Periprocedural Management and Multidisciplinary Care Pathways for Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The rapid technological advancements in cardiac implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and loop recorders, coupled with a rise in the number of patients with these devices, necessitate an updated clinical framework for periprocedural management. The introduction of leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous and extravascular defibrillators, and novel device communication protocols underscores the imperative for clinical updates. This scientific statement provides an inclusive framework for the periprocedural management of patients with these devices, encompassing the planning phase, procedure, and subsequent care coordinated with the primary device managing clinic. Expert contributions from anesthesiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists, and cardiac nurses are consolidated to appraise current evidence, offer patient and health system management strategies, and highlight key areas for future research. The statement, pertinent to a wide range of health care professionals, underscores the importance of quality care pathways for patient safety, optimal device function, and minimization of hemodynamic disturbances or arrhythmias during procedures. Our primary objective is to deliver quality care to the expanding patient cohort with cardiac implanted electronic devices, offering direction in the era of evolving technologies and laying a foundation for sustained education and practice enhancement.

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Reviewing Ethical Guidelines for the Care of Patients with Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders after 30 Years: Rethinking Our Approach at a Time of Transition.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) opposes automatic reversal of do-not-resuscitate orders during the perioperative period, instead advocating for a goal-directed approach that aligns decision-making with patients' priorities and clinical circumstances. Implementation of ASA guidelines continues to face significant barriers including time constraints, lack of longitudinal relationships with patients, and difficulty translating goal-focused discussion into concrete clinical plans. These challenges mirror those of advance care planning more generally, suggesting a need for novel frameworks for serious illness communication and patient-centered decision-making. This review considers ASA guidelines in the context of ongoing transitions to serious illness communication and increasingly multidisciplinary perioperative care. It aims to provide practical guidance for the practicing anesthesiologist while also acknowledging the complexity of decision-making, considering limitations inherent to anesthesiologists' role, and outlining a need to conceptualize delivery of ethically informed care as a collaborative, multidisciplinary endeavor.

Perspectives on Anesthesia and Perioperative Patient Safety: Past, Present, and Future.

During the past 70 years, patient safety science has evolved through four organizational frameworks known as Safety-0, Safety -1, Safety-2, and Safety-3. Their evolution reflects the realization over time that blaming people, chasing errors, fixing one-offs, and regulation would not create the desired patient safety. In Safety-0, the oldest framework, harm events arise from clinician failure; event prevention relies on better staffing, education, and basic standards. In Safety-1, used by hospitals, harm events arise from individual and/or system failures. Safety is improved through analytics, workplace culture, high reliability principles, technology, and quality improvement. Safety-2 emphasizes clinicians' adaptability to prevent harm events in an everchanging environment, using resilience engineering principles. Safety-3, used by aviation, adds system design and control elements to Safety-1 and Safety-2, deploying human factors, design-thinking, and operational control or feedback to prevent and respond to harm events. Safety-3 represents a potential way for anesthesia and perioperative care to become safer.

Improving care in lung cancer surgery: a review of quality measures and evolving standards.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Pulmonary resection, in addition to perioperative systemic therapies, is a cornerstone of treatment for operable patients with early-stage and locoregional disease. In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on surgical quality metrics: specific and evidence-based structural, process, and outcome measures that aim to decrease variation in lung cancer care and improve long term outcomes. These metrics can be divided into potential areas of intervention or improvement in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care and form the basis of guidelines issued by organizations including the National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). This review focuses on established quality metrics associated with lung cancer surgery with an emphasis on the most recent research and guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 18 months, quality metrics across the peri-operative care period were explored, including optimal invasive mediastinal staging preoperatively, the extent of intraoperative lymphadenectomy, surgical approaches related to minimally invasive resection, and enhanced recovery pathways that facilitate early discharge following pulmonary resection. SUMMARY: Quality metrics in lung cancer surgery is an exciting and important area of research. Adherence to quality metrics has been shown to improve overall survival and guidelines supporting their use allows targeted quality improvement efforts at a local level to facilitate more consistent, less variable oncologic outcomes across centers.

Gastrointestinal Surgical Patient and Multidisciplinary Healthcare Provider Beliefs and Practices Around Perioperative Nutrition: A Mixed-Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: Nutrition is critical to gastrointestinal (GI) disease prevention and treatment, including operations, yet perioperative nutrition practices vary widely. We aimed to understand GI surgical patient and health care provider's perioperative nutrition beliefs and practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach, including a patient survey (n = 19), provider survey (n = 26), and semistructured interviews with a subset of providers (n = 15). Providers included surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, advanced practice providers, and dietitians. Provider interviews were transcribed, iteratively coded, and thematically analyzed. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated. RESULTS: 94.7% of patients and 100% of providers surveyed believe that nutrition affects outcomes. Patients seek nutrition information from diverse resources (73.7% from websites or blogs, 42.1% from documentaries, and 36.8% from books or /magazines) and people (52.6% from family members, 42.1% from a significant other, partner, or spouse, and 36.8% from a dietitian or nutritionist). Providers cited a lack of quality information, misinformation, and inconsistency among health care providers as barriers to high-quality nutrition care. Both patients and providers noted that nutritional supplements have drawbacks, with 100% of patients and 96.2% of providers expressing interest in house- made plant-based protein smoothie or soup alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: This study led to the development of a multidisciplinary task force, which has collaborated on multiple interventions to improve inpatient perioperative surgical nutrition (e.g., smoothie pilot and postoperative menu revisions).

Challenges in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) research.

Despite the general agreement that implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways decrease hospital length of stay, a continuous challenge that has often been neglected is a procedure- and patient-specific approach. For example, asking 'Why is the patient still in hospital?' is the original premise for ERAS. Outcomes improve with increased compliance with recommended elements, but overcomplication of pathways can lead to cherry picking of elements that are convenient, resulting in 'partial ERAS'. As there are few high-quality randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluate the specific role of individual preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative elements, challenges lie ahead to identify essential ERAS elements to facilitate more widespread implementation. To achieve this goal, the balance between large RCTs and smaller detailed hypothesis-generating observational studies needs to be addressed in order to enhance knowledge and limit waste of research resources.

PeriOperative Quality Initiative (POQI) international consensus statement on perioperative arterial pressure management.

Arterial pressure monitoring and management are mainstays of haemodynamic therapy in patients having surgery. This article presents updated consensus statements and recommendations on perioperative arterial pressure management developed during the 11th POQI PeriOperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus conference held in London, UK, on June 4-6, 2023, which included a diverse group of international experts. Based on a modified Delphi approach, we recommend keeping intraoperative mean arterial pressure ≥60 mm Hg in at-risk patients. We further recommend increasing mean arterial pressure targets when venous or compartment pressures are elevated and treating hypotension based on presumed underlying causes. When intraoperative hypertension is treated, we recommend doing so carefully to avoid hypotension. Clinicians should consider continuous intraoperative arterial pressure monitoring as it can help reduce the severity and duration of hypotension compared to intermittent arterial pressure monitoring. Postoperative hypotension is often unrecognised and might be more important than intraoperative hypotension because it is often prolonged and untreated. Future research should focus on identifying patient-specific and organ-specific hypotension harm thresholds and optimal treatment strategies for intraoperative hypotension including choice of vasopressors. Research is also needed to guide monitoring and management strategies for recognising, preventing, and treating postoperative hypotension.

The quality of guidelines on the pancreatic perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery: a systematic quality appraisal using AGREE II instrument.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of guidelines on the pancreatic perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery both domestically and internationally, providing reference and reference for clinical practice. METHODS: Systemically retrieved in the guideline websites, professional association websites and databases, such as up to date, BMJ Best Practice, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database(VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), Medlive, Guidelines International Network(GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse(NGC), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(NICE), Registered Nurses Association of Ontario(RNAO), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network(SIGN), Joanna Briggs Institute Library(JBI), including guidelines and expert consensus on enhanced postsurgical recovery in pancreatic surgery published as of December 20, 2023. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II(AGREE II) tool was applied to evaluate the quality of the guidelines by four assessors. RESULTS: This study included seven guidelines, all of which were rated as Grade B in terms of quality, with ICC coefficients ranging from 0.752 to 0.884, indicating a high level of consistency. CONCLUSION: When formulating guidelines in the future, it is recommended to use AGREE II as a reference, emphasizing the standardization of the guideline development process and methods, fully considering patients' values and preferences, focusing on the applicability of the guidelines, and striving to create high-quality evidence-based recommendations.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology. RESULT: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Standardizing process in acute biliary disease.

INTRODUCTION: The perioperative management of biliary disease (BD) is variable across institutions with suboptimal outcomes for patients and health care systems. This results in inefficient utilization of limited resources. The aim of the current study was to identify modifiable factors impacting patients' time to theater, intraoperative time, and time to discharge as the constituents of length of stay to guide creation of a perioperative management protocol to address this variability. METHODS: Data were prospectively captured at Christchurch Hospital for all adult patients presenting for cholecystectomy between May 2015 and May 2022. Pre, post, and intraoperative factors were assessed for their impact on time to theater, operative time, and postoperative hours to discharge. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred seventy-seven patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period, of which 2807 (61%) were acute presentations and made up the cohort for analysis. Time to theater was significantly impacted by preoperative imaging type, while operative grade and the procedure type had the most clinically significant impact on operative time. Postoperatively time to discharge was significantly impacted by drain placement. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing management of BD would likely result in significant savings for the health care system and improved outcomes for patients. The data seen here evidence the importance of appropriate imaging selection, intraoperative difficulty operative grade identification, and low suction drain selection. These data have been incorporated in a perioperative management protocol as standardization of care across the patient workflow in BD is a sensible approach for ensuring optimal use of scarce resources.

Enhanced recovery protocols after surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses combining randomized and observational evidence in cardiac surgery have shown positive impact of enhanced recovery protocols after surgery (ERAS) on postoperative outcomes. However, definitive data based on randomized studies are missing, and the entirety of the ERAS measures and pathway, as recently systematized in guidelines and consensus statements, have not been captured in the published studies. The available literature actually focuses on "ERAS-like" protocols or only limited number of ERAS measures. This study aims at analyzing all randomized studies applying ERAS-like protocols in cardiac surgery for perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS-like with standard protocols of perioperative care was performed (PROSPERO registration CRD42021283765). PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting and assessing data. RESULTS: Thirteen single center RCTs (N = 1704, 850 in ERAS-like protocol and 854 in the standard care group) were selected. The most common procedures were surgical revascularization (66.3%) and valvular surgery (24.9%). No difference was found in the incidence of inhospital mortality between the ERAS and standard treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0.61 [0.31; 1.20], p = 0.15). ERAS was associated with reduced intensive care unit (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.57, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (SMD -0.23, p < 0.01) and reduced rates of overall complications when compared to the standard protocol (RR 0.60, p < 0.01) driven by the reduction in stroke (RR 0.29 [0.13; 0.62], p < 0.01). A significant heterogeneity in terms of the elements of the ERAS protocol included in the studies was observed. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS-like protocols have no impact on short-term survival after cardiac surgery but allows for a faster hospital discharge while potentially reducing surgical complications. However, this study highlights a significant nonadherence and heterogeneity to the entirety of ERAS protocols warranting further RCTs in this field including a greater number of elements of the framework.

Implementation of a perioperative registry in Ethiopia to enhance surgical quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Despite a glaring need and proven efficacy, prospective surgical registries are lacking in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to design and implement a comprehensive prospective perioperative registry in a low-income country. METHODS: This study was conducted at Hawassa University Comprehensive Specialized Hospital in Hawassa, Ethiopia. Design of the registry occurred from June 2021 to May 2022 and pilot implementation from May 2022 to May 2023. All patients undergoing elective or emergent general surgery were included. Following one year, operability and fidelity of the registry were analyzed by assessing capture rate, incidence of missing data, and accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 67 variables were included in the registry including demographics, preoperative, operative, post-operative, and 30-day data. Of 440 eligible patients, 226 (51.4%) were successfully captured. Overall incidence of missing data and accuracy was 5.4% and 90.2% respectively. Post pilot modifications enhanced capture rate to 70.5% and further optimized data collection processes. CONCLUSION: The establishment of a low-cost electronic prospective perioperative registry in a low-income country represents a significant step forward in enhancing surgical care in under-resourced settings. The initial success of this registry highlights the feasibility of such endeavors when strong partnerships and local context are at the center of implementation. Continuous efforts to refine this registry are ongoing, which will ultimately lead to enhanced surgical quality, research output, and expansion to other sites.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Updated Consensus Statement on Perioperative Blood Glucose Management in Adult Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery.

This consensus statement is a comprehensive update of the 2010 Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) Consensus Statement on perioperative blood glucose management in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing ambulatory surgery. Since the original consensus guidelines in 2010, several novel therapeutic interventions have been introduced to treat DM, including new hypoglycemic agents and increasing prevalence of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors. The updated recommendations were developed by an expert task force under the provision of SAMBA and are based on a comprehensive review of the literature from 1980 to 2022. The task force included SAMBA members with expertise on this topic and those contributing to the primary literature regarding the management of DM in the perioperative period. The recommendations encompass preoperative evaluation of patients with DM presenting for ambulatory surgery, management of preoperative oral hypoglycemic agents and home insulins, intraoperative testing and treatment modalities, and blood glucose management in the postanesthesia care unit and transition to home after surgery. High-quality evidence pertaining to perioperative blood glucose management in patients with DM undergoing ambulatory surgery remains sparse. Recommendations are therefore based on recent guidelines and available literature, including general glucose management in patients with DM, data from inpatient surgical populations, drug pharmacology, and emerging treatment data. Areas in need of further research are also identified. Importantly, the benefits and risks of interventions and clinical practice information were considered to ensure that the recommendations maintain patient safety and are clinically valid and useful in the ambulatory setting. What Other Guidelines Are Available on This Topic? Since the publication of the SAMBA Consensus Statement for perioperative blood glucose management in the ambulatory setting in 2010, several recent guidelines have been issued by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), the Endocrine Society, the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC), and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) on DM care in hospitalized patients; however, none are specific to ambulatory surgery. How Does This Guideline Differ From the Previous Guidelines? Previously posed clinical questions that were outdated were revised to reflect current clinical practice. Additional questions were developed relating to the perioperative management of patients with DM to include the newer therapeutic interventions.

Management of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Anticoagulation in the Perioperative Period: The Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Anticoagulation CollaborativE Consensus Conference.

OBJECTIVES: To derive systematic review-informed, modified Delphi consensus regarding the management of children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) undergoing invasive procedures or interventions developed by the Pediatric Anticoagulation on ECMO CollaborativE (PEACE) Consensus Conference. DATA SOURCES: A structured literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases from January 1988 to May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: ECMO anticoagulation and hemostasis management in the perioperative period and during procedures. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors reviewed all citations independently, with a third independent reviewer resolving any conflicts. Seventeen references were used for data extraction and informed recommendations. Evidence tables were constructed using a standardized data extraction form. DATA SYNTHESIS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. The evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Forty-eight experts met over 2 years to develop evidence-based recommendations and, when evidence was lacking, expert-based consensus statements for the management of bleeding and thrombotic complications in pediatric ECMO patients. A web-based modified Delphi process was used to build consensus via the Research And Development/University of California Appropriateness Method. Consensus was defined as greater than 80% agreement. Four good practice statements, 7 recommendations, and 18 consensus statements are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Although agreement among experts was strong, important future research is required in this population for evidence-informed recommendations.

Peri-operative care of transgender and gender-diverse individuals: guidance for clinicians and departments.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this document is to guide best practice to ensure the safety and dignity of transgender and gender-diverse people in the peri-operative period. While transgender and gender-diverse people may have specific health needs in relation to gender dysphoria, their health requirements go beyond their gender identity. Most doctors will provide care to someone who is transgender or gender-diverse at some stage in their career. It is therefore important that all anaesthetists are educated on specific considerations when caring for these patients. METHODS: A working party was assembled consisting of individuals with experience in direct clinical care of the relevant patient group, those who have expertise in endocrinology and gender-affirming hormones, educators on the topic of transgender and gender-diverse healthcare, and authors of both cisgender and transgender identities. After discussion among the working party, targeted searches of literature were undertaken. RESULTS: The authors initially came up with a list of over 25 recommendations which was subsequently revised to a list of 15 recommendations after further review by the working party. These included airway assessment and management; management of hormonal therapy; relevant issues in obstetric anaesthesia; and hospital infrastructure and processes. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides the first guidance produced to advise on best practice to ensure the safety and dignity of trans and gender-diverse individuals in the peri-operative period.

Peri-operative pain management in adults: a multidisciplinary consensus statement from the Association of Anaesthetists and the British Pain Society.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of adult patients undergoing surgery experience moderate or severe postoperative pain. Inadequate pain management hampers postoperative recovery and function and may be associated with adverse outcomes. This multidisciplinary consensus statement provides principles that might aid postoperative recovery, and which should be applied throughout the entire peri-operative pathway by healthcare professionals, institutions and patients. METHODS: We conducted a directed literature review followed by a four-round modified Delphi process to formulate recommendations for organisations and individuals. RESULTS: We make recommendations for the entire peri-operative period, covering pre-admission; admission; intra-operative; post-anaesthetic care unit; ward; intensive care unit; preparation for discharge; and post-discharge phases of care. We also provide generic principles of peri-operative pain management that clinicians should consider throughout the peri-operative pathway, including: assessing pain to facilitate function; use of multimodal analgesia, including regional anaesthesia; non-pharmacological strategies; safe use of opioids; and use of protocols and training for staff in caring for patients with postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that with attention to these principles and their implementation, outcomes for adult patients having surgery might be improved.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Spine Pathways and the Role of Perioperative Checklists.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. ERAS pathways have been shown to help reduce complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, pain scores, and ultimately surgical costs, while improving patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in multiple surgical subspecialties [1-6]. Numerous specialties have implemented ERAS programs across the globe, providing a foundation for spine surgeons to begin the process themselves. Over the last few years, a significant number of papers have been addressing ERAS pathways for spinal surgery [7-19]. The majority have addressed the lumbar spine [9, 20-26]. The number of cervical ERAS pathways has been limited [27-29]. Many spine programs have begun the implementation of ERAS pathways, incorporating principles and interventions to various spine surgical procedures. Although differences in implementation across programs exist, there are a few common elements that promote a successful enhanced recovery approach [11, 16, 23, 25, 30-33]. All spinal ERAS pathways have three major elements, which are preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. Within these phases some common elements include preoperative and intraoperative surgical checklists. Intraoperative checklist in addition to the "surgical time out" has been integrated into the workflow of most hospitals doing surgeries and have become a standard of care. The surgical checklist is designed to help reduce surgical errors and prevent wrong site/patient surgeries. Several surgical checklists have been developed throughout the years. Despite these safety protocols wrong site/level and other surgical errors continue to occur. Many cases of wrong level spine surgery (WLSS) still occur even when intraoperative imaging is performed [34, 35]. One survey reported that about 50% of spine surgeons have performed at least one WLSS during their career [36, 37]. Another survey reported that 36% of spine surgeons had performed at least one WLSS that was not recognized intraoperatively [38]. On a similar account, about 30% of spine surgery fellows have experienced wrong-site surgery [39]. From raw incidence rates, WLSS may seem rare, but these surveys show that the experience of WLSS is rather common among spine surgeons. WLSS is not yet a "never event." This may be due to poor quality of the intraoperative images, hindering subsequent level identification [34, 35, 38, 40]. Errors in interpretation of the imaging may also occur, including inconsistency in numbering vertebrae, inconsistency in landmark usage for level counting, and problems with numbering vertebrae due to lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) and other anatomical variants [34, 38, 41-43]. This chapter will describe a framework for the development and implementation of ERAS pathway for patients undergoing spine surgery. In addition, we will propose preoperative imaging guidelines and a comprehensive spine surgical checklist to incorporate into the perioperative phase to help reduce further surgical errors and WLSS.

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review.

PURPOSE: Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery. SOURCE: We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b). CONCLUSION: This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'amélioration de la prestation des soins périopératoires dépend de la capacité de mesurer les résultats qui peuvent orienter des changements significatifs dans la pratique. Nous avons cherché à identifier et à fournir une vue d'ensemble des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité spécifiques à la pratique de l'anesthésie en chirurgie non cardiaque. SOURCES: Nous avons mené une revue d'ensemble (une revue systématique des revues systématiques) selon la méthodologie de l'Institut Joanna Briggs. Nous avons inclus des revues systématiques examinant les indicateurs périopératoires chez les patient·es âgé·es de 18 ans ou plus bénéficiant d'une chirurgie non cardiaque. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était tout indicateur de qualité spécifique à l'anesthésie. Les indicateurs ont été classés en fonction du système de Donabedian et de la phase périopératoire des soins. La qualité des revues systématiques a été évaluée à l'aide des critères AMSTAR 2. Le niveau de donnée probante des indicateurs de qualité a été stratifié selon l'Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Notre recherche a permis de trouver 1475 études. Après avoir éliminé les doublons et examiné les résumés et les textes intégraux, 23 revues systématiques englobant 3164 études primaires ont répondu à nos critères d'inclusion. Il y avait 330 indicateurs de qualité uniques. Les indicateurs de processus étaient les plus courants (n = 169), suivi des indicateurs de résultats (n = 114) et des indicateurs de structure (n = 47). Peu d'indicateurs identifiés étaient étayés par des données probantes de haut niveau (45/330, 14 %). Les données probantes de niveau 1 ont confirmé les indicateurs de l'antibioprophylaxie (1a), de la prophylaxie pour la thromboembolie veineuse (1a), de la prophylaxie postopératoire pour les nausées/vomissements (1b), du maintien de la normothermie (1a) et de la fluidothérapie ciblée (1b). CONCLUSION: Cet examen d'ensemble met en évidence la rareté des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité qui sont étayés par des données probantes de haute qualité. L'élaboration future d'indicateurs de qualité et de recommandations pour la mesure des résultats devrait être axée sur des paramètres étayés par des données probantes de niveau 1. Les cibles potentielles des programmes d'amélioration de la qualité de l'anesthésie fondés sur des données probantes sont identifiées dans le présent manuscrit. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); premier enregistrement le 28 avril 2020.

Comparison of societal guidance on perioperative management of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: implications for clinical practice and future investigations.

PURPOSE: The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) by patients undergoing surgery and procedures requiring anesthesia has become a topic of significant concern for perioperative providers because of the potential increased risk of aspiration resulting from the medication's effect of delaying gastric emptying. There is currently a lack of high-quality data regarding the safety of GLP-1 RAs in patients undergoing surgery, which has led to variations in practice. SOURCE: We performed an internet search of society-endorsed statements and guidelines related to perioperative management of GLP-1 RAs, focusing on the top 20 countries with the largest anesthesiology societies determined by membership data from the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists. We excluded articles and websites that were not in English. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our search revealed endorsed statements from fourteen major anesthesiology, endocrinology, and gastroenterology societies. There was considerable variation between societies in the recommendations and guidance for withholding these medications before surgery, the duration of withholding, assessment of the need for avoiding deep sedation or general anesthesia, use of rapid sequence intubation, need for prolonged fasting periods and clear fluid before a nil per os period, recognition of signs and symptoms for aspiration risk, the management of glucose in the perioperative period, and the use of point-of-care ultrasound for risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Society-endorsed statements and guidelines provide varying recommendations on the perioperative management of GLP-1 RAs. The insights gained from this comparative analysis may help guide clinical practice, develop institutional practice guidelines, and direct future research efforts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'utilisation d'agonistes des récepteurs (AR) du peptide-1 de type glucagon (GLP-1) par les personnes bénéficiant d'une intervention chirurgicale et de procédures nécessitant une anesthésie est devenue un sujet de préoccupation important pour les prestataires de soins périopératoires en raison de l'augmentation du risque potentiel d'aspiration résultant de l'effet du médicament, qui provoque un retard de la vidange gastrique. Il existe actuellement un manque de données de haute qualité concernant l'innocuité des AR GLP-1 chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une intervention chirurgicale, ce qui a mené à des variations dans la pratique. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé une recherche sur Internet des déclarations et lignes directrices approuvées par les sociétés médicales concernant la prise en charge périopératoire des AR GLP-1, en nous concentrant sur les 20 pays comptant les plus grandes sociétés d'anesthésiologie, déterminées par les données sur les membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d'anesthésiologistes. Nous avons exclu les articles et les sites Web qui n'étaient pas en anglais. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nos recherches ont révélé des déclarations approuvées par quatorze grandes sociétés d'anesthésiologie, d'endocrinologie et de gastro-entérologie. Il y avait des variations considérables entre les sociétés en matière de recommandations et de directives concernant l'abstention de ces médicaments avant la chirurgie, la durée de l'abstention, l'évaluation de la nécessité d'éviter la sédation profonde ou l'anesthésie générale, l'utilisation de l'intubation en séquence rapide, la nécessité de périodes de jeûne prolongées et de liquides clairs avant une période nil per os, la reconnaissance des signes et symptômes du risque d'aspiration, la prise en charge de la glycémie pendant la période périopératoire et l'utilisation de l'échographie ciblée pour l'évaluation des risques. CONCLUSION: Les déclarations et les lignes directrices approuvées par les sociétés médicales fournissent des recommandations variées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des AR GLP-1. Les connaissances acquises grâce à cette analyse comparative pourraient aider à orienter la pratique clinique, à élaborer des lignes directrices de pratique institutionnelles et à guider les efforts de recherche futurs.