Search

In 2014, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine in collaboration with the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy convened a group of experts to compare pathways for anesthetic and analgesic management for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in North America and Europe and to develop a practice pathway. This review is intended to be an analysis of the current literature to assist individuals and institutions in designing a pathway for total knee arthroplasty that is based on existing evidence and expert recommendation and may be customized according to individual settings.

Introduction A large body of literature suggests that peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) is associated with improved perioperative outcomes in total hip and knee joint arthroplasty patients. However, it is unclear to what extent this association exists across patient subgroups based on age and health status. Methods Patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty were identified from the Premier Healthcare database (2006-2019). Mixed-effects models were applied to assess the relationship between exposure of interest (PNB use on the day of surgery) and various outcomes (postoperative respiratory complications, acute renal failure, delirium, intensive care unit admission, prolonged length of stay, and high opioid consumption) across multiple subgroups stratified by patient age and pre-existing comorbidities. Results PNB use and outcome association varies based on the patient's health and age characteristics. For adults and older adults with excellent or fair, there was a decrease in the likelihood of respiratory complication with the use of PNB (OR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; OR: 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; OR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99, respectively). Peripheral nerve blocks were also associated with a reduction in the odds of high opioid consumption across all categories except adult patients in poor health. Conclusion PNB use is associated with beneficial effects more commonly observed among patients with a lower comorbidity burden, without a clear pattern of association with patient age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine guideline on preoperative screening and assessment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on the available clinical evidence on the topic where possible. As very few well-performed randomized studies in this field of perioperative care are available, most of the recommendations were developed by experts in the field through consensus processes involving utilization of evidence grading to indicate the level of evidence upon which recommendations were based. This guideline may not be appropriate for all clinical situations and all patients. The decision whether to follow these recommendations must be made by a responsible physician on an individual basis. Protocols should be developed by individual institutions taking into account the patients' conditions, extent of interventions and available resources. This practice guideline is not intended to define standards of care or represent absolute requirements for patient care. The adherence to these guidelines cannot in any way guarantee successful outcomes and is rather meant to help individuals and institutions formulate plans to better deal with the challenges posed by perioperative patients with OSA. These recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts in the field at the time of publication. While these guidelines will be periodically updated, new information that becomes available between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from guidelines may be justifiable and such deviations should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

Introduction: Patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) often represent a sequence of care between the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). Despite being the most populous state, little information exists to define patterns of IMV use within the state of California.Methods: We examined data from the masked Patient Discharge Database of California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development from 2000-2009. Adult patients who received IMV during their stay were identified using the International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision and Clinical Modification procedure codes (96.70, 96.71, 96.72). Patients were divided into age strata (18-34yr, 35-64yr, and >65yr). Using descriptive statistics and regression analyses, for IMV discharges during the study period, we quantified the number of ED vs. non-ED based admissions; changes in patient characteristics and clinical outcome; evaluated the marginal costs for IMV; determined predictors for prolonged acute mechanical ventilation (PAMV, i.e. IMV>96hr); and projected the number of IMV discharges and ED-based admissions by year 2020.Results: There were 696,634 IMV discharges available for analysis. From 2000–2009, IMV discharges increased by 2.8%/year: n=60,933 (293/100,000 persons) in 2000 to n=79,868 (328/100,000 persons) in 2009. While ED-based admissions grew by 3.8%/year, non-ED-based admissions remained stable (0%). During 2000-2009, fastest growth was noted for 1) the 35–64 year age strata; 2) Hispanics; 3) patients with non-Medicare public insurance; and 4) patients requiring PAMV. Average total patient cost-adjusted charges per hospital discharge increased by 29% from 2000 (from $42,528 to $60,215 in 2014 dollars) along with increases in the number of patients discharged to home and skilled nursing facilities. Higher marginal costs were noted for younger patients (ages 18-34yr), non-whites, and publicly insured patients. Some of the strongest predictors for PAMV were age 35-64 years (OR=1.12; 95% CI [1.09-1.14], p

Introduction Liposomal bupivacaine has been marketed for the achievement of long-acting local or regional anesthesia after major lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. However, it is comparatively expensive and controversy remains regarding its ability to decrease healthcare costs. With mounting evidence suggesting non-superiority in efficacy, compared with plain bupivacaine, we sought to investigate trends in liposomal bupivacaine use and identify changes in practice. Methods We identified adult patients from the Premier Healthcare Database who underwent elective total joint arthroplasty between 2012 and 2021. Prevalence and trends of liposomal bupivacaine utilization were compared on the individual patient and hospital levels. Log-rank tests were performed to assess the influence of location, teaching status, or hospital size on time to hospital-level liposomal bupivacaine termination. Results Among 103,165 total joint arthroplasty cases, liposomal bupivacaine use increased between 2012 and 2015 (from 0.4% to 22.8%) and decreased by approximately 1%-3% annually thereafter (15.7% in 2021). Liposomal bupivacaine was ever used in approximately 60% of hospitals. Hospital-level initiation of liposomal bupivacaine use peaked in 2014 and decreased thereafter (from 32.8% in 2013 to 4.3% in 2021), while termination rates increased (from 1.4% in 2014 to 9.9% in 2019). Non-teaching hospitals and those located in the South and West regions were more likely to retain liposomal bupivacaine longer than teaching or Midwest/Northeast hospitals, respectively (p=0.023 and p=0.014). Discussion Liposomal bupivacaine use peaked around 2015 and has been declining thereafter on individual patient and hospital levels. How these trends correlate with health outcomes and expenditures would be a strategic target for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction This study evaluated the effect of a surgical opioid-avoidance protocol (SOAP) on postoperative pain scores. The primary goal was to demonstrate that the SOAP was as effective as the pre-existing non-SOAP (without opioid restriction) protocol by measuring postoperative pain in a diverse, opioid-naive patient population undergoing inpatient surgery across multiple surgical services. Methods This prospective cohort study was divided into SOAP and non-SOAP groups based on surgery date. The non-SOAP group had no opioid restrictions (n=382), while the SOAP group (n=449) used a rigorous, opioid-avoidance order set with patient and staff education regarding multimodal analgesia. A non-inferiority analysis assessed the SOAP impact on postoperative pain scores. Results Postoperative pain scores in the SOAP group compared with the non-SOAP group were non-inferior (95% CI: -0.58, 0.10; non-inferiority margin=-1). The SOAP group consumed fewer postoperative opioids (median=0.67 (IQR=15) vs 8.17 morphine milliequivalents (MMEs) (IQR=40.33); p<0.01) and had fewer discharge prescription opioids (median=0 (IQR=60) vs 86.4 MMEs (IQR=140.4); p<0.01). Discussion The SOAP was as effective as the non-SOAP group in postoperative pain scores across a diverse patient population and associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption and discharge prescription opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]