The current state of training in pain medicine fellowships: An Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) survey of program directors.

INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. METHODS: This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

Intraoperative Hypotension During Second Stage of Deep Brain Stimulator Placement: Same Day versus Different Day Procedures.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated blood pressure management associated with implantable pulse generator (IPG) procedure on same day (SD) versus different day (DD) from deep brain stimulation (DBS) placement. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 99 records for vasopressors given during IPG using a negative binomial regression model was performed. An association between SD versus DD, cumulative vasopressor dose, and minimum and maximum mean arterial pressure (MAP) were sought. RESULTS: No significant association between SD versus DD DBS and the number of times vasopressors were given during stage II, estimated ratio of means (CI) of 1.8 (0.9-3.5); P = 0.07. Day of stage II had no association with the cumulative dose of vasopressor given during stage II, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of 2.4 (-0.4 to 5.3). The SD group had a significantly lower mean of minimum stage II MAP compared with DD, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of -10.5 (-17.4 to -3.5; P < 0.001). There was no association with maximum stage II MAP, with an estimated difference in means (CI) of -2.8 (-17.6 to 12.0; P = 0.63). CONCLUSION: No difference in intraoperative vasopressor use was found between SD versus DD IPG placement, but the SD group had a significantly lower minimum MAP.

Association of thoracic epidural analgesia with risk of atrial arrhythmias after pulmonary resection: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Atrial arrhythmias are common after non-cardiac thoracic surgery. We tested the hypothesis that TEA reduces the risk of new-onset atrial arrhythmias after pulmonary resection. METHODS: We evaluated patients who had pulmonary resection. New-onset atrial arrhythmias detected before hospital discharge was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included other cardiovascular complications, pulmonary complications, time-weighted average pain score over 72 h, and duration of hospitalization. Patients with combination of general anesthesia and TEA were matched on propensity scores with patients given general anesthesia only. The matched groups were compared by use of logistic regression, linear regression, or Cox proportional hazards regression, as appropriate. RESULTS: Among 1,236 patients who had pulmonary resections, 937 received a combination of general anesthesia and TEA (TEA) and 299 received general anesthesia only (non-TEA). We successfully matched 311 TEA patients with 132 non-TEA patients. We did not find a significant association between TEA and postoperative atrial arrhythmia (odds ratio (95 % CI) of 1.05 (0.50, 2.19), P = 0.9). TEA was not significantly associated with length of hospital stay or postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio (95 % CI) of 0.71 (0.22, 2.29), P = 0.47). TEA patients experienced fewer postoperative cardiovascular complications; although the association was not statistically significant (odds ratio (95 % CI) of 0.30 (0.06, 1.45), P = 0.06). Time-weighted average pain scores were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: TEA was not associated with reduced occurrence of postoperative atrial arrhythmia. Although postoperative pulmonary complications were similar with and without TEA, TEA patients tended to experience fewer cardiovascular complications.

Comparative evaluation of midazolam and ketamine with midazolam alone as oral premedication.

BACKGROUND: Oral premedication with midazolam and ketamine is widely used in pediatric anesthesia to reduce emotional trauma and ensure smooth induction. However, various dosing regimens when used alone or in combination have variable efficacy and side effect profile. The aim of our study was to investigate and compare the efficacy of oral midazolam alone with a low-dose combination of oral midazolam and ketamine. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized double-blind study in 100 children who were randomly allocated into two groups. Group M received 0.5 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam and group MK received 0.25 mg.kg(-1) oral midazolam with 2.5 mg.kg(-1) oral ketamine. The preoperative sedation score, ease of parental separation and ease of mask acceptance were evaluated on a 4-point scale. The time to recovery from anesthesia and to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score was also noted. RESULTS: Uniform and acceptable sedation scores were seen in both the groups (group M 95.9%; group MK 97.96%), without any serious side effects. However, the combination offered significantly more children in an awake, calm and quiet state, who were easily separated from their parents (73.46% in MK vs 41% in group M). The induction scores were comparable between the groups. The recovery room characteristics and time to achieve satisfactory Aldrete score were also comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral midazolam alone and a combination of midazolam with ketamine provide equally effective anxiolysis and separation characteristics. However, the combination provided more children in an awake, calm and quiet state who could be separated easily from parents.