A comparison of clinical outcomes and cost of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) can be used during catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, each approach may have advantages and disadvantages with variability in operator preferences. The optimal approach has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to compare procedural efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and cost of CA for AF performed with MAC versus GA. METHODS: The study population consisted of 810 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF: 48%) who underwent a first CA for AF. All patients completed a preprocedural evaluation by the anesthesiologists. Among the 810 patients, MAC was used in 534 (66%) and GA in 276 (34%). Ten patients (1.5%) had to convert to GA during the CA. RESULTS: Although the total anesthesia care was longer with GA particularly in patients with persistent AF, CA was shorter by 5 min with GA than MAC (p < 0.01). Prevalence of perioperative complications was similar between the two groups (4% vs. 4%, p = 0.89). There was no atrioesophageal fistula with either approach. GA was associated with a small, ~7% increase in total charges due to longer anesthesia care. During 43 ± 17 months of follow-up after a single ablation procedure, 271/534 patients (51%) in the MAC and 129/276 (47%) patients in the GA groups were in sinus rhythm without concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: With the participation of an anesthesiologist, and proper preoperative assessment, CA of AF using GA or MAC has similar efficacy and safety.

Multicentre analysis of practice patterns regarding benzodiazepine use in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding optimal use of benzodiazepines during cardiac surgery, and it is unknown whether and to what extent there is variation in practice. We sought to describe benzodiazepine use and sources of variation during cardiac surgeries across patients, clinicians, and institutions. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of adult cardiac surgeries across a multicentre consortium of USA academic and private hospitals from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was administration of a benzodiazepine from 2 h before anaesthesia start until anaesthesia end. Institutional-, clinician-, and patient-level variables were analysed via multilevel mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 65 508 patients cared for by 825 anaesthesiology attending clinicians (consultants) at 33 institutions, 58 004 patients (88.5%) received benzodiazepines with a median midazolam-equivalent dose of 4.0 mg (inter-quartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0 mg). Variation in benzodiazepine dosage administration was 54.7% attributable to institution, 14.7% to primary attending anaesthesiology clinician, and 30.5% to patient factors. The adjusted median odds ratio for two similar patients receiving a benzodiazepine was 2.68 between two randomly selected clinicians and 4.19 between two randomly selected institutions. Factors strongly associated (adjusted odds ratio, <0.75, or >1.25) with significantly decreased likelihoods of benzodiazepine administration included older age (>80 vs ≤50 yr; adjusted odds ratio=0.04; 95% CI, 0.04-0.05), university affiliation (0.08, 0.02-0.35), recent year of surgery (0.42, 0.37-0.49), and low clinician case volume (0.44, 0.25-0.75). Factors strongly associated with significantly increased likelihoods of benzodiazepine administration included cardiopulmonary bypass (2.26, 1.99-2.55), and drug use history (1.29, 1.02-1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of the variation in benzodiazepine administration during cardiac surgery are associated with institutions and attending anaesthesiology clinicians (consultants). These data, showing wide variations in administration, suggest that rigorous research is needed to guide evidence-based and patient-centred benzodiazepine administration.

Difficulty in Advancing Flexible Epidural Catheters When Establishing Labor Analgesia: An Observational Open-Label Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While flexible epidural catheters reduce the risk of paresthesia and intravascular cannulation, they may be more challenging to advance beyond the tip of a Tuohy needle. This may increase placement time, number of attempts, and possibly complications when establishing labor analgesia. This study investigated the ability to advance flexible epidural catheters through different epidural needles from 2 commonly used, commercially available, epidural kits. METHODS: We hypothesized that the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheters will have a higher rate of successful first attempt insertion than the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheters for the establishment of labor analgesia. The primary outcome was a difference in proportions of failure to advance the epidural catheter between the 2 epidural kits and was tested by a χ2 test. Two-hundred forty epidural kits were collected (n = 120/group) for 240 laboring patients requesting epidural analgesia in this open-label clinical trial from November 2018 to September 2019. Two-week time intervals were randomized for the exclusive use of 1 of the 2 kits in this study, where all patients received labor analgesia through either the flexible epidural catheter "A" or the flexible epidural catheter "B." Engineering properties of the equipment used were then determined. RESULTS: Flexible epidural catheter "A," the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter, did not advance at the first attempt in 15% (n = 18 of 120) of the parturients compared to 0.8% (n = 1 of 120) of the catheter "B," the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter (P < .0001). Twenty-five additional epidural needle manipulations were recorded in the laboring patients who received catheter "A," while 1 epidural needle manipulation was recorded in the parturients who received catheter "B" (P < .0001). Bending stiffness of the epidural catheters used from kit "B" was twice the bending stiffness of the catheters used from kit "A" (bending stiffness catheters "A" 0.64 ± 0.04 N·mm2 versus bending stiffness catheters "B" 1.28 ± 0.20 N·mm2, P = .0038), and the angle formed by the needle and the epidural catheter from kit "A" was less acute than the angle formed from kit "B" (kit "A" 14.17 ± 1.72° versus kit "B" 21.83 ± 1.33°, P = .0036), with a mean difference of 7.66° between the 2 kits' angles. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of an inability to advance single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter was higher compared to the use of multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter. Variation of morphological features of epidural needles and catheters may play a critical role in determining the successful establishment of labor epidural analgesia.

Utilization Patterns of Perioperative Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal in the United States: A Retrospective Observational Study From the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of sugammadex to the US clinical practice, scarce data are available to understand its utilization patterns. This study aimed to characterize patient, procedure, and provider factors associated with sugammadex administration in US patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted across 24 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group institutions in the United States with sugammadex on formulary at the time of the study. All American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV adults undergoing noncardiac surgery from 2014 to 2018 receiving neuromuscular blockade (NMB) were eligible. The study established 3 periods based on the date of first documented sugammadex use at each institution: the presugammadex period, 0- to 6-month transitional period, and 6+ months postsugammadex period. The primary outcome was reversal using sugammadex during the postsugammadex period-defined as 6 months after sugammadex was first utilized at each institution. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model controlling for institution was developed to assess patient, procedure, and provider factors associated with sugammadex administration. RESULTS: A total of 934,798 cases met inclusion criteria. Following the 6-month transitional period, sugammadex was used on average in 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.8-40.2) of cases receiving NMB. Multivariable analysis demonstrated sugammadex use to be associated with train-of-four count of 0-1 (adjusted odds ratio = 4.06; 95% CI, 33.83-4.31) or 2 (2.45; 2.29-2.62) vs 3-4 twitches before reversal; the amount of NMB administered (3.01; 2.88-3.16) for the highest effective dose 95 quartile compared to the lowest quartile; advanced age (1.83; 1.71-1.95) compared to age <41; male sex (1.36; 1.32-1.39) compared to female sex; major thoracic surgery (1.26; 1.13-1.39); congestive heart failure (1.17, 1.07-1.28); and ASA III or IV (1.13; 1.10-1.16) versus ASA I or II. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate broad early clinical adoption of sugammadex following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sugammadex is used preferentially in cases with higher degrees of NMB before reversal and in patients with greater burden of comorbidities and known risk factors for residual blockade or pulmonary complications.

Sugammadex versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Neuromuscular Blockade and Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (STRONGER): A Multicenter Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Five percent of adult patients undergoing noncardiac inpatient surgery experience a major pulmonary complication. The authors hypothesized that the choice of neuromuscular blockade reversal (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) may be associated with a lower incidence of major pulmonary complications. METHODS: Twelve U.S. Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group hospitals were included in a multicenter observational matched-cohort study of surgical cases between January 2014 and August 2018. Adult patients undergoing elective inpatient noncardiac surgical procedures with general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation receiving a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade agent and reversal were included. Exact matching criteria included institution, sex, age, comorbidities, obesity, surgical procedure type, and neuromuscular blockade agent (rocuronium vs. vecuronium). Other preoperative and intraoperative factors were compared and adjusted in the case of residual imbalance. The composite primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, respiratory failure, or other pulmonary complications (including pneumonitis; pulmonary congestion; iatrogenic pulmonary embolism, infarction, or pneumothorax). Secondary outcomes focused on the components of pneumonia and respiratory failure. RESULTS: Of 30,026 patients receiving sugammadex, 22,856 were matched to 22,856 patients receiving neostigmine. Out of 45,712 patients studied, 1,892 (4.1%) were diagnosed with the composite primary outcome (3.5% sugammadex vs. 4.8% neostigmine). A total of 796 (1.7%) patients had pneumonia (1.3% vs. 2.2%), and 582 (1.3%) respiratory failure (0.8% vs. 1.7%). In multivariable analysis, sugammadex administration was associated with a 30% reduced risk of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.77), 47% reduced risk of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62), and 55% reduced risk of respiratory failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.56), compared to neostigmine. CONCLUSIONS: Among a generalizable cohort of adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery at U.S. hospitals, the use of sugammadex was associated with a clinically and statistically significant lower incidence of major pulmonary complications.

Promoting a Restrictive Intraoperative Transfusion Strategy: The Influence of a Transfusion Guideline and a Novel Software Tool.

BACKGROUND: The effect of neither transfusion guidelines nor decision support tools on intraoperative transfusion has been previously evaluated. The University of Michigan introduced a transfusion guideline in 2009, and in 2011, the Department of Anesthesiology developed a transfusion decision support tool. The primary aim of this study was to assess the associations of the transfusion guideline and the optional use of the software transfusion tool with intraoperative behaviors; pretransfusion hematocrit assessment (whether or not a hematocrit was checked before each red cell unit) and restrictive red cell use (withholding transfusion unless the hematocrit was ≤21%). METHODS: This was a before-after retrospective study without a concurrent control group of patients transfused 1-3 units of red cells intraoperatively. Three phases were studied to provide data both before and after the implementation of the transfusion guideline and the intraoperative software tool. Within each phase, trends of checking hematocrits before transfusion and restrictive transfusion were charted against time. F tests were used to measure differences of slopes. The difference between means of each phase was measured using Mann-Whitney U tests. Independent associations were measured using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. A secondary outcome analysis was conducted for 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, renal injury, and their combination. RESULTS: The transfusion guideline was associated with increased pretransfusion hematocrit evaluation (67.4%, standard deviation [SD] 3.9 vs 76.5%, SD 2.7; P < .001) and restrictive transfusion practice (14.0%, SD 7.4 vs 33.3%, SD 4.4; P = .001). After adjustment for confounders, the guideline phase was independently associated with increased hematocrit checking (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.03; P < .001) and restrictive red cell transfusion (odds ratio, 2.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.54; P < .001). The software tool was not associated with either transfusion behavior. There was no significant change in the rate of renal injury (16.06%), myocardial injury (4.93%), 30-day mortality (5.47%), or a composite (21.90%). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a transfusion guideline was independently associated with increased intraoperative pretransfusion hematocrit assessment and restrictive transfusion. The use of a software tool did not further influence either behavior.

Frequency of inadequate neuromuscular blockade during general anesthesia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We used electronic health record data to define frequency of inadequate intraoperative neuromuscular blockade (NMB). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using electronic health record data. SETTING: Operating room in a tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 129,209 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 to 5 undergoing general anesthesia in an outpatient or inpatient setting who received nondepolarizing NMB. We excluded patients intubated before arrival to the operating room, patients undergoing a liver transplant or cardiac surgery, and patients who remained intubated at the end of the operation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were inadequate NMB defined by (1) documentation of patient movement and (2) documentation of surgical request for additional NMB, followed by NMB agent administration. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1261 patients (1.0%) demonstrated either intraoperative movement (369 or 0.29%) or prompted surgical request for additional NMB agent (921 or 0.71%). Trend analysis showed a variation in the annual rate of inadequate NMB, with an increase from 2004 to 2013 for criteria 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1% of all general anesthetic procedures involving NMB exhibit inadequate relaxation resulting in procedural interruption. These data suggest that current use of neuromuscular blocking drugs and NMB monitoring expose patients to inadequate blockade. The risk of this phenomenon warrants further study.

Observational study on patterns of neuromuscular blockade reversal.

BACKGROUND: Using electronic health record data, we hypothesized that larger reversal doses are used for patients with deeper levels of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) as evidenced by the last recorded TOF measurement. We also examined if dosing regimens reflect current practice guidelines of using ideal body weight (IBW) for NMB agents and total body weight (TBW) for neostigmine. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of adult, ASA 1-4 patients who underwent general anaesthesia and received non-depolarizing NMB agents between 01/01/2004 and 12/31/2013. For the primary outcome, percentages of cases receiving neostigmine and median doses administered for each subjective train-of-four (TOF) category were calculated. Secondary analyses evaluated associations between NMB dosing and neostigmine administration based on Body Mass Index (BMI) categories. RESULTS: A total of 135,633 cases met inclusion criteria for the study. There was no clinically significant difference in median neostigmine dosing based on last TOF count prior to reversal administration: 37.5 mcg/kg for TOF of 4/4 vs. 37.9 mcg/kg for TOF of 0/4 for the total neostigmine dose. Significantly higher number of patients with lower TOF counts received additional neostigmine administration: 5.7 % for 0/4 vs. 1.5 % for 4/4 TOF counts. The median times to extubation following neostigmine administration were clinically similar across TOF count categories. The median doses for neostigmine based on TBW decreased with higher BMI categories and were significantly different between the lowest and highest categories: 42.8 mcg/kg vs 30.8 mcg/kg for total doses (p < .0001) respectively. The percentages of cases requiring reversal in addition to the initial dose increased with increasing BMI categories and were 2.1 % for BMI < 18 vs. 3.3 % for BMI ≥ 40. The total median dose of NMB agents in ED95 equivalents per IBW increased from 2.9 in the Underweight category to 4.2 in the Class III Obese category. The majority of patients in the pancuronium subgroup received very low ED95 equivalent dose of 0.1 and did not require reversal. Patients receiving cisatracurium were given significantly higher median ED95 equivalent dose of 5.6 vs 2.8-3.9 compared to other intermediate acting NMB agents, while receiving clinically similar doses of neostigmine. CONCLUSIONS: Neither neostigmine dosing nor times to extubation were affected by the depth of the neuromuscular blockade prior to reversal. The need for additional reversal, or rescue, correlated strongly with the depth of NMB. There was significant variability in neostigmine dosing across the BMI categories. Underweight patients received relatively lower NMB doses while simultaneously receiving relatively higher reversal doses, and the opposite was true for patients with BMI >40.

Thrombotic Risks in Red Blood Cell Transfusions.

Red blood cells play a key role in normal hemostasis and thrombosis. Their ability to affect coagulation is multifactorial and depends on their mechanical properties affecting viscosity and blood flow, ability to aggregate and adhere to each other and potentially to vascular endothelium, molecular signaling via microvesicles and surface proteins, including blood group antigens, and participation in nitric oxide metabolism. Transfused red blood cells suffer from a storage lesion that damages the cells leading to changes in shape, function, and intracellular communication. In this article, we review if and how transfused red blood cells may lead to both increased hemorrhage and increased thrombosis.

Perioperative management of bridge-to-lung transplant using ECMO.

Respiratory failure requiring intubation has traditionally been a relative contraindication to lung transplantation due to increased morbidity and mortality. Advances in extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) have made it possible to extubate patients and provide physical therapy with minimal native lung function. By "bridging" patients to lung transplant using ECMO, they are able to undergo rehabilitation and withstand the demands of surgery. However, providing anesthesia for these cases requires an understanding of ECMO physiology and the pharmacology associated with ECMO. We describe the anesthetic for four patients who were bridged to lung transplant and the complexities of their perioperative management.