Background Postoperative respiratory depression (PRD) is potentially preventable yet remains difficult to preemptively detect. We evaluated whether three post anesthesia care unit (PACU) events—oversedation, caffeine administration for impaired arousal, and naloxone administration—can serve as early markers of delayed PRD requiring naloxone administration on wards. Methods We retrospectively identified patients who underwent general anesthesia between 2018 and 2023 at a quaternary care academic medical center. From electronic medical records, we retrieved PACU naloxone and caffeine treatments, scores of sedation assessments using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and ward naloxone administrations within 24 hours after PACU discharge. Results Among 95 870 patients, 186 (0.19%, 95% CI 0.17-0.22) required naloxone for respiratory depression after PACU discharge. Ward naloxone administration was independently associated with naloxone (OR 9.11, 95% CI 4.69-17.71, P < 0.001) and caffeine (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.21-3.32, P = 0.007) administrations, and with PACU RASS scores ≤ −3 (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56-2.99, P < 0.001). Conclusions Naloxone administration in PACU was the strongest predictor of delayed PRD, followed by oversedation and PACU caffeine administration, indicating that information routinely collected during PACU recovery may offer insight into delayed respiratory risk before transition to hospital wards. In light of the overall low incidence of ward naloxone use, these findings support selective, risk-based vigilance for patients exhibiting these PACU events rather than broad adjustments to existing monitoring practices.
Associations Between Oversedation and Agitation in Postanesthesia Recovery Room and Subsequent Severe Behavioral Emergencies
Objectives Hospital-based behavioral emergency response teams (BERT) respond to acute behavioral disturbances among hospitalized patients. We aimed to examine associations between altered mental status in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and behavioral disturbances on surgical wards requiring BERT activation. Methods Electronic medical records of patients who underwent general anesthesia and were admitted to the PACU between May 2018–December 2020 were reviewed for episodes of BERT activations on surgical wards. Characteristics of BERT patients were compared with the rest of surgical population during the same period to examine risk factors for BERT. Results Of 56,275 adult surgical patients, 133 patients had 178 BERT activations (incidence 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–2.8 per 1000 admissions), with 21 being for physical assault. The risk for BERT activation was increased with each decade over age of 50 as well as younger age (30 versus 50 y), male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.48, 95% CI 1.69, 3.62), longer procedures (OR = 1.08 per 30 minutes, 95% CI 1.05, 1.11), and alterations in mental status in PACU, with both moderate/deep sedation (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.04, 2.57) and agitation/combative state (OR = 8.47, 95% CI 5.13, 14.01), P < 0.001 for all comparisons. Conclusions Early postoperative agitation and oversedation are associated with BERT activation on surgical wards. Altered mental status in PACU should be conveyed to accepting hospital units so healthcare staff can be vigilant for the potential development of behavioral disturbances.
Postoperative Sedation in General Care Wards: A Retrospective Cohort Study
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that deeper sedation in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) increases the risk of subsequent sedation in general care wards (ward sedation) and that patients with ward sedation have more postoperative adverse events than those without ward sedation. METHODS: We reviewed the health records of adult patients who underwent procedures with general anesthesia at Mayo Clinic from May 5, 2018, through December 31, 2020, and were discharged from the PACU to the general care ward. Patient groups were dichotomized as with ward sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS], ≤–2) and without ward sedation (RASS, ≥–1) within the first 24 hours after PACU discharge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between clinical variables and ward sedation. RESULTS: A total of 23,766 patients were included in our analysis, of whom 1131 had ward sedation (incidence, 4.8 [Poisson 95% confidence interval, CI, 4.5–5.0]) per 100 patients after general anesthesia. Half of the ward sedation episodes occurred within 32 minutes after PACU discharge. The risk of ward sedation increased with the depth of PACU sedation. The odds ratios (95% CI) of ward sedation for patients with a PACU RASS score of –1 was 0.98 (0.75–1.27); –2, 1.87 (1.44–2.43); –3, 2.98 (2.26–3.93); and ≤–4, 3.97 (2.91–5.42). Adverse events requiring an emergency intervention occurred more often for patients with ward sedation (n = 92, 8.1%) than for those without ward sedation (n = 326, 1.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who met our criteria for PACU discharge, deeper sedation during anesthesia recovery was associated with an increased risk of ward sedation. Patients who had ward sedation had worse outcomes than those without ward sedation.
Effect of Propofol Infusion on Need for Rescue Antiemetics in Postanesthesia Care Unit After Volatile Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study
BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent after volatile anesthesia. We hypothesized that coadministration of propofol with volatile anesthetic compared to pure volatile anesthetics would decrease the need for postoperative antiemetic treatments and shorten recovery time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients who underwent procedures using general anesthesia with volatile agents, with or without propofol infusion, from May 2018 through December 2020, and who were admitted to the PACU. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether propofol was associated with decreased need for rescue antiemetics. RESULTS: Among 47,847 patients, overall IPTW rescue antiemetic use was 4.7% for 17,573 patients who received propofol and 8.2% for 30,274 who did not (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–0.61; P <.001). This effect associated with propofol was present regardless of the intensity of antiemetic prophylaxis (OR, 0.59, 0.51, and 0.58 for 0–1, 2, and ≥3 antiemetics used, respectively), procedural duration (OR, 0.54, 0.62, and 0.47 for ≤2.50, 2.51–4.00, ≥4.01 hours), and type of volatile agent (OR, 0.51, 0.52, and 0.57 for desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane) (all P <.001). This effect was dose dependent, with little additional benefit for the reduction in the use of PACU antiemetics when propofol rate exceeded 100 μg/kg/min. Patients who received rescue antiemetics required longer PACU recovery time than those who did not receive antiemetics (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28–1.33; P <.001), but use of propofol did not affect PACU recovery time (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.01; P =.56). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of propofol infusions to volatile-based anesthesia is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in the need for rescue antiemetics in the PACU regardless of the number of prophylactic antiemetics, duration of procedure, and type of volatile agent used, without affecting PACU recovery time.
Postanesthesia Care Unit Recovery Time According to Volatile Anesthetic Used in Clinical Practice
BACKGROUND: Whether volatile anesthetic solubility affects postanesthesia recovery time in clinical practice is unclear. We investigated the association among 3 volatile agents and 2 clinically relevant outcomes—postanesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery time (time from PACU admission to fulfillment of discharge criteria) and oversedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score ≤−3)—as a potential contributor to delaying PACU discharge. The volatile agents studied were isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane. We hypothesized that increased solubility of the volatile agent (isoflurane versus desflurane or sevoflurane) would be associated with longer PACU recovery time and higher rates of oversedation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included adults (≥18 years) who underwent surgical procedures under general anesthesia with a volatile agent and were admitted to the PACU from May 5, 2018, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was PACU recovery time, and the secondary outcome was oversedation. PACU recovery time was log-transformed and analyzed with linear regression. Oversedation was analyzed by using logistic regression. To account for potential confounding, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. Pairwise comparisons of the 3 agents were performed, with P < .017 (Bonferroni-adjusted) considered significant. RESULTS: Of 47,847 patients included, 11,817 (24.7%) received isoflurane, 11,286 (23.6%) received desflurane, and 24,744 (51.7%) received sevoflurane. Sevoflurane had an estimated 4% shorter PACU recovery time (IPTW-adjusted median [interquartile range {IQR}], 61 [42–89] minutes) than isoflurane (64 [44–92] minutes) (ratio of geometric means [98.3% confidence interval {CI}], 0.96 [0.95–0.98]; P < .001). Differences in PACU recovery time between desflurane and the other agents were not significant. The IPTW-adjusted frequency of oversedation was 8.8% for desflurane, 12.2% for sevoflurane, and 16.7% for isoflurane; all pairwise comparisons were observed to be significant (odds ratio [98.3% CI], 0.70 [0.62–0.79] for desflurane versus sevoflurane, 0.48 [0.42–0.55] for desflurane vs isoflurane, and 0.69 [0.63–0.76] for sevoflurane versus isoflurane; all P < .001). Although oversedated patients had longer PACU recovery time, differences in the oversedation rate across agents did not result in meaningful differences in time to PACU recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, only small, clinically unimportant differences in PACU recovery time were observed between the volatile anesthetics. Although oversedation was associated with increased PACU recovery time, differences in the rate of oversedation among agents were insufficient to produce meaningful differences in overall PACU recovery time across the 3 volatile agents. Practical attempts to decrease PACU recovery time should address factors other than volatile agent selection.
Anesthetic Management and Deep Sedation After Emergence From General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study
BACKGROUND: Residual deep sedation during anesthesia recovery may predict postoperative complications. We examined the incidence and risk factors for deep sedation after general anesthesia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed health records of adults who underwent procedures with general anesthesia and were admitted to the postanesthesia care unit from May 2018 to December 2020. Patients were dichotomized by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score: ≤−4 (deeply sedated/unarousable) or ≥−3 (not deeply sedated). Anesthesia risk factors for deep sedation were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 56,275 patients included, 2003 had a RASS ≤−4 (35.6 [95% CI, 34.1–37.2] cases per 1000 anesthetics administered). On adjusted analyses, the likelihood of a RASS ≤−4 increased when more soluble halogenated anesthetics were used. Compared with desflurane without propofol, the odds ratio (OR [95% CI]) for a RASS ≤−4 was higher with sevoflurane (1.85 [1.45–2.37]) and isoflurane (4.21 [3.29–5.38]) without propofol. Compared with desflurane without propofol, the odds of a RASS ≤−4 further increased with use of desflurane-propofol (2.61 [1.99–3.42]), sevoflurane-propofol (4.20 [3.28–5.39]), isoflurane-propofol (6.39 [4.90–8.34]), and total intravenous anesthesia (2.98 [2.22–3.98]). A RASS ≤−4 was also more likely with the use of dexmedetomidine (2.47 [2.10–2.89]), gabapentinoids (2.17 [1.90–2.48]), and midazolam (1.34 [1.21–1.49]). Deeply sedated patients discharged to general care wards had higher odds of opioid-induced respiratory complications (2.59 [1.32–5.10]) and higher odds of naloxone administration (2.93 [1.42–6.03]). CONCLUSIONS: Likelihood of deep sedation after recovery increased with intraoperative use of halogenated agents with higher solubility and increased further when propofol was concomitantly used. Patients who experience deep sedation during anesthesia recovery have an increased risk of opioid-induced respiratory complications on general care wards. These findings may be useful for tailoring anesthetic management to reduce postoperative oversedation.
Effects of Reversal Technique for Neuromuscular Paralysis on Time to Recovery of Bowel Function after Craniotomy
Background Non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade can be reversed with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate or sugammadex. We test the hypothesis that sugammadex is associated with earlier postoperative recovery of bowel function (first bowel movement, BM). Methods In adult patients undergoing craniotomy from 2016 to 2019, we identified time of first postoperative BM after receiving neostigmine/glycopyrrolate or sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade. Logistic and proportional hazard regression, with and without inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), were used to assess whether sugammadex is associated with earlier recovery of bowel function. Results Seven hundred and thirty-one patients underwent craniotomy, 323 (44.2%) received neostigmine/glycopyrrolate, and 408 (55.8%) sugammadex. From logistic regression analysis, the proportion of patients having a BM within the first 24 and 48 hours was higher in sugammadex group (unadjusted OR [95% CI]) 1.79 [1.16 to 2.77] P = .009; and 1.45 [1.08 to 1.94] P = .014; IPTW adjusted OR [95% CI]) 1.58 [.95, 2.61] P = .078; and 1.38 [.95 to 2.02] P = .095 for 24 and 48 h, respectively). From proportional hazards regression, sugammadex was associated with improved bowel function recovery (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) [95% CI] 1.35 [1.08, 1.68], P = .008; IPTW adjusted HR 1.29 [.97 to 1.71], P = .076). Conclusion Patients undergoing craniotomy who had neuromuscular blockade reversed with sugammadex may have earlier recovered bowel function compared to patients reversed with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate.
Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen in Outpatient Cystoscopy Procedures: Retrospective Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Requirements and Analgesia Scores
Purpose To assess if the choice of acetaminophen formulation (intravenous vs oral) when administered preoperatively for ambulatory cystoscopy procedures is associated with differences in anesthetic outcomes. Methods Medical records of adult patients undergoing ambulatory cystoscopy procedures at an outpatient procedural center from July 1, 2014, through November 30, 2017, were abstracted. The association between anesthetic outcomes (severe pain, rescue opioids, postoperative nausea, and vomiting) and acetaminophen formulation was assessed. Propensity-adjusted analyses were performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for potential confounders. Results During the study time frame, there were 611 intravenous and 2955 oral acetaminophen administrations for cystoscopy procedures. Postoperative bladder spasms were a major contributor to severe pain and complicated 1036 cases, with similar rates between intravenous (N = 183, 29.9%) and oral (N = 853, 28.9%) formulations, P = .625. After adjusting for bladder spasms, intravenous acetaminophen was associated with longer anesthesia recovery (estimate 5.2 [95% CI 0.5-9.9] minutes, P = .030), use of rescue opioids (odds ratio 1.33 [1.07-1.66], P = .012), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (1.40 [1.02-1.93], P = .037), but not severe pain (1.07 [0.81-1.40], P = .640). Conclusion Preoperative intravenous acetaminophen compared to oral acetaminophen for ambulatory cystoscopy procedures was not associated with better anesthetic outcomes. Bladder spasms were a major contributor to postoperative pain.
Association Between Critical Care Admissions and Cognitive Trajectories in Older Adults*
Objectives: Patients requiring admission to an ICU may subsequently experience cognitive decline. Our objective was to investigate longitudinal cognitive trajectories in older adults hospitalized in ICUs. We hypothesized that individuals hospitalized for critical illness develop greater cognitive decline compared with those who do not require ICU admission. Design: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected cognitive scores of participants enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and ICU admissions retrospectively ascertained from electronic medical records. A covariate-adjusted linear mixed effects model with random intercepts and slopes assessed the relationship between ICU admissions and the slope of global cognitive z scores and domains scores (memory, attention/executive, visuospatial, and language). Setting: ICU admissions and cognitive scores in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging from October 1, 2004, to September 11, 2017. Patients: Nondemented participants age 50 through 91 at enrollment in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging with an initial cognitive assessment and at least one follow-up visit. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 3,673 participants, 372 had at least one ICU admission with median (25–75th percentile) follow-up after first ICU admission of 2.5 years (1.2–4.4 yr). For global cognitive z score, admission to an ICU was associated with greater decline in scores over time compared with participants not requiring ICU admission (difference in annual slope = –0.028; 95% CI, –0.044 to –0.012; p < 0.001). ICU admission was associated with greater declines in memory (–0.029; 95% CI, –0.047 to –0.011; p = 0.002), attention/executive (–0.020; 95% CI, –0.037 to –0.004; p = 0.016), and visuospatial (–0.013; 95% CI, –0.026 to –0.001; p = 0.041) domains. ICU admissions with delirium were associated with greater declines in memory (interaction p = 0.006) and language (interaction p = 0.002) domains than ICU admissions without delirium. Conclusions: In older adults, ICU admission was associated with greater long-term cognitive decline compared with patients without ICU admission. These findings were more pronounced in those who develop delirium while in the ICU.
Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery For Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension: A Historical Cohort Study
Abstract Abstract Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a significant preoperative risk factor. We aimed to determine predictors of perioperative morbidity and mortality after noncardiac surgery for patients with precapillary PH. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with pulmonary hypertension having surgery at a single large medical referral center. The PH and surgical databases were reviewed from 2010 to 2017. Patients were excluded if PH was attributable to left-sided heart disease or they had undergone cardiac or transplant operations. To assess whether PH-specific diagnostic or cardiopulmonary testing parameters were predictive of perioperative complications, analyses were performed using generalized estimating equations. Results: Of 196 patients with PH undergoing noncardiac operations, 53 (27%) experienced 1 or more complications, including 5 deaths (3%) within 30 days. After adjustment for age and PH type, there were more complications in those undergoing moderate-to-high vs low-risk procedures (odds ratio [OR], 4.17 [95% CI, 2.07 to 8.40]; P<0.001). After adjustment for age, surgical risk, and PH type, the risk for complications was higher for patients with worse functional status (OR, 2.39 [95% CI, 1.19 to 4.78]; P=0.01 for class 3/4 vs class 1/2) and elevated serum N-terminal fragment of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.05 to 4.96]; P=0.04 for ≥300 vs. <300 pg/mL). From an analysis that included covariates for age, surgical risk, and functional status, elevated serum NT-proBNP levels remained associated with increased risk (OR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.05 to 4.76]; P=0.04). Conclusions: Patients with PH undergoing noncardiac surgery with general anesthesia have a high frequency of perioperative complications. Specific clinical (functional status), diagnostic (serum NT-proBNP), and intraoperative factors (higher-risk surgery) are predictive of worse outcomes.