Šprung, Juraj

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.

Abstract Background Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is frequent after bariatric surgery. We hypothesized that when compared with a volatile-based technique incorporating propofol infusions, the need for rescue antiemetics would be reduced by the use of two strategies: 1) the addition of dexmedetomidine infusions, and 2) the avoidance of opioid and volatile anesthetics, and that this reduction would be observed in the PACU following PACU discharge. Methods In this retrospective observational study we included patients undergoing bariatric surgery from 2018–2022 who received one of three anesthetic strategies: 1) volatile anesthetic and propofol infusion (VOL + PROP), 2) VOL + PROP with the addition of dexmedetomidine (DEX), or 3) opioid-sparing total intravenous anesthesia (PROP + DEX). Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis determined the association between the need for rescue-antiemetics in the PACU following PACU discharge. Results 332 patients received VOL + PROP, 354 VOL + PROP + DEX, and 166 PROP + DEX. PROP + DEX received fewer rescue antiemetics in PACU compared to VOL + PROP (11% vs 24%, P = 0.002), and VOL + PROP + DEX fewer compared to VOL + PROP (16% vs 24%, P = 0.023). This differential effect was limited to PACU stay; antiemetic use increased across all groups following PACU discharge until midnight (ranging from 38–46% across groups, P = 0.71) and through the first postoperative day (ranging from 47–57%, P = 0.20). Conclusions The benefit associated with two PONV prevention strategies, the addition of dexmedetomidine infusion or avoidance of opioid and volatile anesthetics, did not persist after PACU discharge. These findings highlight the challenge of PONV on postoperative wards, and the need for a novel multimodal team approach to mitigate this complication.

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.

Objective The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI) predict mortality for patients with PE. We compared PESI/sPESI to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE-IV) in predicting mortality in patients with PE admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, we assessed the performance of a novel ICU-sPESI score created by adding three clinical variables associated with acuity of PE presentation (intubation, confusion [altered mental status], use of vasoactive infusions) to sPESI. Materials and Methods Using the eICU Collaborative Research Database from 2014 to 2015, we conducted a large retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the ICU with a primary diagnosis of PE. We calculated APACHE-IV, PESI, sPESI, and ICU-sPESI scores and compared their performance for predicting in-hospital mortality using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Score thresholds for >99% negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for each score. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results We included 1424 PE cases. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.1%-7.6%]. AUROC for APACHE-IV, PESI, and sPESI were 0.870, 0.848, and 0.777, respectively. APACHE-IV and PESI outperformed sPESI (P < 0.01 for both comparisons), while APACHE-IV and PESI demonstrated similar performance (P = 0.322). The ICU-sPESI performance was similar to APACHE-IV and PESI (AUROC = 0.847; AUROC comparison: APACHE-IV vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.396; PESI vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.945). Hospital mortality for ICU-sPESI scores 0-2 was 1.1%, and for scores 3, 4, 5, 6, and ≥7 was 8.6%, 11.7%, 29.2%, 37.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. Score thresholds for >99% NPV were ≤48 for APACHE-IV, ≤115 for PESI, and 0 points for sPESI and ICU-sPESI. Conclusions By accounting for severity of PE presentation, our newly proposed ICU-sPESI score provided improved PE mortality prediction compared to the original sPESI score and offered excellent discrimination of mortality risk.

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.

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.

Background This study aims to assess the association of postoperative stroke with intraoperative hemodynamic variability and transfusion management. Methods In this case-control study, adult patients (≥ 18 years) who had a stroke within 72 hours of a surgical procedure were matched to 2 control patients according to age, sex, and procedure type. Primary risk factors assessed were intraoperative fluid administration, blood product transfusion, vasopressor use, and measures of variability in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate: maximum, minimum, range, SD, and average real variability. The variables were analyzed with conditional logistic regression, which accounted for the 1:2 matched case-control study design. Results Among 687 581 procedures, we identified 64 postoperative strokes (incidence, 9.3 [95% CI, 7.2-11.9] strokes per 100 000 procedures). These cases were matched with 128 controls. Stroke cases had higher Charlson cmorbidity index scores than did controls (P = .046). Blood pressure and heart rate variability measures were not associated with stroke. The risk of stroke was increased with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 14.82; 95% CI, 3.40-64.66; P < .001), vasopressor use (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.59-9.60; P = .003), and longer procedure duration (OR, 1.23/h; 95% CI, 1.01-1.51; P = .04). Multivariable analysis of procedure duration, RBC transfusion, and vasopressor use showed that only RBC transfusion was independently associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR, 10.10; 95% CI, 2.14-47.72; P = .004). Conclusions Blood pressure variability was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative stroke; however, RBC transfusion was an independent risk factor.