Catheter Tip-Associated Mass With Continuous Infusion of Sufentanil for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Case Report Including Histopathologic Examination and Review of the Associated Basic and Clinical Research.

OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal opioids delivered by implanted pumps are used to treat malignant or nonmalignant chronic pain. In this study, we 1) review a case in which intrathecal infusions of sufentanil along with other adjuvants were used and after an extended period led to an intrathecal mass and 2) compared and contrasted the potential mechanisms for these phenomena. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A woman aged 66 years with a history of scoliosis and multiple spine surgeries was treated with an implantable drug delivery system for treating persistent pain after laminectomy. The patient received intrathecal medication comprising sufentanil, bupivacaine, and clonidine. RESULTS: Intrathecal therapy over approximately ten years served to reduce pain and improve function over the treatment period. After the extended treatment interval, the patient developed an intrathecal mass that was associated with impairment. The mass was surgically removed. Systematic histopathology revealed the space-occupying mass to largely comprise fibroblasts and some inflammatory cells embedded in a collagen mass located proximally to the catheter tip. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first published case report of sufentanil causing this complication. The science and mechanism of intrathecal catheter tip-associated mass formation and associated clinical research correlates are reviewed in detail, and explanations for this phenomenon are proposed based on histochemical analysis of the patient's pathology findings.

Anesthetic management of a patient with left ventricular assist device undergoing robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) require specific anesthetic and hemodynamic considerations. We report the specific anesthetic preparation and management in this scenario. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 66-year-old male with a HeartMate II LVAD undergoing robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the steep Trendelenburg position. We employed central venous and radial arterial access, LVAD pump parameters, near-infrared sensor of cerebral oximetry, and transesophageal echocardiography for monitoring. Hemodynamics were managed with nicardipine, dobutamine, epinephrine, and phenylephrine during abdominal insufflation, operative positioning, and desufflation. The patient had a successful procedure, was discharged on postoperative day 2, and achieved surgical cure of his prostate cancer. DISCUSSION: By presenting the first detailed account of anesthetic management in this scenario, we provide a clinical vignette for use by the clinical anesthesiologist in his or her preparation prior to caring for this type of patient.

Effect of Preoperative Opioid Use on Adverse Outcomes, Medical Spending, and Persistent Opioid Use Following Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty in the United States: A Large Retrospective Cohort Study of Administrative Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: Between 17% and 40% of patients undergoing elective arthroplasty are preoperative opioid users. This US study analyzed patients in this population to illustrate the relationship between preoperative opioid use and adverse surgical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective study of administrative medical and pharmaceutical claims data. SUBJECTS: Adults (aged 18+) who received elective total knee, hip, or shoulder replacement in 2014-2015. METHODS: A patient was a preoperative opioid user if opioid prescription fills occurred in two periods: 1-30 and 31-90 days presurgery. Zero-truncated Poisson (incidence rate ratio [IRR]), logistic (odds ratio [OR]), Cox (hazard ratio [HR]), and quantile regressions modeled the effects of preoperative opioid use and opioid dose, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and utilization. RESULTS: Among 34,792 patients (38% hip, 58% knee, 4% shoulder), 6,043 (17.4%) were preoperative opioid users with a median morphine equivalent daily dose of 32 mg. Preoperative opioid users had increased length of stay (IRR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.05), nonhome discharge (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.21), and 30-day unplanned readmission (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.74); experienced 35% higher surgical site infection (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.59) and 44% higher surgical revision (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.71); had a median $1,084 (95% CI = $833 to $1334) increase in medical spend during the 365 days after discharge; and had a 64% lower rate of opioid cessation (HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.35) compared with patients not filling two or more prescriptions across periods. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative opioid users had longer length of stay, increased revision rates, higher spend, and persistent opioid use, which worsened with dose. Adverse outcomes after elective joint replacement may be reduced if preoperative opioid risk is managed through increased monitoring or opioid cessation.

Common elements in opioid use disorder guidelines for buprenorphine prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to formulate a consolidation of guidelines representing best practices related to office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) of opioid use disorder (OUD) using buprenorphine. It also demonstrates how a set of evidence-based guidelines may be linked with claims data to leverage analytic techniques that drive cost-effective, positive health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review of US and international guidelines for OBOT using buprenorphine for OUD. METHODS: The study conducted a review of currently available US and several international guidelines from 2009 to 2018 published on OUD and the use of buprenorphine in OBOT. Guidelines were consolidated based on common elements. The process of correlating common elements with available commercial and state Medicaid claims data is described, including which elements are amenable to analysis along with relative complexity. RESULTS: Seven guidelines met inclusion criteria and are presented as 3 tables, organized by clinical themes and phase of care related to OBOT use of buprenorphine for OUD. Themes included establishing care, monitoring treatment stability and engagement, and nonpharmacologic treatment to improve outcomes. Areas of agreement and divergence between guidelines are highlighted. Specific components are identified as they relate to metrics of interest to public and private payers. CONCLUSIONS: Among US and international guidelines for treatment of OUD, common themes are readily identified and may indicate agreement in regard to interventions. Linking pharmacy and medical billing claims data to evidence-supported best practices provides public and private payers the ability to track individual patients, facilitate high-quality care, and monitor outcomes.

Perioperative Outcomes after Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Above the Knee Amputations.

BACKGROUND: Nontraumatic lower extremity amputation (LEA) remains a common procedure among patients who frequently have significant comorbidities. Patients undergoing above knee amputation (AKA) have the highest rates of mortality in this cohort, yet there is little evidence to support selection between peripheral nerve block or neuraxial regional anesthesia (RA) versus general anesthesia (GA) techniques. The objective of this study was to determine whether RA (neuraxial or peripheral nerve block) techniques were associated with more favorable outcomes versus general anesthesia among patients undergoing AKA. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using propensity-matched groups. Patients undergoing AKA were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) data set and grouped according to anesthetic type as either RA or GA. Patients undergoing AKA with RA were propensity matched to similar patients who had GA. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were numerous and included cardiac, pulmonary, infectious, and bleeding complications, as well as length of stay. Among a subset of patients for whom readmission data were available, rate of readmission was compared as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine patients were identified in the ACS-NSQIP database. One thousand three hundred twelve received a regional anesthetic, and the remainder had a general anesthetic. Factors significantly associated with GA included younger age (70 vs. 75 years; P < 0.001), higher body mass index (26.5 vs. 25.4; P < 0.001), and ethnically white (62.4% vs. 57%; P < 0.001). Before matching, patients receiving RA were less likely to be smokers (22% vs. 29%; P < 0.001), have a bleeding disorder (15% vs 30%; P < 0.001), or have a diagnosis of sepsis (26% vs 34%; P < 0.001). Propensity score matching produced a cohort composed of 1,916 patients equally divided between RA and GA. We found no difference with respect to the primary end point of 30-day mortality (11.7% vs 11.7%; odds ratio [OR] 1.01; P = 0.943) nor was there any difference with respect to secondary outcomes. Among patients for whom readmission data were available, there was no statistically significant difference between rates of readmission between the groups (15.6% for RA vs. 12.7% for GA; OR 1.26, confidence interval 0.87-1.828, P = 0.221). CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation did not detect any difference between regional and general anesthetic with respect to morbidity or mortality among patients undergoing AKA. This data set did not allow us to address other relevant markers including pain control or phantom limb syndrome.

Education and training for nonanesthesia providers performing deep sedation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a significant increase in the number and types of procedures performed outside of the operating room with nonanesthesia providers administering sedation. This review describes current recommendations for training nonanesthesiologists involved in administering deep sedation, summarizes best practices and highlights select patient outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: There are numerous guidelines and standards related to the administration of deep sedation. However, there are no universally accepted guidelines regarding the necessary educational and skill competencies needed for nonanesthesiologists to provide deep sedation. The American Society of Anesthesiologists has published a position statement and guidelines on these educational requirements, yet the extent to which these are adhered to remains unknown. As evidence-based guidelines continue to evolve, more research is needed to describe how current practices affect patient outcomes. SUMMARY: The American Society of Anesthesiologists publishes recommendations regarding the essential educational components for nonanesthesiologist providers who administer deep sedation. The available data support the need for formal educational programmes to prevent adverse events associated with deep sedation. Competencies should include preprocedural evaluation, understanding sedation levels, airway management, documentation, emergency life support skills, teamwork and quality improvement.