Citations

Background Although regional anesthesia (RA) is associated with improved pain control, reduced opioid use, and accelerated recovery after arthroplasty, racial and geographic differences have been identified in hip and knee arthroplasty, with limited data for shoulder and ankle arthroplasty. We examined differences in RA utilization for shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty, based on patient-level and hospital-level characteristics. Methods Using the National Inpatient Sample, we conducted a cross-sectional study of adults who underwent shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasties from 2016 to 2020. RA was defined using procedure codes for neuraxial anesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks. Weighted descriptive statistics summarized RA utilization and compared patient-level and hospital-level characteristics using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with ≥0.10 indicating meaningful differences. Results We identified 1132 011 unweighted admissions, representing approximately 5.7 million weighted arthroplasties. RA was used in 7.0% of cases. RA utilization varied by procedure type, with the highest rates in shoulder (11.4%) and ankle arthroplasty (11.4%), followed by knee (9.1%) and hip arthroplasty (2.4%). Variation in RA utilization was observed in ankle arthroplasty based on race (SMD=0.11) and primary payer (SMD=0.12). RA use also varied by hospital size for shoulder (SMD=0.13), hip (SMD=0.29), and knee arthroplasty (SMD=0.22), by hospital location and teaching status for shoulder (SMD=0.17), hip (SMD=0.18), knee (SMD=0.19), and ankle arthroplasty (SMD=0.12), and by geographic region for shoulder (SMD=0.26), hip (SMD=0.45), knee (SMD=0.24), and ankle arthroplasty (SMD=0.17). Conclusions There is notable variation in RA use for inpatient arthroplasty across hospitals and geographic regions, with limited variation based on patient characteristics. These findings highlight the presence of system-level variation in RA use and underscore the need for further research to better understand the drivers of these patterns.

This practice guideline addresses perioperative pain management using local and regional anesthesia for cardiothoracic, mastectomy, and abdominal surgery in adults and children. For adults, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (Schaumburg, Illinois) Task Force on Perioperative Pain Management strongly recommends fascial plane blocks to reduce pain and/or opioid requirements in the first 24 h postoperatively for open cardiothoracic, abdominal, retroperitoneal, and pelvic surgeries and mastectomy. Fascial plane blocks are also recommended in adults to reduce pain and/or opioid requirements after minimally invasive abdominal procedures. The Task Force conditionally recommends use of fascial plane blocks for minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgeries and open hernia repair to reduce pain in the first 24 h postoperatively. For children, the Task Force strongly recommends use of fascial plane blocks to reduce pain/and or opioid use after open cardiac or thoracic surgeries. Fascial plane blocks are conditionally recommended to reduce pain the first 24 h in children undergoing open hernia repair. Overall, data analysis for this practice guideline was limited by low methodologic quality, inconsistencies in outcome measurements, and small sample sizes from individual centers. Future research in regional anesthesia and analgesia needs to address these pervasive limitations.

Purpose of review The rapid growth and integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare has the potential to revolutionize all fields of medicine, including anesthesiology. This review summarizes the role of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, highlighting how it can enhance patient safety, workflow efficiency, and research capabilities, while also examining the potential risks and ethical issues of introducing this new technology. Recent findings Evolving applications in anesthesiology include closed-loop anesthetic delivery, risk stratification, intraoperative monitoring, natural language processing for literature synthesis, and predictive modeling for adverse events. While these tools offer significant promise for improving efficiency and safety, emerging risks, such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, hallucinations, and automation complacency – must be carefully addressed. Regulatory frameworks, clinician education, and transparent model development are necessary to ensure responsible integration. Summary Artificial intelligence is poised to transform anesthetic care, but it must be developed and deployed with caution. Clinician oversight, robust validation, and ethical safeguards are essential to ensure artificial intelligence enhances, rather than replaces, clinical judgment. Strategic adoption can improve patient outcomes, reduce preventable harm, and streamline perioperative workflows.

BACKGROUND: The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) has significantly increased in recent years. GLP-1 RAs delay gastric emptying, resulting in early satiety and weight loss. This may increase the risk of pulmonary aspiration of residual gastric contents (RGC) during anesthesia delivery. Evidence is urgently needed to guide perioperative anesthesia management for patients taking GLP-1 RAs. This study evaluated preoperative factors that may be associated with high RGC. METHODS: Adult patients who were taking GLP-1 RAs and scheduled to receive anesthesia at 3 hospitals between June 30, 2023, and August 15, 2024, were evaluated via preoperative point-of-care gastric ultrasonography (GUS). The primary outcome was high RGC, defined by the presence of solids food or >1.5 mL/kg of clear liquids on GUS, and its association with preoperative factors (eg, existing medical conditions, indication and route of taking GLP-1 RAs, length of taking GLP-1 RAs, days of withholding GLP-1 RAs before surgery, and preoperative fasting periods). Data are presented as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: Among the 316 patients (60.9 years [52.1–68.9] of age; 167 [52.8%] females) included in the study, 113 (35.8%) had high RGC. A higher percentage (5.3%; 6/113) of patients in the high RGC group had an opioid prescription for pain management within 3 months of the GUS assessment compared to the low RGC group (1.0%; 2/203; P = .027). No statistical difference was found between the groups in other existing medical conditions, indication and route of taking GLP-1 RAs, and length of taking GLP-1 RAs. Of the 294 patients taking weekly injections, there were 187 (63.6%) with low RGC and 107 (36.4%) with high RGC. Patients with low RGC withheld their GLP-1 RAs for 8 days [5–10], while patients with high RGC withheld for 6 days [3–9] ( P = .003). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis found ≤7.5 days of withholding the medication as cutoff for increased prevalence of high RGC in patients taking GLP-1 RA injections. Patients with low RGC fasted from solid food for 20.0 hours [14.8–40.8], and patients with high RGC fasted from solid food for 15.0 hours [12.8–19.0] ( P < .001). ROC found ≤21.3 hours of fasting from solid food as the cutoff for increased prevalence of high RGC. CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 RA usage may delay gastric emptying. In preoperatively fasting adults, ≤7.5 days of withholding injections and ≤21.3 hours of fasting from solid food are associated with high RGC.

Purpose of review Although effective patient safety education is critical to reducing medical errors, little guidance exists on best practices for patient safety curricula. This review explores the current state of patient safety education in anesthesiology and highlights emerging technologies as tools to enhance and personalize education. Recent findings Despite formal mandates from accrediting bodies, patient safety education in anesthesiology lacks standardization in content, delivery, and assessment. Structured clinical training, simulation, and quality improvement projects are common teaching strategies, but novel approaches such as immersive reality (IR), artificial intelligence (AI)-powered agents, gamification, and mobile platforms are gaining traction. AI shows promise in tailoring instruction and identifying high-risk learners, and IR offers tools for both technical and nontechnical skills training. Summary Patient safety education in anesthesiology is evolving with technology. AI and digital tools provide adaptive and interactive learning experiences that may help address current limitations in fixed, generalized curriculum structure and accessibility. However, these innovations require robust validation and thoughtful integration into educational frameworks to realize their full potential.

Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current clinical implications, benefits, and controversies surrounding the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). This review discusses the potential risks associated with GLP-1 RA therapy, such as pulmonary aspirations, tachyphylaxis, and issues with drug efficacy over time. Furthermore, it examines the increasing ethical and medical concerns related to their off-label use, safety, and accessibility. Recent findings: Recent studies highlight significant discrepancies in the recommendations provided by different medical societies on the perioperative management of GLP-1 RAs. In addition, insurance barriers exacerbate access issues, with substantial disparities in coverage for weight loss versus diabetes management. The rise of counterfeit GLP-1 RAs, unintentional overdoses, and the growing concern about long-term health impacts are also prominent challenges in the current landscape. Summary: Despite increasing usage and the potential benefits of GLP-1 RAs, a lack of consensus on optimal perioperative management and long-term use, coupled with financial and regulatory barriers, creates significant challenges. Medical societies differ on key aspects such as fasting requirements and the risk of aspiration, and concerns about the safety of compounded and counterfeit products remain.

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.