Citations

Achondroplasia accounts for approximately 70% of all forms of dwarfism. Cesarean delivery is often required in parturients with achondroplasia due to cephalopelvic disproportion. There is no consensus on the optimal management for cesarean delivery considering the difficulties in both general and regional anesthesia in patients with achondroplasia. The aim of this study was to explore the literature for prior case reports and series to determine the optimum anesthetic management for cesarean delivery in achondroplastic patients. We conducted a review of the literature using Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science database searches for case series and case reports on achondroplasia and pregnancy through January 2024. Conference abstracts >3 years old were excluded, as well as data on forms of dwarfism other than achondroplasia, patients taller than 147 cm, and non-English language papers. Extracted data included demographic information, anesthetic management, and reported complications. The literature review resulted in 57 manuscripts with a total of 80 anesthetics. Anesthetic management consisted of planned general anesthesia (n = 16), single injection spinal (n = 28), epidural (n = 17), combined spinal-epidural (n = 12), and intrathecal catheter (n = 1). Six patients required conversion from neuraxial anesthesia to general anesthesia due to failed neuraxial placement (n = 3), inadequate blockade (n = 2), and high neuraxial block (n = 1). Reduced dose of intrathecal bupivacaine was common in this population. Complications such as hypotension (4 in 64), inadvertent dural puncture (1 in 64), and transient paresthesia (3 in 64) during neuraxial technique were reported but were infrequent. Neuraxial anesthesia is more common and a viable option in carefully selected parturients with achondroplasia. We recommend reduction of intrathecal local anesthetic as part of a titratable neuraxial technique (ie, combined spinal-epidural) that minimizes the risk of hypotension, high spinal, and emergent intubation.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, aprepitant, and fosaprepitant are increasingly used perioperatively. These medications may interfere with the effectiveness of hormonal contraception. This study assessed anesthesia providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of interactions with hormonal birth control, and patient counseling practices to identify possible knowledge gaps or opportunities for practice improvement. METHODS: In January 2023, an electronic survey was distributed to all anesthesia providers at Mayo Clinic sites (Mayo Clinic Rochester, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida, and Mayo Clinic Health System hospitals). The survey included 32 questions assessing providers’ use of sugammadex and aprepitant, their knowledge of the medications’ interactions with hormonal contraceptives (HC), their perceptions regarding education of these interactions during training, and their perioperative patient counseling practices. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 337 of 1092 (31%) providers completed the survey. While almost all respondents (324; 96%) knew that sugammadex may interfere with oral contraceptive effectiveness, only 158 (47%) knew about aprepitant’s potential contraceptive interference. Only 176 providers (52%) knew the recommended duration for alternative contraceptive methods after use after sugammadex, and 119 providers (35%) knew the recommended duration after aprepitant exposure. Most respondents considered the interference of these perioperative drugs with HCs to be clinically relevant (sugammadex, 217, 64%; aprepitant, 191, 58%). Despite the common belief that the decision between these medications and alternatives should be shared between provider and patient, most providers reported rarely engaging in such shared decision-making (SDM) in practice. Most providers recognized the need for preoperative discussions on sugammadex (280, 83%) and aprepitant (257, 76%), yet 184 providers (73%) never or rarely discussed contraception use before surgery for aprepitant, and 135 (36%) never or rarely did so for sugammadex. Lastly, many providers believed that the interference between sugammadex, aprepitant, and HC was poorly taught during training. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight the need for increased education and awareness among anesthesia providers regarding drug interactions with HCs during the perioperative period. To facilitate SDM, it is imperative that providers discuss alternative medications and the potential need for additional contraception methods after drug administration and communicate the risks with patients preoperatively to enable informed and SDM. The patient’s preferences should be accounted for, especially if they are unwilling or unable to use an alternative contraceptive for 7 to 30 days, thereby avoiding the complexities and burdens of altering birth control methods.

Purpose of review The use of implantable medical devices (IMDs) continues to increase with estimates that 10% of the American population will have an IMD in their lifetime. IMDs require special considerations for management in the perioperative period to ensure optimal patient care and patient safety. This review summarizes the current perioperative considerations for IMDs. Recent findings This review summarizes perioperative recommendations for spinal cord stimulators, deep brain stimulators, peripheral nerve stimulators, vagus nerve stimulators, muscle stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, implantable infusion pumps, artificial pancreas devices, continuous glucose monitors, and cochlear implants. There are multiple publications and guidelines regarding the perioperative considerations of cardiac implantable electronic devices; thus, this review excludes those devices. This review includes recommendations on management of the device perioperatively, the potential complications, and postoperative care of the device. Summary There are very few guidelines regarding the perioperative management of IMDs. Given the significant impact that these devices have on patient care and safety, evidence-based guidelines should be established.