Sondekoppam, Rakesh V

Background: Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is a common occurrence in the perioperative patient population but is often undiagnosed. Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a promising tool for perioperative assessment; however, its effectiveness in detecting the presence or severity of OSA needs to be evaluated. Objective: We assessed the ability of airway POCUS as a screening and severity evaluation tool for OSA by examining its correlation with STOP-BANG scores and the Apnea–Hypopnea Index (AHI). Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Setting: A single-center study in a tertiary care hospital between June 2020 to May 2021. Patients: Adult patients aged 18–65 with prior Polysomnography (PSG) for OSA workup were screened. Interventions: The participants completed the STOP-BANG questionnaire and subsequently underwent POCUS examinations, either pre- or post-surgery. Ten different POCUS views previously used for evaluating OSA were acquired in a predefined sequence, with subsequent measurements of airway parameters. Outcome measures: Generalized linear modeling was used to explore and assess the relationships between the measured parameters, STOP-BANG, and AHI scores (modeled continuously and categorized into risk levels of STOP-BANG and AHI). Results: A total of 260 patients were screened, of which 142 were enrolled and 127 completed the scanning studies. The median AHI was 16.71, while the STOP-BANG scores were mostly between 5 and 6, indicating a moderate-to-high OSA risk in the study population. Notably, only neck circumference was significantly associated with AHI severity (p = 0.012), whereas none of the other POCUS measures were. Among the POCUS measures, significant associations with STOP-BANG scores were observed for the Tongue Cross-Sectional Area (T-CSA) (p = 0.002), Retro-Palatal Diameter (RPD) (p = 0.034), Distance Between Lingual Arteries (DLA) (p = 0.034), and Geniohyoid Muscle Thickness (GMT) (p = 0.040). Conclusions: Neck circumference is a more reliable predictor of OSA severity (AHI) compared to other POCUS measurements. Many of the POCUS measures had a good correlation with the STOP-BANG scores, highlighting the utility of POCUS as a screening tool for OSA rather than as a severity evaluation tool.

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.

Purpose of review It is estimated that approximately a third of patients undergoing certain surgeries may report some degree of persistent pain postoperatively. Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) reduces quality of life, is challenging to treat, and has significant socio-economic impact. Recent findings From an epidemiological perspective, factors that predispose patients to the development of CPSP may be considered in relation to the patient, the procedure or, the care environment. Prevention or management of transition from acute to chronic pain often need a multidisciplinary approach beginning early in the preoperative period and continuing beyond surgical admission. The current concepts regarding the role of central and peripheral nervous systems in chronification of pain may provide targets for future therapies but, the current evidence seems to suggest that a multimodal analgesic approach of preventive analgesia along with a continued follow-up and treatment after hospital discharge may hold the key to identify and manage the transitioning of acute to chronic pain. Summary A comprehensive multidisciplinary approach with prior identification of risk factors, minimizing the surgical insult and a culture of utilizing multimodal analgesia and continued surveillance beyond the period of hospitalization is an important step towards reducing the development of chronic pain. A transitional pain service model may accomplish many of these goals.

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Importance Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

ObjectivesPrevious studies have indicated that point‐of‐care ultrasonography (POCUS) of the gastric antrum can predict the adequacy of fasting before surgery and anesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of gastric POCUS in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures.MethodsWe performed a single‐center cohort study in patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy. Consenting patient's gastric antrum was scanned before anesthetic care for endoscopy to determine the cross‐sectional area (CSA) and qualitatively determine safe and unsafe contents. Further, an estimate of residual gastric volume was determined using the formula and the nomogram methods. Subsequently, gastric secretions aspirated during endoscopy were quantified and further correlated with nomogram and formula‐based assessments. No patient required a change in the primary anesthetic plan except for using rapid sequence induction in those with unsafe contents on POCUS scans.ResultsQualitative ultrasound measurements consistently determined safe and unsafe gastric residual contents in 83 patients enrolled in the study. Unsafe contents were determined by qualitative scans in 4 out of 83 cases (5%) despite adequate fasting status. Quantitatively, only a moderate correlation was demonstrated between measured gastric volumes and nomogram (r = .40, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.57; P = .0002) or formula‐based (r = .38, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.55; P = .0004) determinations of residual gastric volumes.ConclusionIn daily clinical practice, qualitative POCUS determination of residual gastric content is a feasible and useful technique to identify patients at risk of aspiration before upper GI endoscopy procedures.

Background The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear. Methods In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement. Results Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes. Conclusions Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.