Citations

Purpose of review Application of ultrasound in clinical anesthesia practice extends beyond regional anesthesia. In this review, we have discussed other point of care applications of ultrasound in perioperative care and anesthetic management with special emphasis on ambulatory practice. Recent findings Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for anesthesiologists has gained widespread interest and popularity. Recent literature has highlighted multiple perioperative POCUS applications on various organ systems and its benefits. We have analyzed the recent available data and evidence for perioperative POCUS, its benefits and limitations in perioperative medicine. Summary Perioperative POCUS skill is a natural extension of ultrasound guided regional anesthesia. Utilizing POCUS in the perioperative period would accelerate the level of appropriate care, safety and improve outcomes in ambulatory centers. More anesthesiologists embracing POCUS would enhance patient care in a timely fashion at the ambulatory centers. POCUS in ambulatory practice can be valuable in avoiding delay or cancellation of surgeries and improving patient satisfaction.

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.

Abstract Purpose: Although renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is relatively more resistant to radiation therapy (RT) compared to other cancer indications, recent advances in single-fraction and multi-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) made it possible to achieve better outcome and reduce treatment related toxicities. In addition, with studies demonstrating that certain therapeutic agents including chemotherapies can act as radiosensitizers, the idea of combining radiotherapy with those agents are being actively pursued. Among them, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus (E) and survivin inhibitor YM155 (Y) are of special interest since they target multiple RT-resistance mechanisms simultaneously. Additionally, YM155 has been shown to help in overcoming resistance to mTOR inhibitors in various cancer including RCC. Hence, the present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a tumor-targeted liposomal formulation combining everolimus and YM155 (EY-L) in sensitizing RCC tumors towards radiation. Experimental Design: Previously we developed a tumor-targeted liposomal formulation and used it successfully to deliver multiple drugs for the treatment of RCC in both immune-deficient and immune-competent mouse models. Here we developed a similar formulation combining everolimus and YM155 (EY-L) and assessed its efficacy in RCC cell lines in vitro and in RCC tumors in vivo. We further evaluated the efficacy of EY-L in sensitizing RCC cell lines and tumors towards radiation in vitro using clonogenic assay and in vivo in RCC xenografts in immunodeficient mice and murine RCC models in immunocompetent mice. Results: EY-L (2 mg/kg E, 1.4 mg/kg Y, twice a week intravenous administration) was better than E-L or Y-L, the corresponding single drug loaded formulations in containing the primary tumor growth and improving survival in an immunocompetent syngeneic mouse model of RCC. Furthermore, EY-L leads to significantly higher sensitization of RCC cells towards radiation in vitro than E-L or Y-L. Finally, EY-L was able to sensitize RCC tumors towards radiation therapy in both RCC xenograft and murine RCC model. Conclusion: Taken together, our study demonstrated the efficacy of a strategic combination therapy in sensitizing RCC to radiation therapy using in vitro clonogenic assay and in vivo radiosensitization studies in multiple RCC tumor models. Citation Format: Krishnendu Pal, Vijay S. Madamsetty, Hari K. Rachamala, Shamit K. Dutta, Enfeng Wang, Debabrata Mukhopadhyay. Combined inhibition of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and survivin augments radiation therapy in renal cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Advances in Kidney Cancer Research; 2023 Jun 24-27; Austin, Texas. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(16 Suppl):Abstract nr B026.

The association and interaction between the central nervous system (CNS) and enteric nervous system (ENS) is well established. Essentially ENS is the second brain, as we call it. We tried to understand the structure and function, to throw light on the functional aspect of neurons, and address various disease manifestations. We summarized how various neurological disorders influence the gut via the enteric nervous system and/or bring anatomical or physiological changes in the enteric nervous system or the gut and vice versa. It is known that stress has an effect on Gastrointestinal (GI) motility and causes mucosal erosions. In our literature review, we found that stress can also affect sensory perception in the central nervous system. Interestingly, we found that mutations in the neurohormone, serotonin (5-HT), would result in dysfunctional organ development and further affect mood and behavior. We focused on the developmental aspects of neurons and cognition and their relation to nutritional absorption via the gastrointestinal tract, the development of neurodegenerative disorders in relation to the alteration in gut microbiota, and contrariwise associations between CNS disorders and ENS. This paper further summarizes the synergetic relation between gastrointestinal and neuropsychological manifestations and emphasizes the need to include behavioral therapies in management plans.

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.