Association between anesthesia technique and death after hip fracture repair for patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Patients with COVID-19 undergoing hip fracture surgeries have a 30-day mortality of up to 34%. We aimed to evaluate the association between anesthesia technique and 30-day mortality after hip fracture surgery in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: After ethics approval, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set from January to December 2021. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 19 yr, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days preoperatively, and hip fracture surgery under general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA). Exclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status V, ventilator dependence, international normalized ratio ≥ 1.5, partial thromboplastin time > 35 sec, and platelet count < 80 × 109 L-1. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. The adjusted association between anesthetic technique and 30-day mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 23,045 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, 331 patients met the study criteria. The median [interquartile range] age was 82 [74-88] yr, and 32.3% were male. The 30-day mortality rate was 10.0% (33/331) for the cohort (10.7%, 29/272 for GA vs 6.8%, 4/59 for SA; P = 0.51; standardized mean difference, 0.138). The use of SA, compared with GA, was not associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 1.8; E-value, 2.49). CONCLUSION: Anesthesia technique was not associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 undergoing hip fracture surgery. The findings were limited by a small sample size. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05133648); registered 24 November 2021.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les personnes atteintes de COVID-19 bénéficiant d'une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche ont une mortalité à 30 jours allant jusqu'à 34 %. Notre objectif était d'évaluer l'association entre la technique d'anesthésie et la mortalité à 30 jours après une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche chez les personnes atteintes de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation du comité d'éthique, nous avons réalisé une analyse de cohorte rétrospective de l'ensemble de données du Programme national d'amélioration de la qualité chirurgicale de l'American College of Surgeons de janvier à décembre 2021. Les critères d'inclusion étaient un âge ≥ 19 ans, une infection par le SRAS-CoV-2 confirmée en laboratoire dans les 14 jours préopératoires et une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche sous anesthésie générale (AG) ou rachianesthésie (RA). Les critères d'exclusion étaient un statut physique V selon l'American Society of Anesthesiologists, la dépendance à une assistance ventilatoire, un ratio international normalisé ≥ 1,5, un temps de thromboplastine partielle > 35 sec, et une numération plaquettaire < 80 × 109 L−1. Le critère d'évaluation principal était la mortalité à 30 jours toutes causes confondues. L'association ajustée entre la technique anesthésique et la mortalité à 30 jours a été analysée à l'aide d'une régression logistique multivariée. RéSULTATS: Sur 23 045 patient·es opéré·es pour une fracture de la hanche, 331 répondaient aux critères de l'étude. L'âge médian (écart interquartile) était de 82 [74­88] ans et 32,3 % étaient des hommes. Le taux de mortalité à 30 jours était de 10,0 % (33/331) pour la cohorte (10,7 %, 29/272 pour l'AG vs 6,8 %, 4/59 pour la RA; P = 0,51; différence moyenne standardisée, 0,138). L'utilisation de la RA, par rapport à l'AG, n'a pas été associée à une diminution de la mortalité (rapport de cotes ajusté, 0,61; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 0,21 à 1,8; valeur E, 2,49). CONCLUSION: La technique d'anesthésie n'a pas été associée à la mortalité chez les personnes atteintes de COVID-19 bénéficiant d'une chirurgie de fracture de la hanche. Les résultats ont été limités par la petite taille de l'échantillon. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05133648); enregistrée le 24 novembre 2021.

Association of anaesthesia technique with 30-day primary graft patency after open lower limb revascularization: retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between anaesthetic technique and graft patency after open lower limb revascularization is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between 30-day graft patency after elective infrainguinal bypass and anaesthetic technique (regional anaesthesia (RA, i.e. neuraxial and/or peripheral nerve blockade) compared with general anaesthesia (GA)). METHODS: Patients who underwent elective infrainguinal bypass in the 2014-2019 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Vascular Procedure Targeted Lower Extremity Open data set were included. Excluded patients were those under 18 years old, those who did not receive RA or GA, and/or had an international normalized ratio of 1.5 of greater, a partial thromboplastin time more than 35 s, or a platelet count less than 80 × 109/L. The primary outcome was primary graft patency without reintervention. The relationship between anaesthetic technique and patency was analysed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Included were 8893 patients with a mean(s.d.) age of 68(11) years and 31.5 per cent female. Within the cohort, 7.7 per cent (n = 688) patients received RA only, 90.4 per cent (n = 8039) GA only, and 1.9 per cent (n = 166) both GA and RA. In the RA-only group, 91.7 per cent (631 of 688) received neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary patency rate was 93.2 per cent (573 of 615) for RA only, and 91.5 per cent (6390 of 6983) for GA only (standardized mean difference, 0.063). RA was not associated with a higher rate of patency compared with GA (adjusted OR, 1.16; 95 per cent c.i., 0.83 to 1.63; P = 0.378). CONCLUSION: There was no association between anaesthetic technique and 30-day graft patency after elective infrainguinal bypass surgery. Further prospective studies would be useful to study the impact of anaesthesia technique on important patient-centred outcomes such as long-term patency and non-home discharge.

Development and internal validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery involving single-shot popliteal sciatic nerve block.

BACKGROUND: Rebound pain occurs after up to 50% of ambulatory surgeries involving regional anaesthesia. To assist with risk stratification, we developed a model to predict severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery involving single-shot popliteal sciatic nerve block. METHODS: After ethics approval, we performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing lower limb surgery with popliteal sciatic nerve block from January 2016 to November 2019 were included. Exclusion criteria were uncontrolled pain in the PACU, use of a perineural catheter, or loss to follow-up. We developed and internally validated a multivariable logistic regression model for severe rebound pain, defined as transition from well-controlled pain in the PACU (numerical rating scale [NRS] 3 or less) to severe pain (NRS ≥7) within 48 h. A priori predictors were age, sex, surgery type, planned admission, local anaesthetic type, dexamethasone use, and intraoperative anaesthesia type. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Nagelkerke's R2, scaled Brier score, and calibration slope. RESULTS: The cohort included 1365 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 50 [16] yr). The primary outcome was abstracted in 1311 (96%) patients, with severe rebound pain in 652 (50%). Internal validation revealed poor model performance, with AUROC 0.632 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.602-0.661; bootstrap optimisation 0.021), Nagelkerke's R2 0.063, and scaled Brier score 0.047. Calibration slope was 0.832 (95% CI: 0.623-1.041). CONCLUSIONS: We show that a multivariable risk prediction model developed using routinely collected clinical data had poor predictive performance for severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery. Prospective studies involving other patient-related predictors are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05018104.

COVID-19 and breast cancer at a Regional Breast Centre: our flexible approach during the pandemic.

PURPOSE: In British Columbia (BC), there have been 2790 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of June 20, 2020. The aim of this project is to capture the effect of COVID-19 on the volume of surgery and adaptations to the surgical care of patients at a breast centre in BC. METHODS: All proven or suspected breast cancer cases treated with surgery between March 16, 2019 and April 30, 2019 and March 16, 2020 and April 30, 2020 through the Providence Breast Centre were included in this review. The date ranges in 2020 mark the early COVID-19 pandemic period in BC and the large shift in operating room access during this time. RESULTS: In 2019, 99 patients underwent surgery for proven breast cancer and 30 patients for suspected breast cancer. In 2020, 162 patients underwent surgery for breast cancer and 34 for suspected breast cancer. Wait times from core biopsy to surgery and surgery to oncology consultation were improved in 2020 with a reduction of core biopsy to surgery time from 58 to 28 days for patients seen during the pandemic. There was an increased use of regional anesthesia and same day discharge compared to 2019 with increases in regional anesthesia (41%-89%) and same day discharge (64%-86%) after adaptations to the pandemic were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Changes such as improved access to telemedicine, timing for cancer surgeries, and safer anesthetic techniques in response to the pandemic will change breast cancer surgical care beyond the pandemic era. Centralization and team-based care is the way forward.

Canadian recommendations for training and performance in basic perioperative point-of-care ultrasound: recommendations from a consensus of Canadian anesthesiology academic centres.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) uses ultrasound at the bedside to aid decision-making in acute clinical scenarios. The increased use of ultrasound for regional anesthesia and vascular cannulation, together with more anesthesiologists trained in transesophageal echocardiography have contributed to the widespread use of POCUS in perioperative care. Despite the support of international experts, the practice of POCUS in perioperative care is variable as Canadian guidelines for anesthesiologists do not currently exist. Using a Delphi process of online surveys and a face-to-face national Canadian meeting, we developed a consensus statement for basic POCUS (bPOCUS) performance and training with a group of national experts from all Canadian universities. The group of experts consisted of 55 anesthesiologists from 12 Canadian universities considered local leaders in the field. An initial exploratory online survey of 47 statements was conducted. These statements were derived from previous generic guidelines or consensus conferences, or were based on current literature. Fourteen statements reached full consensus, 19 had 90-100% agreement, and 14 had less than 90% agreement. Eight new statements were proposed during the national meeting, and all statements without full agreement were discussed. A second online survey included 42 modified or new statements. From this second survey, 16 statements obtained full consensus, 39 had very good agreement, and one had good agreement. The final document includes 56 statements that define the scope of practice and necessary training for perioperative bPOCUS. The statements include five bPOCUS domains: cardiac, lung, airway, gastric, and abdomen. The use of bPOCUS is evolving and will play a significant role in perioperative medicine. This consensus statement aims to define a Canadian national standard on which curricula may be based. It also provides a framework to allow further development of bPOCUS in the perioperative setting.

RéSUMé: L'échographie ciblée (POCUS) utilise l'échographie au chevet des patients pour faciliter la prise de décisions dans les situations cliniques urgentes. L'utilisation accrue de l'échographie pour l'anesthésie régionale et la cannulation vasculaire, ainsi que l'augmentation du nombre d'anesthésologistes formés à l'échocardiographie transesophagienne, ont contribué à l'utilisation généralisée de l'échographie ciblée dans les soins périopératoires. Malgré son endossement par des experts internationaux, la pratique de l'échographie ciblée en soins périopératoires est variable, car il n'existe pas, à l'heure actuelle, de lignes directrices canadiennes destinées aux anesthésiologistes. À l'aide d'un processus Delphi de sondages en ligne et d'une réunion nationale canadienne en personne, un groupe d'experts nationaux provenant de toutes les universités canadiennes a élaboré une déclaration consensuelle pour la formation de base en et l'exécution de l'échographie ciblée (bPOCUS). Le groupe d'experts était composé de 55 anesthésiologistes issus de 12 universités canadiennes considérés comme des chefs de file locaux dans le domaine. Un premier sondage exploratoire en ligne comportant 47 énoncés a été réalisé. Ces énoncés étaient dérivés de lignes directrices antérieures ou de conférences consensuelles, ou étaient fondés sur la littérature actuelle. Quatorze énoncés ont obtenu un consensus complet, 19 ont atteint un taux de 90 à 100 %, et 14 ont obtenu moins de 90 % d'accord. Huit nouveaux énoncés ont été proposés au cours de la réunion nationale, et tous les énoncés n'ayant pas obtenu d'accord complet ont été discutés. Un deuxième sondage en ligne comprenait 42 énoncés modifiés ou nouveaux. Dans ce deuxième sondage, 16 énoncés ont obtenu un consensus total, 39 un très bon accord et un énoncé un bon accord. Le document final comporte 56 énoncés qui définissent le champ de pratique et la formation nécessaire pour l'échographie ciblée périopératoire de base. Les énoncés portent sur cinq domaines de l'échographie ciblée de base : échographie cardiaque, pulmonaire, des voies respiratoires, gastrique et abdominale. L'utilisation de l'échographie ciblée de base évolue et jouera un rôle important en médecine périopératoire. Cette déclaration consensuelle vise à définir une norme nationale canadienne sur laquelle les programmes d'études pourront s'appuyer. Elle fournit également un cadre pour encourager le développement ultérieur de l'échographie ciblée de base dans un contexte périopératoire.

Pecto-intercostal Fascial Block for Acute Poststernotomy Pain: A Case Report.

Sternotomy pain is a common complication after cardiac surgery. We present a 77-year-old patient with severe acute sternal pain after coronary artery bypass graft surgery who was successfully treated with a novel peripheral regional anesthetic technique, the pecto-intercostal fascial block. This interfascial plane block may represent an effective regional anesthetic component of a multimodal analgesic strategy for cardiac surgery patients who suffer from significant pain after a median sternotomy and are typically anticoagulated.

Effect of Beam Steering on Echogenic and Nonechogenic Needle Visibility at 40°, 50°, and 60° Needle Insertion Angles.

Currently, there is little understanding of the role of echogenic needles and beam steering at moderate angles of needle insertion. The ultrasound images of the echogenic and nonechogenic needles inserted into pork at 40°, 50°, and 60° were scored by anesthesiologists on a scale of 0-10. The effect of different levels of beam steer was also explored. At 40°, steep beam steering improves visualization of both nonechogenic and echogenic needles to an equal, satisfactory level. At 50° and 60°, visualization of nonechogenic needles is poor, whereas visibility of an echogenic needle was adequate and may be improved with steep beam steering.

Hyperbaric Versus Isobaric Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Adult Patients Undergoing Noncesarean Delivery Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that the choice between isobaric bupivacaine and hyperbaric bupivacaine formulations alters the block characteristics for the conduct of surgery under spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to systematically review the comparative evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the 2 formulations when used for spinal anesthesia for adult noncesarean delivery surgery. METHODS: Key electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, excluding cesarean delivery surgeries under spinal anesthesia, without any language or date restrictions. The primary outcome measure for this review was the failure of spinal anesthesia. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-one studies were identified between 1946 and 2016. After screening, there were 16 randomized controlled clinical trials, including 724 participants, that provided data for the meta-analysis. The methodological reporting of most studies was poor, and appropriate judgment of their individual risk of bias elements was not possible. There was no difference between the 2 drugs regarding the need for conversion to general anesthesia (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.08-4.41; P = .62; I = 0%), incidence of hypotension (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.69-1.92; P = .58; I = 0%), nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.06-1.32; P = .11; I = 7%), or onset of sensory block (MD = 1.7 minutes; 95% CI, -3.5 to 0.1; P = .07; I = 0%). The onset of motor block (MD = 4.6 minutes; 95% CI, 7.5-1.7; P = .002; I = 78%) was significantly faster with hyperbaric bupivacaine. Conversely, the duration of motor (MD = 45.2 minutes; 95% CI, 66.3-24.2; P < .001; I = 87%) and sensory (MD = 29.4 minutes; 95% CI, 15.5-43.3; P < .001; I = 73%) block was longer with isobaric bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Both hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric bupivacaine provided effective anesthesia with no difference in the failure rate or adverse effects. The hyperbaric formulation allows for a relatively rapid motor block onset, with shorter duration of motor and sensory block. The isobaric formulation has a slower onset and provides a longer duration of both sensory and motor block. Nevertheless, the small sample size and high heterogeneity involving these outcomes suggest that all the results should be treated with caution.

Intrathecal hyperbaric versus isobaric bupivacaine for adult non-caesarean-section surgery: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Bupivacaine is the most commonly used local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia (SA). There are two forms of commercially available bupivacaine; isobaric bupivacaine (IB): a formulation with a specific gravity or density equal to cerebrospinal fluid, and hyperbaric bupivacaine (HB): a formulation with density heavier than cerebrospinal fluid. The difference in densities of the two available preparations is believed to affect the diffusion pattern that determines the effectiveness, spread and side-effect profile of bupivacaine. This systematic review will summarise the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety on the use of HB compared with IB, when used to provide SA for surgery. Primarily, we will analyse the need for conversion to general anaesthesia. As secondary outcomes, we will compare the incidence of hypotension, incidence of nausea/vomiting, the onset time and duration of anaesthesia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search key electronic databases using search strategy (1) injections, spinal OR intrathecal OR subarachnoid; (2) bupivacaine OR levobupivacaine; (3) hypobaric OR isobaric OR plain; (4) baricity. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, from their inception for randomised controlled trials, with no restrictions on language. Caesarean section surgery will be excluded. 2 reviewers will independently extract the data using a standardised form. Extracted items will include study characteristics, risk of bias domains, as per modified Cochrane risk of bias, participant disposition and study outcomes. We will conduct a meta-analysis for variables that can be compared across the studies. We will evaluate clinical heterogeneity by qualitatively appraising differences in study characteristics in participants, interventions and the outcomes assessed. We will report our findings as relative risks (dichotomous), and weighted mean differences (continuous) for individual outcomes, along with their 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We plan to submit, and will publish, our findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and present our results at national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017672.