Kopp, Sandra

Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.

Hemorrhagic complications associated with regional anesthesia are extremely rare. The fifth edition of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s Evidence-Based Guidelines on regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy reviews the published evidence since 2018 and provides guidance to help avoid this potentially catastrophic complication. The fifth edition of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s Evidence-Based Guidelines on regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy uses similar methodology as previous editions but is reorganized and significantly condensed. Therefore, the clinicians are encouraged to review the earlier texts for more detailed descriptions of methods, clinical trials, case series and pharmacology. It is impossible to perform large, randomized controlled trials evaluating a complication this rare; therefore, where the evidence is limited, the authors continue to maintain an ‘antihemorrhagic’ approach focused on patient safety and have proposed conservative times for the interruption of therapy prior to neural blockade. In previous versions, the anticoagulant doses were described as prophylactic and therapeutic. In this version, we will be using ‘low dose’ and ‘high dose,’ which will allow us to be consistent with other published guidelines and more accurately describe the dose in the setting of specific patient characteristics and indications. For example, the same ‘high’ dose may be used in one patient as a treatment for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and in another patient as prophylaxis for recurrent DVT. Due to the increasing ability to obtain drug-specific assays, we have included suggestions for when ordering these tests may be helpful and guide practice. Like previous editions, at the end of each recommendation the authors have clearly noted how the recommendation has changed from previous editions.

Background To provide recommendations on risk mitigation, diagnosis and treatment of infectious complications associated with the practice of regional anesthesia, acute and chronic pain management. Methods Following board approval, in 2020 the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA Pain Medicine) commissioned evidence-based guidelines for best practices for infection control. More than 80 research questions were developed and literature searches undertaken by assigned working groups comprising four to five members. Modified US Preventive Services Task Force criteria were used to determine levels of evidence and certainty. Using a modified Delphi method, >50% agreement was needed to accept a recommendation for author review, and >75% agreement for a recommendation to be accepted. The ASRA Pain Medicine Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final guidelines. Results After documenting the incidence and infectious complications associated with regional anesthesia and interventional pain procedures including implanted devices, we made recommendations regarding the role of the anesthesiologist and pain physician in infection control, preoperative patient risk factors and management, sterile technique, equipment use and maintenance, healthcare setting (office, hospital, operating room), surgical technique, postoperative risk reduction, and infection symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Consensus recommendations were based on risks associated with different settings and procedures, and keeping in mind each patient’s unique characteristics. Conclusions The recommendations are intended to be multidisciplinary guidelines for clinical care and clinical decision-making in the regional anesthesia and chronic interventional pain practice. The issues addressed are constantly evolving, therefore, consistent updating will be required.

Background Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Background Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. Results Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). Conclusions Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. Recommendation: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

Background There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. Methods We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. Results Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. Conclusions Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.