Efficacy of PECS block in addition to multimodal analgesia for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing outpatient elective breast surgery: A retrospective study.

Background: Pectoralis nerve blocks (PECS) have been shown in numerous studies to be a safe and effective method to treat postoperative pain and reduce postoperative opioid consumption after breast surgery. However, there are few publications evaluating the PECS block effectiveness in conjunction with multimodal analgesia (MMA) in outpatient breast surgery. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PECS's blocks on perioperative pain management and opioid consumption. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to assess the efficacy of preoperative PECS block in addition to preoperative MMA (oral acetaminophen and/or gabapentin) in reducing opioid consumption in adult female subjects undergoing outpatient elective breast surgery between 2015 and 2020. A total of 228 subjects were included in the study and divided in two groups: PECS block group (received PECS block + MMA) and control Group (received only MMA). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative opioid consumption between both groups. The secondary outcome was intergroup comparisons of the following: postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), incidence of rescue antiemetic medication, PACU non-opioid analgesic medication required, length of PACU stay and the incidence of 30-day postoperative complications between both groups. Results: Two hundred and twenty-eight subjects (n = 228) were included in the study. A total of 174 subjects were allocated in the control group and 54 subjects were allocated in the PECS block group. Breast reduction and mastectomy/lumpectomy surgeries were the most commonly performed procedures (48% and 28%, respectively). The total amount of perioperative (intraoperative and PACU) MME was 27 [19, 38] in the control group and 28.5 [22, 38] in the PECS groups (p = 0.21). PACU opioid consumption was 14.3 [7, 24.5] MME for the control group and 17 [8, 23] MME (p = 0.732) for the PECS group. Lastly, the mean overall incidence of postsurgical complications at 30 days was 3% (N = 5), being wound infection, the only complication observed in the PECS groups (N = 2), and hematoma (N = 2) and wound dehiscence (N = 1) in the control group. Conclusion: PECS block combined with MMA may not reduce intraoperative and/or PACU opioid consumption in patients undergoing outpatient elective breast surgery.

Brain Cancer Progression: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparison of Awake Craniotomy Versus General Anesthesia in High-grade Glioma Resection.

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas impose substantial morbidity and mortality due to rapid cancer progression and recurrence. Factors such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain the cornerstones for treatment of brain cancer and brain cancer research. The role of anesthetics on glioma progression is largely unknown. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent high-grade glioma resection with minimal sedation (awake craniotomy) and those who underwent craniotomy with general anesthesia (GA). Various perioperative factors, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and adjuvant treatment regimens were recorded. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), postoperative pain score, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 891 patients were included; 79% received GA, and 21% underwent awake craniotomy. There was no difference in median PFS between awake craniotomy (0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.65 y) and GA (0.53, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60 y) groups (hazard ratio 1.05; P <0.553). Median OS was significantly longer in the awake craniotomy (1.70, 95% CI: 1.30-2.32 y) compared with that in the GA (1.25, 95% CI: 1.15-1.37 y) group (hazard ratio 0.76; P <0.009) but this effect did not persist after controlling for other variables of interest. Median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the awake craniotomy group (2 [range: 0 to 76], interquartile range 3 d vs. 5 [0 to 98], interquartile range 5 for awake craniotomy and GA groups, respectively; P <0.001). Pain scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in PFS and OS between patients who underwent surgical resection of high-grade glioma with minimal sedation (awake craniotomy) or GA. Further large prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to explore the role of anesthetics on glioma progression and patient survival.

Perioperative Morbidity and Complications in Patients With an Established Ileostomy Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Recently formed ileostomies may produce an average of 1,200 ml of watery stool per day, while an established ileostomy output varies between 600-800 ml per day. The reported incidence of renal impartment in patients with ileostomy is 8-20%, which could be caused by dehydration (up to 50%) or high output stoma (up to 40%). There is a lack of evidence if an ileostomy could influence perioperative fluid management and/or surgical outcomes. Methods: Subjects aged ≥18 years old with an established ileostomy scheduled to undergo an elective non-ileostomy-related major abdominal surgery under general anesthesia lasting more than 2 h and requiring hospitalization were included in the study. The primary outcome was to assess the incidence of perioperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Results: A total of 552 potential subjects who underwent non-ileostomy-related abdominal surgery were screened, but only 12 were included in the statistical analysis. In our study cohort, 66.7% of the subjects were men and the median age was 56 years old (interquartile range [IQR] 48-59). The median time from the creation of ileostomy to the qualifying surgery was 17.7 months (IQR: 8.3, 32.6). The most prevalent comorbidities in the study group were psychiatric disorders (58.3%), hypertension (50%), and cardiovascular disease (41.7%). The most predominant surgical approach was open (8 [67%]). The median surgical and anesthesia length was 3.4 h (IQR: 2.5, 5.7) and 4 h (IQR: 3, 6.5), respectively. The median post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay was 2 h (IQR:0.9, 3.1), while the median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 5.6 days (IQR: 4.1, 10.6). The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 50% (n = 6). Two subjects (16.7%) had a moderate surgical wound infection, and two subjects (16.7%) experienced a mild surgical wound infection. In addition, one subject (7.6%) developed a major postoperative complication with atrial fibrillation in conjunction with moderate hemorrhage. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the presence of a well-established ileostomy might not represent a relevant risk factor for significant perioperative complications related to fluid management or hospital readmission. However, the presence of peristomal skin complications could trigger a higher incidence of surgical wound infections.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Evidence-based Review of General Considerations, Risk Factors, and Management.

One of the most common and distressing symptoms after craniotomy is postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV could generate delayed postanesthesia care and hospitalization discharge, lower patient satisfaction, and an increase in overall hospitalization costs. The incidence of reported PONV after craniotomy is 22% to 70% without prophylaxis, and a multimodal regimen of medication has been recommended. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the clinical evidence related to PONV prevention and management after craniotomy. All clinical trials in adult populations relevant to PONV after craniotomy available in English language and indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases from January 1997 up to September 2018 were retrieved using a combination of free-text words related to PONV in craniotomy. After screening manuscripts identified in the initial search, 23 clinical trials investigating systemic pharmacological intervention versus placebo or active control in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia met the criteria for inclusion in this comprehensive narrative review. The pathophysiology and mechanisms of PONV after craniotomy could be multifactorial in etiology. Therefore, based on current evidence, PONV management after craniotomy should focus on perioperative patient assessment, surgical, and anesthesia-related risk factors and the selection of systemic pharmacological considerations to reduce its incidence and complications. A multimodal regimen of medication targeting different chemoreceptors in the vomiting center is recommended. Ondansetron and dexamethasone, or their combination, are the most frequently used and effective agents. Further randomized clinical trials comparing different regimens that significantly reduce the incidence of PONV in craniotomy would provide relevant evidence-based data for PONV management in this patient population.

What is the ideal combination antiemetic regimen?

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are frequent unpleasant complaints that patients and clinicians report after surgery. PONV and PDNV have been associated with postoperative complications and hospital discharge delays. Despite the extensive evidence describing the use of several regimens in different surgical populations, the ideal regimen has not been established. Several antiemetic drugs have been evaluated in more than 1000 clinical controlled trials for management of this complex emetogenic pathway, including the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, neurokinin-type receptor antagonists, antihistaminics, anticholinergics, and corticosteroids, with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists being the most commonly used for PONV prophylaxis. Because of the complex emetogenic pathway and multifactorial etiology of PONV, a multimodal approach using two or more drugs that act at different neuro-receptor sites is suggested in patients with one or more risk factors to successfully address PONV and reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, the most studied regimens in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the combination of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with dexamethasone or dopamine receptor antagonists (droperidol). Therefore, the safest and more effective combination regimen appears to be the use of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs with dexamethasone.

Clevidipine use after first-line treatment failure for perioperative hypertension in neurosurgical patients: A single-center experience.

Perioperative hypertension is a common occurrence in the neurosurgical population, where 60% to 90% of the patients require treatment for blood pressure (BP) control. Nicardipine and clevidipine have been commonly used in neurocritical settings. This retrospective, observational study assessed the effectivity of the administration of clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure in neurosurgical patients.We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of adult patients who were admitted to our neurosurgical department and received clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure for the control of BP. The primary effectivity outcome was the comparison of the percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goals during nicardipine and clevidipine administration, respectively.A total of 12 adult patients treated with clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure and were included for data analysis. The median number of events that required dose-titration was 20.5 vs 17 during the administration of nicardipine and clevidipine, respectively (P = .534). The median percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goal was 76.2% during the administration of nicardipine and 93.4% during the administration of clevidipine (P = .123).Our study suggests that clevidipine could be an alternative effective drug with an acceptable benefit/risk ratio in the neurosurgical population that fails to achieve BP control with nicardipine treatment.

Efficacy of Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Reducing Perioperative Blood Loss and Blood Product Transfusion Requirements in Patients Undergoing Multilevel Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Surgeries: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction: Acute perioperative blood loss is a common and potentially major complication of multilevel spinal surgery, usually worsened by the number of levels fused and of osteotomies performed. Pharmacological approaches to blood conservation during spinal surgery include the use of intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA), an anti-fibrinolytic that has been widely used to reduce blood loss in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of intraoperative TXA in reducing estimated blood loss (EBL) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements in patients undergoing multilevel spinal fusion. Materials and Methods: This a single-center, retrospective study of subjects who underwent multilevel (≥7) spinal fusion surgery who received (TXA group) or did not receive (control group) IV TXA at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center between January 1st, 2016 and November 30th, 2018. Patient demographics, EBL, TXA doses, blood product requirements and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: A total of 76 adult subjects were included, of whom 34 received TXA during surgery (TXA group). The mean fusion length was 12 levels. The mean total loading, maintenance surgery and total dose of IV TXA was 1.5, 2.1 mg per kilo (mg/kg) per hour and 33.8 mg/kg, respectively. The mean EBL in the control was higher than the TXA group, 3,594.1 [2,689.7, 4,298.5] vs. 2,184.2 [1,290.2, 3,078.3] ml. Among all subjects, the mean number of intraoperative RBC and FFP units transfused was significantly higher in the control than in the TXA group. The total mean number of RBC and FFP units transfused in the control group was 8.1 [6.6, 9.7] and 7.7 [6.1, 9.4] compared with 5.1 [3.4, 6.8] and 4.6 [2.8, 6.4], respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative blood product transfusion rates between both groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in the incidence of 30-days postoperative complications between both groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the prophylactic use of TXA may reduce intraoperative EBL and RBC unit transfusion requirements in patients undergoing multilevel spinal fusion procedures ≥7 levels.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS): A Perspective Review of Postoperative Pain Management Under ERAS Pathways and Its Role on Opioid Crisis in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to review the current scientific evidence on the role of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementations in reducing postoperative opioid consumption and their potential association with the risk reduction for long-term opioid use, physical opioid dependency, and opioid addiction. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the following medical subject heading keywords: "postoperative pain," "postoperative pain management," "multimodal analgesia," "ERAS," "Enhanced Recovery," "opioid-free analgesia," or "opioid crisis." DISCUSSION: Identification and management of pre-existing psychosocial factors, comorbid pain entities, and chronic opioid use have a significant impact on the severity of postoperative pain. Different multimodal analgesia approaches have been associated with reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. Health care providers, patients, and family members should recognize the advantages of opioid-free analgesia techniques in postoperative pain management. As part of ERAS protocols, transitional pain services may consider current therapeutic alternatives for acute and long-term pain management that include minimizing perioperative opioid use and establishing adequate opioid prescription practices.

Pregabalin in the reduction of pain and opioid consumption after burn injuries: A preliminary, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of 300 milligrams (mg) and 600 mg of pregabalin compared to placebo in the reduction of pain in patients with noncritical partial and full thickness burn injuries. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, single center, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Simple randomization method was used in this trial. After subjects met all the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria, they were randomized and assigned to 1 of the 3 18-day treatments groups: Pregabalin 300 group, Pregabalin 600 group, or Placebo group. Demographics and clinical characteristics were recorded. The severity of pain was assessed by using the visual analog scale for pain intensity at baseline on day 3, day 9 ±â€Š3, day 25 ±â€Š7, day 90 ±â€Š6, and day 180 ±â€Š12. RESULTS: A total of 54 subjects were randomly assigned, and 51 were included in the data analysis. Demographics and clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between the 3 groups. There was a statistically significant difference in pain between the Pregabalin 300 and Pregabalin 600 groups (P-value = .0260). The Pregabalin 300 group had 17.93 units (95% confidence interval: 1.83-34.04) higher pain scores on average than the Pregabalin 600 group, regardless of time. The adjusted P-value comparing 0 to 300 was .1618, while the adjusted P-value for 0 versus 600 was .5304. There was an overall difference in pain across time regardless of study group (P-value = <.0001). An overall difference in opioid consumption (P-value = .0003) and BSHS (P-value = .0013) across time regardless of study group was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin could be part of a promising multimodal analgesic regimen in noncritical burn population. Future placebo-controlled studies assessing the use of pregabalin in burn victim patients may further endorse our findings.

Comparing the Efficacy of IV Ibuprofen and Ketorolac in the Management of Postoperative Pain Following Arthroscopic Knee Surgery. A Randomized Double-Blind Active Comparator Pilot Study.

Introduction: Acute postoperative pain following knee arthroscopy is common in orthopedic surgeries. Managing pain postoperatively combines usage of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The aim of this clinical study was to assess the efficacy of two different analgesic treatment regimens: intravenous (IV) ibuprofen and IV ketorolac for the treatment of postoperative pain pertaining to arthroscopic knee surgery. Methods: This was a single center, randomized, double-blind, parallel, active comparator clinical pilot study. Subjects were randomized to receive either IV ibuprofen, administered as two 800 mg doses or IV ketorolac, administered as a single 30 mg dose. Subjects in the ibuprofen group received 800 mg of IV ibuprofen within 2 h prior to surgery and a repeated second dose 4 h after the initial dose if they had not been discharged. Subjects in the ketorolac group received IV ketorolac 30 mg at the end of surgery, as per the manufacturer's recommendations. Pain assessments and opioid consumption data were collected up to 24 h postoperatively. Results: Of 53 randomized subjects, 51 completed the study. There were 20 subjects in the ibuprofen group and 31 subjects in the ketorolac group. The median (IQR) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at resting upon post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival was 33 (12, 52) vs. 9 (2, 25) (p = 0.0064) for the ketorolac and ibuprofen group, respectively. The median (IQR) visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at movement upon PACU arrival was 38 (20, 61) vs. 15 (6, 31) (p = 0.0018) for the ketorolac and ibuprofen group, respectively. Median VAS pain scores during movement taken at subsequent 30 min intervals in the ibuprofen group were less than half that of those reported in the ketorolac group for up to 90 min after arriving in PACU. The median VAS pain scores at rest and movement in the course of 120 min-24 h after PACU arrival was not statistically significant in both groups. Rescue opioid medication during PACU stay was required in 55.0% (N = 11) and 83.9% (N = 26), with a mean amount of narcotic consumption (oral morphine conversion) of 5.53 ± 5.89 mg vs. 19.92 ± 15.63 mg for the ibuprofen and ketorolac group, respectively (P < 0.001). However, opioid consumption during the first 24 h after PACU discharge was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.637). The mean time to first rescue medication was 77.62 ± 33.03 and 55.78 ± 35.37 for the ibuprofen and ketorolac group, respectively (p-value = 0.0456). There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction and documented adverse events during the first 24 h. Conclusion: This pilot study showed that the use of preemptive IV ibuprofen 800 mg could be considered to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Future prospective clinical trials using similar regimens should be conducted in order to gain a better understanding of how to best provide perioperative analgesic regimens. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01650519.

A retrospective analysis on patients at high-risk for obstructive sleep apnea undergoing ear, nose, and throat surgeries.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may be related to episodes of oxygen de-saturation, hypercapnia, cardiovascular dysfunction, cor-pulmonale, and pulmonary hypertension. STOP-BANG is an acronym for eight specific questions used to assess the likelihood of OSA. If the individual exhibits three or more of these indicators, he/she should be considered to be at high risk for OSA complications. Therefore, the decision of proceeding with inpatient versus outpatient ENT surgery still remains controversial. The primary objective of the study was to identify and correlate desaturation (SPO2 <90%) episodes and risk factors. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study between October 1, 2011 and August 31, 2014 in order to identify postoperative complications during the first 24 hours that justify postoperative monitoring and hospital admission. A total of 292 subjects were included for data analysis. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of OSA risk factors: group A with 3-4 risk factors (n = 166), and group B with ≥5 risk factors (n = 126). The following information was collected: demographics, ASA, preoperative STOP-BANG score, length of surgery, intraoperative complications, opioid consumption, post anesthesia care unit (PACU) and overall length of stay, supplemental oxygen requirement, oxygen desaturation, and postoperative opioid consumption. Results: No statistically significant difference was found when comparing demographic variables between both groups. All STOP-BANG variables showed statistical significance. PACU and inpatient variables were similar among both groups, with the exception of length of hospital stay (longer stay in group B when compared to group A [p = 0.003]). Desaturation differences between both groups during PACU were statistically significant (p = 0.008). A post-hoc analysis showed a 0% incidence of overall desaturation in the group with three STOP-BANG indicators. Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis concluded that patients diagnosed with three STOP-BANG risk factors did not experience postoperative complications and hospital admission was not justified. Level of Evidence: 4.

Comparison of visual evoked potential monitoring during spine surgeries under total intravenous anesthesia versus balanced general anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparison of its clinical utility and safety profile for visual evoked potential (VEP) monitoring during prone spine surgeries under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus balanced general anesthesia using the SightSaver™ visual stimulator. METHODS: The protocol was designed asa pilot, single center, prospective, randomized, and double-arm study. Subjects were randomized to receive either TIVA or balanced general anesthesia. Following induction and intubation, 8 electrodes were placed subcutaneously to collect VEP recordings. The SightSaver™ visual stimulator was placed on the subject's scalp before prone positioning. VEP waveforms were recorded every 30min and assessed by a neurophysiologist throughout the length of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 19 subjects were evaluated and VEP waveforms were successfully collected. TIVA group showed higher amplitude and lower latency than balanced anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested that TIVA is associated with higher VEP amplitude and shorter latencies than balanced general anesthesia; therefore, TIVA could be the most efficient anesthesia regimen for VEP monitoring. SIGNIFICANCE: The findings help to better understand the effect of different anesthesia regimens on intra-operative VEP monitoring.

A Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Blind Study Assessing Indices of SNAP II Versus BIS VISTA on Surgical Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, anesthesiologists have relied on nonspecific subjective and objective physical signs to assess patients' comfort level and depth of anesthesia. Commercial development of electrical monitors, which use low- and high-frequency electroencephalogram (EEG) signals, have been developed to enhance the assessment of patients' level of consciousness. Multiple studies have shown that monitoring patients' consciousness levels can help in reducing drug consumption, anesthesia-related adverse events, and recovery time. This clinical study will provide information by simultaneously comparing the performance of the SNAP II (a single-channel EEG device) and the bispectral index (BIS) VISTA (a dual-channel EEG device) by assessing their efficacy in monitoring different anesthetic states in patients undergoing general anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to establish the range of index values for the SNAP II corresponding to each anesthetic state (preinduction, loss of response, maintenance, first purposeful response, and extubation). The secondary objectives will assess the range of index values for BIS VISTA corresponding to each anesthetic state compared to published BIS VISTA range information, and estimate the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity for both devices. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective, double-arm, parallel assignment, single-blind study involving patients undergoing elective surgery that requires general anesthesia. The study will include 40 patients and will be conducted at the following sites: The Ohio State University Medical Center (Columbus, OH); Northwestern University Prentice Women's Hospital (Chicago, IL); and University of Miami Jackson Memorial Hospital (Miami, FL). The study will assess the predictive value of SNAP II versus BIS VISTA indices at various anesthetic states in patients undergoing general anesthesia (preinduction, loss of response, maintenance, first purposeful response, and extubation). The SNAP II and BIS VISTA electrode arrays will be placed on the patient's forehead on opposite sides. The hemisphere location for both devices' electrodes will be equally alternated among the patient population. The index values for both devices will be recorded and correlated with the scorings received by performing the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Continuum of Depth of Sedation, at different stages of anesthesia. RESULTS: Enrollment for this study has been completed and statistical data analyses are currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial will provide information that will simultaneously compare the performance of SNAP II and BIS VISTA devices, with regards to monitoring different anesthesia states among patients. CLINICALTRIAL: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00829803; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00829803 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6nmyi8YKO).

Multicenter Study Validating Accuracy of a Continuous Respiratory Rate Measurement Derived From Pulse Oximetry: A Comparison With Capnography.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent measurement of respiratory rate via observation is routine in many patient care settings. This approach has several inherent limitations that diminish the clinical utility of these measurements because it is intermittent, susceptible to human error, and requires clinical resources. As an alternative, a software application that derives continuous respiratory rate measurement from a standard pulse oximeter has been developed. We sought to determine the performance characteristics of this new technology by comparison with clinician-reviewed capnography waveforms in both healthy subjects and hospitalized patients in a low-acuity care setting. METHODS: Two independent observational studies were conducted to validate the performance of the Medtronic Nellcor Respiration Rate Software application. One study enrolled 26 healthy volunteer subjects in a clinical laboratory, and a second multicenter study enrolled 53 hospitalized patients. During a 30-minute study period taking place while participants were breathing spontaneously, pulse oximeter and nasal/oral capnography waveforms were collected. Pulse oximeter waveforms were processed to determine respiratory rate via the Medtronic Nellcor Respiration Rate Software. Capnography waveforms reviewed by a clinician were used to determine the reference respiratory rate. RESULTS: A total of 23,243 paired observations between the pulse oximeter-derived respiratory rate and the capnography reference method were collected and examined. The mean reference-based respiratory rate was 15.3 ± 4.3 breaths per minute with a range of 4 to 34 breaths per minute. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the Medtronic Nellcor Respiration Rate Software values and the capnography reference respiratory rate is reported as a linear correlation, R, as 0.92 ± 0.02 (P < .001), whereas Lin's concordance correlation coefficient indicates an overall agreement of 0.85 ± 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] +0.76; +0.93) (healthy volunteers: 0.94 ± 0.02 [95% CI +0.91; +0.97]; hospitalized patients: 0.80 ± 0.06 [95% CI +0.68; +0.92]). The mean bias of the Medtronic Nellcor Respiration Rate Software was 0.18 breaths per minute with a precision (SD) of 1.65 breaths per minute (healthy volunteers: 0.37 ± 0.78 [95% limits of agreement: -1.16; +1.90] breaths per minute; hospitalized patients: 0.07 ± 1.99 [95% limits of agreement: -3.84; +3.97] breaths per minute). The root mean square deviation was 1.35 breaths per minute (healthy volunteers: 0.81; hospitalized patients: 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate the performance of the Medtronic Nellcor Respiration Rate Software in healthy subjects and patients hospitalized in a low-acuity care setting when compared with clinician-reviewed capnography. The observed performance of this technology suggests that it may be a useful adjunct to continuous pulse oximetry monitoring by providing continuous respiratory rate measurements. The potential patient safety benefit of using combined continuous pulse oximetry and respiratory rate monitoring warrants assessment.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Double-Dummy Pilot Study to Assess the Preemptive Effect of Triple Therapy with Aprepitant, Dexamethasone, and Promethazine versus Ondansetron, Dexamethasone and Promethazine on Reducing the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Experienced by Patients Undergoing Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common distressing complications of surgery under anesthesia. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo craniotomy have incidences of nausea and vomiting as high as 50-70%. The main purpose of this pilot study is to assess the incidence of PONV by using two different prophylactic regimens in subjects undergoing a craniotomy. Thus, we designed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with the combination of dexamethasone, promethazine, and aprepitant versus ondansetron to reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, single center, two-armed, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, pilot study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Subjects received 40 mg of aprepitant pill (or matching placebo pill) 30-60 min before induction of anesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron IV (or 2 ml of placebo saline solution) at induction of anesthesia. In addition, all subjects received 25 mg of promethazine IV and 10 mg of dexamethasone IV at induction of anesthesia. Assessments of PONV commenced for the first 24 h after surgery and were subsequently assessed for up to 5 days. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 31.0% (n = 15) in the aprepitant group and 36.2% (n = 17) for the ondansetron group. The median times to first emetic and significant nausea episodes were 7.6 (2.9, 48.7) and 14.3 (4.4, 30.7) hours, respectively, for the aprepitant group and 6.0 (2.2, 29.5) and 9.6 (0.7, 35.2) hours, respectively, for the ondansetron group. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups. No adverse events directly related to study medications were found. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed similar effectiveness when comparing the two PONV prophylaxis regimens. Our data showed that both treatments could be effective regimens to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia. Future trials testing new PONV prophylaxis regimens in this surgical population should be performed to gain a better understanding of how to best provide prophylactic treatment.

The Effect of a Combination Treatment Using Palonosetron, Promethazine, and Dexamethasone on the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and QTc Interval Duration in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy under General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a displeasing experience that distresses surgical patients during the first 24 h after a surgical procedure. The incidence of postoperative nausea occurs in about 50%, the incidence of postoperative vomiting is about 30%, and in high-risk patients, the PONV rate could be as high as 80%. Therefore, the study design of this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a triple therapy combination with palonosetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomies under general anesthesia. METHODS: The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board and 40 subjects were provided written informed consent. At induction of anesthesia, a triple therapy of palonosetron 0.075 mg IV, dexamethasone 10 mg IV, and promethazine 25 mg IV was given as PONV prophylaxis. After surgery, subjects were transferred to the surgical intensive care unit or post anesthesia care unit as clinically indicated. Ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered as primary rescue medication to subjects with PONV symptoms. PONV was assessed and collected every 24 h for 5 days via direct interview and/or medical charts review. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12) and 7.5% (n = 3), respectively. The mean time to first emetic episode, first rescue, and first significant nausea was 31.3 (±33.6), 15.1 (±25.8), and 21.1 (±25.4) hours, respectively. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting after 24-120 h period after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The percentage of subjects without emesis episodes over 24-120 h postoperatively was 70% (n = 28). No subjects presented a prolonged QTc interval ≥500 ms before and/or after surgery. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated that this triple therapy regimen may be an adequate alternative regimen for the treatment of PONV in patients undergoing neurological surgery under general anesthesia. More studies with a control group should be performed to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen and that palonosetron is a low risk for QTc prolongation. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02635828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02635828).

BMI as a Predictor for Potential Difficult Tracheal Intubation in Males.

INTRODUCTION: Difficult tracheal intubation is a common source of mortality and morbidity in surgical and critical care settings. The incidence reported of difficult tracheal intubation is 0.1%-13% and reaches 14% in the obese population. The objective of our retrospective study was to investigate and compare the utility of body mass index (BMI) as indicator of difficult tracheal intubation in males and females. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent abdominal surgeries with American Society of Anesthesiologists I to V under general anesthesia requiring endotracheal intubation. The following information was obtained from medical records for analysis: gender, age, height, weight, BMI, length of patient stay in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit, past medical history of sleep apnea, Mallampati score, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification assigned by the anesthesia care provider performing the endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: Of 4303 adult patients, 1970 (45.8%) men and 2333 (54.2%) women were enrolled in the study. Within this group, a total of 1673 (38.9%) patients were morbidly obese. The average age of the study group was 51.4 ± 15.8 and the average BMI was 29.7 ± 8.2 kg/m(2). The overall incidence of the encountered difficult intubations was 5.23% or 225 subjects. Thus, our results indicate that BMI is a reliable predictor of difficult tracheal intubation predominantly in the male population; another strong predictor, with a positive linear correlation, being the Mallampati score. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data shows that BMI is a reliable indicator of potential difficult tracheal intubation only in male surgical patients.

Triple Therapy with Scopolamine, Ondansetron, and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High-Risk Patients Undergoing Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complaints from patients and clinicians after a surgical procedure. According to the current Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia Consensus Guidelines, the general incidence of vomiting and nausea is around 30 and 50%, respectively; and up to 80% in high-risk patients. In previous studies, the reported incidence of PONV at 24 h after craniotomy was 43-70%. The transdermal scopolamine (TDS) delivery system contains a 1.5-mg drug reservoir, which is designed to deliver a continuous slow release of scopolamine through intact skin during the first 72 h of patch application. Therefore, we designed this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with scopolamine, ondansetron, and dexamethasone to prevent PONV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the preoperative area, subjects received an active TDS 1.5 mg that was applied to a hairless patch of skin in the mastoid area approximately 2 h prior to the operation. Immediately after anesthesia induction, all patients received a single 4 mg dose of ondansetron IV and a single 10 mg dose of dexamethasone IV. Patients who experienced nausea and/or vomiting received ondansetron 4 mg IV as the initial rescue medication. Postoperative nausea and vomiting assessments were performed for up to 120 h after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects were analyzed. The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after neurological surgery was 33% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis during the first 24 h after surgery was recorded as 33% (n = 12) and 16% (n = 6), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that this triple therapy regimen may be an efficient alternative regimen for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing neurological surgery with general anesthesia. Further studies using regimens affecting different receptor pathways should be performed to better prove the efficacy and safety in the prevention or delay of PONV.