Citations

Abstract Introduction Advanced Practice Providers (APPs; Advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants) and physicians-in-training (residents, fellows) receive inadequate education on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)/perioperative OSA risks. However, they are front-line providers assessing these patients. Failure to mitigate this risk has led to significant postoperative morbidity/mortality. We assessed these providers’ perceptions to OSA/perioperative OSA training. Methods Surveys were sent to three provider roles, APPs, residents, and fellows, in four categories of practice at nine academic institutions between May 9-June 30, 2021. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests assessed association between survey responses and participant characteristics. False discovery rate adjustment accounted for multiple comparisons, threshold of q<0.05 for statistical significance. Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel tests evaluated associations stratified by institution. Results 2236 of 6724 (33.3%) participants responded: 48.4% APPs, 11% Fellows and 40.6% Residents. Primary category of practice included: 20.3% Anesthesiology, 8.9% Family Medicine, 34.1%, Internal Medicine (IM)/IM subspecialties, 6.7% Obstetrics/Gynecology/Gynecologic Oncology, 25.9% Surgery/Surgery subspecialties, 4.1% Other.While 93.2% of respondents believed OSA is a risk factor for perioperative complications, fewer respondents reported that they felt adequately trained to assess for OSA (50.9%) in general, with significant differences noted by provider role (range 42-70%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 12-82%, q=0.001). Even fewer felt adequately trained to assess for OSA in perioperative patients (38.2%) with significant differences noted by provider role (range 31-52%, q=0.001) and across the categories of practice (range 15-84%, q=0.001).Across all categories of practice, respondents indicated that they would like additional educational training about OSA (76.7%). This varied by clinical role (range 64-82%, q=0.003), but not categories of practice (range 73-84%, q=0.13). Furthermore, respondents indicated they also desired additional education about OSA in the perioperative patient (75.5%). This extended across all clinical roles (range 68-77%, q=0.09) and categories of practice (range 72-80%, q=0.09). Conclusion We found significant differences in APP and physician-in-training perceptions of the adequacy of their current training and desire for further OSA/perioperative OSA education. Our study identifies a critical gap and opportunity to improve provider understanding and patient care. Support (If Any) American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation (AASMF) award.

There is common ground between the specialties of anesthesiology and sleep medicine. Traditional sleep medicine curriculum for anesthesiology trainees has revolved around the discussion of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its perioperative management. However, it is time to include a broader scope of sleep medicine–related topics that overlap these specialties into the core anesthesia residency curriculum. Five main core competency domains are proposed, including SLeep physiology; Evaluation of sleep health; Evaluation for sleep disorders and clinical implications; Professional and academic roles; and WELLness (SLEEP WELL). The range of topics include not only the basics of the physiology of sleep and sleep-disordered breathing (eg, OSA and central sleep apnea) but also insomnia, sleep-related movement disorders (eg, restless legs syndrome), and disorders of daytime hypersomnolence (eg, narcolepsy) in the perioperative and chronic pain settings. Awareness of these topics is relevant to the scope of knowledge of anesthesiologists as perioperative physicians as well as to optimal sleep health and physician wellness and increase consideration among current anesthesiology trainees for the value of dual credentialing in both these specialties.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders affect up to 25% of the general population and are associated with increased risk of adverse perioperative events. The key sleep medicine topics that are most important for the practice of anesthesiology have not been well-defined. The objective of this study was to determine the high-priority sleep medicine topics that should be included in the education of anesthesia residents based on the insight of experts in the fields of anesthesia and sleep medicine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey of experts in the fields of sleep medicine and anesthesia based on the Delphi technique to establish consensus on the sleep medicine topics that should be incorporated into anesthesia residency curricula. Consensus for inclusion of a topic was defined as >80% of all experts selecting “agree” or “strongly agree” on a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to the survey questions were analyzed with descriptive statistical methods and presented as percentages or weighted mean values with standard deviations (SD) for Likert scale data. RESULTS: The topics that were found to have 100% agreement among experts were the influence of opioids and anesthetics on control of breathing and upper airway obstruction; potential interactions of wake-promoting/hypnotic medications with anesthetic agents; effects of sleep and anesthesia on upper airway patency; and anesthetic management of sleep apnea. Less than 80% agreement was found for topics on the anesthetic implications of other sleep disorders and future pathways in sleep medicine and anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We identify key topics of sleep medicine that can be included in the future design of anesthesia residency training curricula.

Introduction: Mentorship is a key component to success in academic medicine. Women are under-represented in leadership positions within medicine. Women are less likely to identify mentors than men. Speed mentoring is an innovative strategy to facilitate mentorship in academic medicine. Materials and Methods: A speed mentoring event for women faculty members in an academic anesthesiology department was held, followed by a second event for trainees. Attendees completed surveys about mentorship experiences at baseline and in follow-up. Questions were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree with values reported as median (1st, 3rd quartile). Results: Baseline surveys indicated poor satisfaction with mentoring in the prior 6 months as 4.5 (3, 5.25). Twelve months later, mentees reported increased satisfaction with mentoring 6 (6, 6). Mentors and mentees felt their time was well spent during both events. There was an increase in the number of mentors identified after the events by both groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest speed mentoring is well received and impactful with minimal time and monetary investment. The attendees of the events identified an increased number of mentors after speed mentoring events, and this effect was maintained at 6–12 months. Speed mentoring may be one path to providing support for women to advance their careers in academic medicine. More research is warranted to better evaluate effectiveness of formats such as speed mentoring to facilitate improved mentorship for women in academic anesthesiology.

There is increasing awareness that sleep disorders may be associated with increased perioperative risk. The Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine created the Narcolepsy Perioperative Task Force: (1) to investigate the current state of knowledge of the perioperative risk for patients with narcolepsy, (2) to determine the viability of developing perioperative guidelines for the management of patients with narcolepsy, and (3) to delineate future research goals and clinically relevant outcomes. The Narcolepsy Perioperative Task Force established that there is evidence for increased perioperative risk in patients with narcolepsy; however, this evidence is sparse and based on case reviews, case series, and retrospective reviews. Mechanistically, there are a number of potential mechanisms by which patients with narcolepsy could be at increased risk for perioperative complications. These include aggravation of the disease itself, dysautonomia, narcolepsy-related medications, anesthesia interactions, and withdrawal of narcolepsy-related medications. At this time, there is inadequate research to develop an expert consensus or guidelines for the perioperative management of patients with narcolepsy. The paucity of available literature highlights the critical need to determine if patients with narcolepsy are at an increased perioperative risk and to establish appropriate research protocols and clearly delineated patient-centered outcomes. There is a real need for collaborative research among sleep medicine specialists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and perioperative providers. This future research will become the foundation for the development of guidelines, or at a minimum, a better understanding how to optimize the perioperative care of patients with narcolepsy.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Annual Meeting is the primary venue for anesthesiologists to present research, share innovations, and build networks. Herein, we describe gender representation for physician speakers at the Annual Meeting relative to the specialty overall. Details of ASA Annual Meeting presentations for individuals and panels were abstracted from the ASA archives for 2011–2016. Observed speaker gender composition was compared to expected composition based on the gender distribution of members of the ASA. There were 5167 speaker slots across 2025 presentations and panels. Of the speaker slots, 3874 were assigned to men and 1293 to women. Speaker slot gender composition was relatively consistent between 2011 and 2016 (annual percentage 22.3%–27.7% women, trend test P = .062). ASA membership composition of women increased slightly over the study period (24%–28%). The overall observed number of women in speaker slots over the study period did not differ significantly from what would be expected based on the ASA membership composition (25.0% observed versus 25.9% expected; P = .153). However, the percentage of single speakers who were women was significantly less than would be expected based on the ASA gender distribution (20.2% observed versus 25.9% expected; P < .001). Interestingly, for panels that included 2–5 anesthesiologists, single-gender panels were more common than would be expected by chance, with all-male panels predominating (all P < .01). The gender composition of speakers at the ASA Annual Meeting largely reflected gender composition within the specialty, although women were not overrepresented at any meeting. The predominance of single-gender panels and underrepresentation of women as single speakers is a potential target to improve gender representation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of robotic hysterectomies (RH) are being performed. To provide ventilation (with pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg position) for these procedures, utilization of lung protective strategies with limiting airway pressures and tidal volumes is difficult. Little is known about the effects of intraoperative mechanical ventilation and high peak airway pressures on perioperative complications. We performed a retrospective review to determine whether patients undergoing RH had increased pulmonary complications compared to total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). METHODS: We performed a single center retrospective review comparing the intraoperative, anesthetic, and immediate and 30-day postoperative course of patients undergoing RH to TAH, including intraoperative ventilatory parameters and respiratory complications. Patients undergoing TAH (201) from 2004 to 2006 were compared to RH (251) from 2009 to 2012. It was our hypothesis that patients undergoing RH would have increased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. A secondary hypothesis was that morbid obesity predicts pulmonary complications in patients undergoing RH. Complications were compared between groups using Fisher’s exact test. To account for potential confounders, the primary analysis was performed for a subgroup of patients matched on the propensity for RH. RESULTS: A total of 351 RH and 201 TAH procedures are included. Higher inspiratory pressures were required in ventilation of the RH group (median [25th, 75th] 31 [26, 36] cm H 2 O) than the TAH group (23 [19, 27] cm H 2 O) ( P < .001) at 30 minutes after incision. Peak inspiratory pressures at 30 minutes after incision for RH increased according to increasing body mass index group ( P < .001). There were 163 RH and 163 TAH procedures included in the propensity matched analysis. From this analysis, there were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complications between RH and TAH (0.6% vs 1.2%; odds ratio = 2.0, 95% confidence interval = 0.2–2.4; P = 1.00). Surgical site infection was significantly lower in the RH compared to TAH group (0.6% vs 8.6%; P < .001). Hospital length of stay was longer for those who underwent TAH versus RH (median [25th, 75th] 2 [2, 3] vs 1 [0, 2] days; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in perioperative complications in obese and morbidly obese women compared to nonobese undergoing RH. Patients undergoing RH had shorter hospital stays, fewer infectious complications, and no increase in overall complications compared to TAH. Higher ventilatory airway pressures (RH versus TAH and obese versus nonobese) did not result in an increase in cardiopulmonary or overall complications. We believe that peritoneal insufflation attenuates the effect of high airway pressures by raising intrapleural pressure and reducing the gradient across terminal bronchioles and alveoli. Thus, we propose that lung protective strategies for patients undergoing RH account for the markedly elevated intraperitoneal and intrapleural pressures, whereas transpulmonary airway pressures remain static. This reduced transpulmonary gradient attenuates the strain on lung tissue that would otherwise be imposed by ventilation at high pressures.

A perception that living donor liver transplantation can be accomplished with an acceptable donor complication rate and recipient survival rate has led to the acceptance of living donor liver transplantation as a viable alternative to decreased deceased donor transplantation. Careful candidate evaluation and selection has been crucial to the success of this procedure. Advancements in the understanding of the lobar nature of the liver and of liver regeneration have advanced the surgical technique. Initial attempts at adult-to-adult donation utilized the left hepatic lobe, but now have evolved into use of the right hepatic lobe. Size matching is very important to successful graft function in the recipient. There is great concern regarding morbidity and mortality in donors. Biliary complications and infections continue to be among the most highly reported complications, although rates vary among centers and countries. Reports of single center complications have ranged from 9% to 67%. A survey of centers in the United States in 2003 reported complications of 10%. A series from our institution reported complications arising in 13 (33%) of 39 patients. A review focused on documenting donor deaths found 33 living liver donor deaths worldwide. The much publicized immediate postoperative mishap of 2002 that resulted in a donor’s death resulted in a drop in the utilization of living donor liver transplantation in the United States, from which this procedure has never fully recovered. The future development and expansion of living donor liver transplantation depends on open communication regarding donor complications and deaths. Close immediate postoperative monitoring and meticulous management will remain an essential aspect in limiting donor complications and deaths.