Search

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Dr G. T. Blike has consulting relationships with the I-Pass Institute and the Family Heart Foundation. Consultative activity is related to past expertise as an organizational chief quality officer and is not related to this review. Dr Blike also has an indirect relationship with Masimo involving surveillance analytics support to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Dr S. P. McGrath has a consulting relationship with Masimo. Engagements through that agreement have been related to educational sessions about clinical monitoring and were not focused on specific Masimo products. Dr B. Gali is on a data monitoring committee for Takeda, which is unrelated to this article.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways utilize multimodal analgesia. In pathways already utilizing incisional injection of liposomal bupivacaine (ILB), we assessed the benefit of adding intrathecal opioid analgesia (ITA)., Methods: In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in patients undergoing laparotomy for gynecologic malignancy, we allocated patients 1:1 to ILB alone versus ITA + ILB with 150 μg intrathecal hydromorphone. The primary endpoint was the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score (OBAS) at 24 h following surgery. Secondary endpoints included pain scores, intravenous opioid use, and cost of care., Results: Demographic and surgical factors were balanced for 105 patients. For the primary endpoint, ILB alone was non-inferior to ITA + ILB (median OBAS at 24 h of 4 vs 4; p = 0.70). We observed a significant reduction in the need for intravenous opioids (26% vs 71%; p < 0.001) and total opioid requirements (median 7.5 vs 39.3 mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001) in the first 24 h. Clinically relevant improvements in pain scores were identified in the first 16 h after surgery favoring ITA + ILB. Total cost of the index episode, pharmacy costs, and costs at 30 days were not statistically different., Conclusions: Using OBAS as the primary endpoint, ILB alone was non-inferior to ITA + ILB. However, important cost-neutral benefits for ITA + ILB in the first 24 h post-operatively included lower pain scores and reduced need for intravenous opioids. These early, incremental benefits of adding ITA to ERAS bundles already utilizing ILB should be considered to optimize immediate post-operative pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss use of continuous physiologic monitoring for clinical deterioration, specifically respiratory depression in the postoperative population. The Pro position advocates for 24/7 continuous surveillance monitoring of all patients starting in the postanesthesia care unit until discharge from the hospital. The strongest arguments for universal monitoring relate to inadequate assessment and algorithms for patient risk. We argue that the need for hospitalization in and of itself is a sufficient predictor of an individual's risk for unexpected respiratory deterioration. In addition, general care units carry the added risk that even the most severe respiratory events will not be recognized in a timely fashion, largely due to higher patient to nurse staffing ratios and limited intermittent vital signs assessments (e.g., every 4 hours). Continuous monitoring configured properly using a "surveillance model" can adequately detect patients' respiratory deterioration while minimizing alarm fatigue and the costs of the surveillance systems. The Con position advocates for a mixed approach of time-limited continuous pulse oximetry monitoring for all patients receiving opioids, with additional remote pulse oximetry monitoring for patients identified as having a high risk of respiratory depression. Alarm fatigue, clinical resource limitations, and cost are the strongest arguments for selective monitoring, which is a more targeted approach. The proponents of the con position acknowledge that postoperative respiratory monitoring is certainly indicated for all patients, but not all patients need the same level of monitoring. The analysis and discussion of each point of view describes who, when, where, and how continuous monitoring should be implemented. Consideration of various system-level factors are addressed, including clinical resource availability, alarm design, system costs, patient and staff acceptance, risk-assessment algorithms, and respiratory event detection. Literature is reviewed, findings are described, and recommendations for design of monitoring systems and implementation of monitoring are described for the pro and con positions., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a well-known complication after gynecologic surgery. Our objective was to investigate whether the choice of pharmacologic agent for reversing neuromuscular blockade at the end of a hysterectomy is a risk factor for POUR. Among adult patients undergoing hysterectomy with general anesthesia from 2012 to 2017, those who received aminosteroid nondepolarizing neuromuscular agents followed by pharmacologic reversal were identified, and electronic health records were reviewed. The cohort was dichotomized into two groups by reversal agent: 1) sugammadex and 2) neostigmine with glycopyrrolate. The primary outcome, POUR, was defined as unplanned postoperative bladder recatheterization. A propensity-adjusted analysis was performed to investigate the association between POUR and reversal agent by using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for potential confounders. We identified 1,974 patients, of whom 1,586 (80.3%) received neostigmine-glycopyrrolate and 388 (19.7%) received sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade. The frequency of POUR was 24.8% (393/1,586) after reversal with neostigmine-glycopyrrolate and 18.3% (71/388) with sugammadex. Results from the propensity-adjusted analysis showed that sugammadex was associated with a lower POUR risk than neostigmine-glycopyrrolate (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 - 0.76, P < 0.001). A post hoc analysis of sugammadex recipients who received glycopyrrolate for another indication showed a higher POUR risk than among those who did not receive glycopyrrolate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% CI 1.07 - 3.22, P = 0.03). Use of sugammadex to reverse aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agents is associated with decreased risk of POUR after hysterectomy. A potential mechanism is the omission of glycopyrrolate, which is coadministered with neostigmine to mitigate unwanted cholinergic effects.

Ketamine is a well-known anesthetic that has been used since the 1970s. Despite its ubiquitous use as a postoperative analgesic, no studies have described dosing differences between opioid-tolerant (OT) and nonopioid-tolerant (NOT) patients or determined optimal dosing. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether OT and NOT patients had significant differences in ketamine infusion dosing requirements. We also aimed to measure the overall incidence of psychotomimetic adverse effects associated with low-dose ketamine infusions. We hypothesized that NOT patients would have lower ketamine infusion dosing requirements and a higher incidence of psychotomimetic adverse effects compared with OT patients. We performed a retrospective chart review and showed that the percentages of OT and NOT patients experiencing psychotomimetic adverse effects were similar (15.5% vs 15.3%; P=.93) and that increasing age was the only factor associated with increased odds of experiencing a psychotomimetic adverse effect potentially associated with ketamine (odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.11-1.50]; P=.001). Optimal subanesthetic ketamine infusion dosing could not be established, and further research in this area may be warranted., Competing Interests: This publication was supported by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Grant No. 92437002 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH., (Copyright © by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.)