more rapid infusions may yield additional benefits for patients, the safety of such an approach needs further evaluation. The main purpose of this study was to determine the safety of single and multiple doses of IV ibuprofen (800 mg) administered over 5 to 10 minutes at the induction of anesthesia and after the surgical procedure for the treatment of postoperative pain. METHODS: This was a Phase IV, multicenter, open-label, clinical surveillance study. It was conducted at 21 hospitals in the United States, and 300 adult hospitalized patients undergoing surgery were enrolled. The exclusion criteria for the study were: inadequate IV access; hypersensitivity to any component of IV ibuprofen, aspirin, or related products; and any active, clinically significant bleeding. Also excluded were patients who had taken NSAIDs <6 hours before administration of IV ibuprofen; pregnant or breastfeeding female patients; and patients in the perioperative period of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Patients received 800 mg of IV ibuprofen administered over 5 to 10 minutes preoperatively. Vital signs, adverse events, and pain scores were assessed. FINDINGS: Approximately 22% (65 of 300) of patients reported adverse events (serious and nonserious). The most common adverse event was infusion site pain (34 of 300 [11%]). No deaths were reported. Nine subjects reported serious adverse events, 8 of which occurred during the first 6 hours. All serious events reported were judged unrelated to ibuprofen. Of the 300 total patients, 2 (0.67%) discontinued the study drug due to an adverse event (1 patient discontinued the study because of infusion site pain, and 1 patient withdrew due to a hypersensitivity reaction after drug administration). IMPLICATIONS: Our study found that IV ibuprofen infused over 5 to 10 minutes at induction of anesthesia is a safe administration option for surgical patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01334957.

Accreditation of ambulatory facilities.

With the continued growth of ambulatory surgical centers (ASC), the regulation of facilities has evolved to include new standards and requirements on both state and federal levels. Accreditation allows for the assessment of clinical practice, improves accountability, and better ensures quality of care. In some states, ASC may choose to voluntarily apply for accreditation from a recognized organization, but in others it is mandated. Accreditation provides external validation of safe practices, benchmarking performance against other accredited facilities, and demonstrates to patients and payers the facility's commitment to continuous quality improvement.

Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery?

BACKGROUND: About one in four patients suffers from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Fortunately, risk scores have been developed to better manage this outcome in hospitalized patients, but there is currently no risk score for postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) in ambulatory surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 2,170 adults undergoing general anesthesia at ambulatory surgery centers in the United States from 2007 to 2008. PDNV was assessed from discharge until the end of the second postoperative day. Logistic regression analysis was applied to a development dataset and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated in a validation dataset. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PDNV was 37%. Logistic regression analysis of the development dataset (n=1,913) identified five independent predictors (odds ratio; 95% CI): female gender (1.54; 1.22 to 1.94), age less than 50 yr (2.17; 1.75 to 2.69), history of nausea and/or vomiting after previous anesthesia (1.50; 1.19 to 1.88), opioid administration in the postanesthesia care unit (1.93; 1.53 to 2.43), and nausea in the postanesthesia care unit (3.14; 2.44-4.04). In the validation dataset (n=257), zero, one, two, three, four, and five of these factors were associated with a PDNV incidence of 7%, 20%, 28%, 53%, 60%, and 89%, respectively, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (0.69 to 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: PDNV affects a substantial number of patients after ambulatory surgery. We developed and validated a simplified risk score to identify patients who would benefit from long-acting prophylactic antiemetics at discharge from the ambulatory care center.

Specialized ambulatory anesthesia teams contribute to decreased ambulatory surgery recovery room length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Many institutions have organized specialized groups of ambulatory surgery anesthesiologists with the aim of improving ambulatory surgery patient care and efficiency. We hypothesized that specialized ambulatory anesthesia teams produce better patient outcomes such as lower postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) rates, lower postoperative pain scores, and shorter postanesthesia care unit (PACU) lengths of stay (LOS). METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we collected outcomes data on 1,299 patients including incidence of PONV, PACU LOS, maximum and average pain scores, amount of postoperative opioid use, and rescue antiemetic use. RESULTS: Ambulatory anesthesiologists had statistically shorter phase 2 PACU LOS times (P < .05) and overall recovery times (P < .01). The PONV incidence odds ratio for ambulatory versus nonambulatory anesthesiologists was 1.31 (95% CI 1.01-1.72). We found no significant difference in the amount of postoperative opioid use, maximum postoperative pain scores, or PACU phase 1 LOS time. CONCLUSIONS: The decreased PACU LOS for the study group's patients occurred despite the increased incidence of PONV. Ambulatory anesthesiologists contributed to decreased PACU LOS while practicing evidence-based anesthesia with regard to PONV and pain control. Ambulatory subspecialization may benefit institutions as a way to increase perioperative efficiency and improve surgeon and patient satisfaction.

Perspectives on transdermal scopolamine for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Transdermal scopolamine, a patch system that delivers 1.5 mg of scopolamine gradually over 72 hours following an initial bolus, was approved in the United States in 2001 for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adults. Scopolamine (hyoscine) is a selective competitive anatagonist of muscarinic cholinergic receptors. Low serum concentrations of scopolamine produce an antiemetic effect. Transdermal scopolamine is effective in preventing PONV versus placebo [relative risk (RR)=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.98, P = 0.03] and a significantly reduced risk for postoperative nausea (RR=0.59, 95% CI, 0.48-0.73, P < 0.001), postoperative vomiting (RR=0.68, 95% CI, 0.61-0.76, P < 0.001), and PONV (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.60-0.88, P = 001) in the first 24 hours after the start of anesthesia.

Propofol infusion platforms: opportunities and challenges.

Several propofol infusion platforms have been devised to address the inherent safety problems associated with propofol administration. Patient-controlled and target-controlled infusion systems have been described in the literature, and the Sedasys closed-loop feedback system is in FDA review. No matter what the infusion platform, there are important safety concerns that should be addressed whenever propofol is administered by non-anesthesiologists. There must be safeguards in the facility's sedation protocol for non-anesthesiologists that involve training, documentation, auditing/oversight, quality improvement and involvement of the facility's pharmacy and therapeutics committee. Definitions of levels of sedation and recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists on rescue, identification and management of potential complications, as well as monitoring and training of personnel are also presented.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The present guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) under the auspices of The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel critically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. In brief, these guidelines identify risk factors for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic monotherapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis; recommend approaches for treatment of PONV when it occurs; and provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV.

Preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized active-controlled trials of aprepitant.

OBJECTIVE: Compared with the 5HT(3) antagonist ondansetron, the NK(1) antagonist aprepitant has been shown in two double-blind trials to provide greater protection against postoperative vomiting and comparable or greater control of nausea. Post hoc analyses of pooled data from these trials were performed to more fully characterize the efficacy profile of aprepitant in terms of nausea and use of rescue therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1599) scheduled for major surgery under general anesthesia (primarily gynecological surgery) were assigned to receive a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg PO, 125 mg PO, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. in two randomized, double-blind, clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Post-surgery vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale). RESULTS: In the 24 hours after surgery, aprepitant 40 mg was more effective than ondansetron for all five endpoints evaluated: (1) no significant nausea (56.4% vs. 48.1%); (2) no nausea (39.6% vs. 33.1%); (3) no vomiting (86.7% vs. 72.4%); (4) no nausea and no vomiting (38.3% vs. 31.4%); and (5) no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue (37.9% vs. 31.2%) (p < 0.035 for the odds ratio for each comparison). Numerically more patients receiving aprepitant 125 mg also achieved these endpoints compared with ondansetron. CONCLUSIONS: These post hoc analyses confirm the favorable efficacy profile of aprepitant for the prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

A randomized, double-blind study of granisetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron plus dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy.

In this randomized, double-blind study, we evaluated whether small-dose granisetron (0.1 mg) plus dexamethasone 8 mg (G+D) was as effective as ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (O+D) for preventing vomiting during the 0 to 2 h after tracheal extubation in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy requiring general anesthesia. Dexamethasone (D) was administered at induction of anesthesia, and granisetron (G) or ondansetron (O) was given approximately 15 min before tracheal extubation. Data on postoperative nausea and vomiting were collected at 0, 2, 6, and 24 h. For the primary efficacy endpoint, most patients in each group had no vomiting in the 0- to 2-h interval (82/87 [94%] for G+D versus 86/89 [97%] for O+D). Effectiveness of G+D was demonstrated versus O+D. Treatment groups were similar with regard to moderate or severe nausea, complete response, rescue medication use, and total control over 24 h. A descriptive assessment of adverse events showed that both combinations were well tolerated with infrequent and similar incidences of adverse events. The combination of small-dose G administered just before tracheal extubation plus D given at induction of anesthesia is an effective alternative to O+D in preventing vomiting during the 0- to 2-h interval after tracheal extubation.

Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

IMPLICATIONS: We present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.