Guidelines on perioperative optimization protocol for the adult patient 2023.

OBJECTIVE: The French Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR)] aimed at providing guidelines for the implementation of perioperative optimization programs. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 29 experts from the SFAR was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. METHODS: Four fields were defined: 1) Generalities on perioperative optimization programs; 2) Preoperative measures; 3) Intraoperative measures and; 4) Postoperative measures. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines and analyzed using the GRADE® methodology. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method. As the GRADE® methodology could have been fully applied for the vast majority of questions, the recommendations were formulated using a "formalized expert recommendations" format. RESULTS: The experts' work on synthesis and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 30 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 were found to have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and ten a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). For one recommendation, the GRADE methodology could not be fully applied, resulting in an expert opinion. Two questions did not find any response in the literature. After two rounds of rating and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement among the experts was obtained to provide 30 recommendations for the elaboration and/or implementation of perioperative optimization programs in the highest number of surgical fields.

Comparison of continuous with single-injection regional analgesia on patient experience after ambulatory orthopaedic surgery: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to improving patient experience and analgesia after ambulatory orthopaedic surgery remains unclear. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised clinical trial compared single-injection nerve block analgesia with home delivery of continuous nerve block analgesia by remote-controlled electronic pump. The primary outcome was patient-reported satisfaction (Evaluation du Vecu de l'Anesthesie Generale [EVAN-G]; 0-100) assessed on postoperative Day 2. Secondary outcomes focused on pain, opioid consumption, quality of rehabilitation, activity tracking using a wearable electronic device, and 90-day quality of life. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 294 patients to continuous pump delivery or single injection. For subjects with normal level of pain catastrophising (Pain Catastrophizing Scale <30; n=211), median global EVAN-G was higher with the electronic pump compared with the single injection (78 [69-86] vs 72 [63-84]; P=0.03), as were pain satisfaction scores (P=0.01). For the maximum pain levels, the numerical rating scale score was 2.0 (1.0-5.0) in the electronic-pump group vs 5.0 (3.0-7.0) in the single-injection group on the first 2 days after surgery (P<0.0001). Total opioid consumption in morphine equivalent was higher with single injection (mean [standard deviation]): 70.5 [73.8] vs 31.9 [54.2] mg; P<0.01). The groups did not differ in early rehabilitation on Day 1 or quality of life on Day 45. Electronic activity tracking indicated higher activity in the electronic-pump group (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported patient satisfaction at home was better with continuous nerve block analgesia via electronic pump vs single injection, without impairing early rehabilitation. Single-injection analgesia was associated with higher pain levels and opioid consumption and lower satisfaction. Patient catastrophising negatively affected the experience of pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02720965.

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/risk and patient information; (3) preoperative assessment and decision on intervention; (4) modalities of the preanaesthesia consultation; (5) specificity of anaesthesia and analgesia; (6) dedicated circuits and (7) containment exit type of interventions. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provides 51 statements on anaesthesia management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. After one round of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations and algorithms. CONCLUSION: We present suggestions for how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists can be minimised and how personal protective equipment policies relate to COVID-19 pandemic context.

Impact of hypnosis on patient experience after venous access port implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Hypnosis has been reported to decrease pain and anxiety in surgical context, but data studying its impact on patient experience using a validated scale are scarce. In the present study, we assessed the effect of an audio hypnosis session on patient satisfaction during venous access port implantation under local anaesthesia in adult cancer patients using the EVAN-LR Score. METHODS: After informed consent, patients were randomised to receive either hypnosis or standard care. The hypnosis group listened to a 26 minutes recorded audio hypnosis session through the ongoing implantation procedure. The primary outcome was the result of the EVAN-LR questionnaire, assessing perioperative experience in patients undergoing anaesthesia without loss of consciousness. This score describes a global index and 5 dimensions of experience: comfort, pain attention, information and waiting. It is scaled from 0 to 100 with 100 indicating the best possible level of satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included patient's anxiety, heart rate before and after procedure, procedure duration and several Visual Analogic Scale to match EVAN-LR dimensions. RESULTS: Overall, 148 patients were enrolled in the study. The global index of Evan-LR was significantly higher in the hypnosis session group (78 ± 14) compared to the standard care group (71 ± 17) (P = 0.006). No difference was reported in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: A recorded audio hypnosis session during subcutaneous venous port implantation under local anaesthesia in cancer patients significantly improved patient satisfaction.

Perioperative Use of Intravenous Lidocaine.

Lidocaine is an amide local anaesthetic initially used intravenously as an antiarrhythmic agent. At some point it was proposed that intravenous lidocaine (IVL) had an analgesic effect that could be potentially beneficial in perioperative settings. Since these preliminary reports, a large body of evidence confirmed that IVL had anti-inflammatory and opiate-sparing effects, a combination of characteristics leading to an array of effects such as a decrease in postoperative pain and opiate consumption, and a reduction in the duration of digestive ileus. Additional studies demonstrated IVL to possess antithrombotic, antimicrobial and antitumoral effects. Beneficial effects of IVL have been characterized in abdominal surgery but remain controversial in other types of surgeries. Because the quality of evidence was limited, due to inconsistency, imprecision and study quality, recent conclusions from meta-analysis pooling together all types of surgery stated the uncertainty about IVL benefits. Additional indications such as the prevention of propofol-induced injection pain, prevention of hyperalgesia, protection against bronchial reactivity by bronchotracheal relaxation during surgery, and the increase in depth of general anaesthesia have since emerged. IVL is rapidly distributed in the body and metabolized by the liver. With the commonly recommended doses, lidocaine's therapeutic index remains very high and the plasma concentrations stay largely below the cardiotoxic and neurotoxic threshold levels, a notion that may be used by clinicians to draw conclusions on the benefit-risk profile of IVL in comparison to other analgesic strategies. The purpose of this review is to address the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of lidocaine in healthy and pathological conditions.

Validation of the generic medical interview satisfaction scale: the G-MISS questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Patients have about seven medical consultations a year. Despite the importance of medical interviews in the healthcare process, there is no generic instrument to assess patients' experiences in general practices, medical specialties, and surgical specialties. The main objective was to validate a questionnaire assessing patients' experiences with medical consultations in various practices. METHOD: The G-MISS study was a prospective multi-center trial that enrolled patients from May to July 2016. A total of 2055 patients were included from general practices, medical specialties, and surgical specialties. Patients filled out a questionnaire assessing various aspects of their experience and satisfaction within 1 week after their medical interview. The validation process relied on item response theory. Internal validity was examined using exploratory factorial analysis. The statistical model used the root mean square error of approximation, confirmatory fit index, and standard root mean square residual as fit indices. Scalability and reliability were assessed with the Rasch model and Cronbach's alpha coefficients, respectively. Scale properties across the three subgroups were explored with differential item functioning. RESULTS: The G-MISS final questionnaire contained 16 items, structured in three dimensions of patients' experiences: "Relief", "Communication", and "Compliance". A global index of patients' experiences was computed as the mean of the dimension scores. All fit indices from the statistical model were satisfactory (RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.06). The overall scalability had a good fit to the Rasch model. Each dimension was reliable, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.73 to 0.86. Differential item functioning across the three consultation settings was negligible. Patients undergoing medical or surgical specialties reported higher scores in the "Relief" dimension compared with general practice (83.0 ± 11.6 or 82.4 ± 11.6 vs. 73.2 ± 16.7; P < .001). A consultation shorter than 5 min correlated with low patient satisfaction in "Relief" and "Communication" and in the global index, P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The G-MISS questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing patients' experiences after consultations with general practitioners, medical specialists, and surgical specialists. The multidimensional structure relies on item response theory and assesses different aspects of patients' experiences that could be useful in clinical practice and research settings.

Effect of sedative premedication on patient experience after general anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Sedative premedication is widely administered before surgery, but little clinical evidence supports its use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of sedative premedication on perioperative patient experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial, the PremedX study, enrolled 1062 adult patients who were younger than 70 years and had been scheduled for various elective surgeries under general anesthesia at 5 French teaching hospitals (in Marseille, Montpellier, Nimes, and Nice) between January 2013 and June 2014. Neurosurgery, obstetrical, cardiac, and outpatient surgery were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 3 groups of 354 participants each to receive 2.5 mg of lorazepam, no premedication, or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was perioperative patient experience assessed 24 hours after surgery with a validated questionnaire (Evaluation du Vécu de l'Anesthésie Generale; EVAN-G) describing 6 domains of satisfaction and a global index (score range, 0-100; high scores represent high satisfaction); secondary outcomes included time to extubation and early cognitive recovery. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori in patients with a high level of preoperative anxiety. RESULTS: Premedication with lorazepam did not improve the EVAN-G mean global index for overall level of patient satisfaction (72 [95% CI, 70-73]; n = 330) compared with no premedication (73 [95% CI, 71-74]; n = 319) or placebo (71 [95% CI, 70-73]; n = 322) (P = .38). Among patients with heightened preoperative anxiety, there were no significant differences found in the EVAN-G mean global index between the lorazepam group (68 [95% CI, 65-72]; n = 87) and the no premedication group (73 [95% CI, 69-77]; n = 57) or the placebo group (70 [95% CI, 67-72]; n = 87) (P = .18). Time to extubation was 17 minutes (95% CI, 14-20 minutes) in the lorazepam group, 12 minutes (95% CI, 11-13 minutes) for the no premedication group, and 13 minutes (95% CI, 12-14 minutes) for the placebo group (P < .001) and the rate of early cognitive recovery was 51% (95% CI, 45%-56%), 71% (95% CI, 66%-76%), and 64% (95% CI, 59%-69%), respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, sedative premedication with lorazepam compared with placebo or no premedication did not improve the self-reported patient experience the day after surgery, but was associated with modestly prolonged time to extubation and a lower rate of early cognitive recovery. The findings suggest a lack of benefit with routine use of lorazepam as sedative premedication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01901003.

Validation of the French version of the Amsterdam preoperative anxiety and information scale (APAIS).

BACKGROUND: Most patients are anxious before surgery. The level of preoperative anxiety depends on several factors and merits an objective evaluation. The Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) is a self-report questionnaire comprising six questions that have been developed and validated to evaluate the preoperative anxiety of patients. This global index assesses three separate areas: anxiety about anaesthesia, anxiety about surgery, and the desire for information. The purpose of this study was to translate the APAIS into French and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the French version of the APAIS. METHODS: The process consisted of two steps. The first step involved the production of a French version of the APAIS that was semantically equivalent to the original version. In the second step, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the French version, including the internal consistency and reliability, the differential item functioning, and the external validity. Participants older than 18, undergoing elective surgery (except obstetric), able to understand and read French, and able to complete a self-report questionnaire were eligible for inclusion in the study. A forward-backward translation was performed. The psychometric evaluation covered three domains: internal validity, external validity, and acceptability. Within 4-48 h after surgery, the patients were asked to complete the "Evaluation du Vécu de l'ANesthésie" questionnaire" (EVAN) questionnaire, which is a validated, multi-dimensional questionnaire that assesses the patient's experiences in the perioperative period. RESULTS: A database with 175 patients was created. The principal component factor analysis revealed the same three-dimensional structure as the original scale. The confirmatory factor analysis showed a strong fit with a root mean square error of approximation of 0.069 and a comparative fit index of 1.00. The amount of differential item functioning (DIF) between the subgroups of patients (i.e., based on age, gender, type of anaesthesia or surgery, premedication, ASA physical status, and ambulatory course) was low. The APAIS was strongly correlated with the dimensions of the EVAN. Each dimension had a low proportion of missing values (ranging from 0.6 to 2.9%), which indicates good acceptability of the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The French version of the APAIS is valid and reliable. The availability of this tool enables the evaluation of anxiety in French patients undergoing anaesthesia.

Development and validation of a perioperative satisfaction questionnaire in regional anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating patient-reported outcomes is complex. These difficulties may explain weaknesses with some existing tools: mainly, they rely on expert instead of patient views or are not metrically sound. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a multidimensional self-reported questionnaire, specifically assessing the satisfaction of patients undergoing regional anesthesia, Evaluation du Vécu de l'Anesthésie LocoRégionale (EVAN-LR). METHODS: Patients included underwent various surgical procedures under regional anesthesia. The questionnaire structure was identified by principal component factor analyses and interitem, item-dimension, and interdimension correlations. The authors assessed external validity by studying the relationships between potential dimensions of EVAN-LR and validated instruments such as Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale, State Trait Anxiety Inventory, and specific visual analog scales. Internal consistency reliability was assessed by Cronbach α. RESULTS: We included 390 patients for the validation phase. The EVAN-LR comprises 19 items, structured in a global index and five dimensions: Attention, Information, Discomfort, Waiting, and Pain. The consequences of staying alert during regional anesthesia were specifically addressed by two items. Female sex was associated with significantly lower Information score. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status below 2 had a significantly lower Attention score. Patients older than 55 years showed higher satisfaction scores for most dimensions. EVAN-LR poorly correlated with premedication. CONCLUSION: The authors have validated a new measuring tool assessing patient satisfaction within the perioperative period surrounding regional anesthesia. The multidimensional structure of EVAN-LR allows it to be used as a clinical tool for improving anesthesia management.