Search

The prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has reached 1 billion people worldwide, implying significant risk for the perioperative setting as patients are vulnerable to cardiopulmonary complications, critical care requirement, and unexpected death. This review summarizes main aspects and considerations for the perioperative management of OSA, a condition of public health concern. Critical determinants of perioperative risk include OSA-related changes in upper airway anatomy with augmented collapsibility, diminished capability of upper airway dilator muscles to respond to airway obstruction, disparities in hypoxemia and hypercarbia arousal thresholds, and instability of ventilatory control. Preoperative OSA screening to identify patients at increased risk has therefore been implemented in many institutions. Experts recommend that in the absence of severe symptoms or additional compounding health risks, patients may nevertheless proceed to surgery, while heightened awareness and the adjustment of postoperative care is required. Perioperative caregivers should anticipate difficult airway management in OSA and be prepared for airway complications. Anesthetic and sedative drug agents worsen upper airway collapsibility and depress central respiratory activity, while the risk for postoperative respiratory compromise is further increased with the utilization of neuromuscular blockade. Consistently, opioid analgesia has proven to be complex in OSA, as patients are particularly prone to opioid-induced respiratory depression. Moreover, basic features of OSA, including intermittent hypoxemia and repetitive sleep fragmentation, gradually precipitate a higher sensitivity to opioid analgesic potency along with an increased perception of pain. Hence, regional anesthesia by blockade of neural pathways directly at the site of surgical trauma as well as multimodal analgesia by facilitating additive and synergistic analgesic effects are both strongly supported in the literature as interventions that may reduce perioperative complication risk. Health care institutions are increasingly allocating resources, including those of postoperative enhanced monitoring, in an effort to increase patient safety. The implementation of evidence-based perioperative management strategies is however burdened by the rising prevalence of OSA, the large heterogeneity in disease severity, and the lack of evidence on the efficacy of costly perioperative measures. Screening and monitoring algorithms, as well as reliable risk predictors, are urgently needed to identify OSA patients that are truly in need of extended postoperative surveillance and care. The perioperative community is therefore challenged to develop feasible pathways and measures that can confer increased patient safety and prevent complications in patients with OSA., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2021 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

The intrinsic nature of opioids to suppress respiratory function is of particular concern among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The association of OSA with increased perioperative risk has raised the question of whether patients with OSA are at higher risk for opioid-induced respiratory depression (OIRD) compared to the general population. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize current evidence with respect to perioperative OIRD, changes in sleep-disordered breathing, and alterations in pain and opioid sensitivity in patients with OSA. A systematic literature search of studies published between 1946 and October 2017 was performed utilizing the following databases: Medline, ePub Ahead of Print/Medline In-process, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed-NOT-Medline and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Of 4321 initial studies, 40 met the inclusion criteria. The Oxford level of evidence was assessed. Overall, high-quality evidence on the comparative impact of acute opioid analgesia in OSA versus non-OSA patients is lacking. The current body of evidence is burdened by significant limitations including risk of bias and large heterogeneity among studies with regard to OSA severity, perioperative settings, outcome definitions, and the presence or absence of various perioperative drivers. These factors complicate an accurate interpretation and robust analysis of the true complication risk. Nevertheless, there is some consistency among studies with regard to a detrimental effect of opioids in the presence of OSA. Notably, the initial 24 hours after opioid administration appear to be most critical with regard to life-threatening OIRD. Further, OSA-related increased pain perception and enhanced opioid sensitivity could predispose patients with OSA to a higher risk for OIRD without overdosing. While high-quality evidence is needed, retrospective analyses indicate that critical, life-threatening OIRD may be preventable with a more cautious approach to opioid use, including adequate monitoring.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Background: Reports on the temporal evolution in lung resection are limited. To elucidate temporal changes in the demographics of lung resections, we analyzed nationally representative data that were collected for the National Hospital Discharge Survey from 1988 to 2002., Methods: Data collected between 1988 and 2002 were analyzed. Patients with International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification, procedure codes for lung resection were included in the sample. Three 5-year time periods were created (1988 to 1992, 1993 to 1997, and 1998 to 2002) to simplify the temporal analysis. Changes in the prevalence of procedures, age, gender, race, length of care, mortality, disposition status, and distribution by hospital size were evaluated. Trends in procedure-related complications were analyzed., Results: Between 1988 and 2002, a total of 512,758 lung resections were performed. Comparing the earliest to the most recent time period, we found increases in the average age (61.1 years [range, 1 to 89 years] vs 63.2 years [range, 1 to 91 years], respectively), in the proportion of patients who were female (40.1% vs 49.6%, respectively), and in the proportion of Medicare/Medicaid patients (43.8% vs 49%/4.7% vs 6.7%, respectively). Decreases in the average length of stay (12.9 days [range, 1 to 358 days] vs 9.1 days [range, 1 to 175 days], respectively) and in the proportion of patients discharged to their primary residence (86% vs 79.5%, respectively) were seen. The proportion of patients who had undergone lobectomies compared to other types of lung resection increased. Mortality rates were 5% vs 5.4%, respectively, while the frequency of complications decreased., Conclusion: We identified temporal changes in lung resection surgery that may help in the construction of health-care policies to address the changing needs of and financial burdens on the health-care system.

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.