Citations

Gastric point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may offer clinical value in assessing aspiration risk among medically complex patients undergoing regional anesthesia and pain procedures. While the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) preoperative fasting guidelines primarily apply to healthy individuals, medically complex populations often present with differing gastric emptying and aspiration risk. This narrative review, conducted by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM), adhered to PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. It focused on seven medically complex patient groups: those who are pregnant, obese, diabetic, have gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), are receiving emergency care, are enterally fed, or are taking GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA). Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Practice recommendations were developed using an iterative expert consensus process, with final recommendations based on evidence strength, clinical relevance, and expert agreement. Findings support the use of gastric POCUS in patients in active labor, those undergoing urgent cesarean sections, and those with diabetes. Conditional support is given for obesity, emergency care, enteral feeding, and GLP-1RA use. Routine use is not recommended in non-laboring pregnancies, elective cesarean delivery, or GERD. While gastric POCUS may aid with aspiration risk evaluation, its use should complement clinical judgment. Implementation may be limited by practical and training constraints, requiring individualized decision-making. These recommendations serve as a foundation for future research and potential clinical guideline development. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023445927.

Hemorrhagic complications associated with regional anesthesia are extremely rare. The fifth edition of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s Evidence-Based Guidelines on regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy reviews the published evidence since 2018 and provides guidance to help avoid this potentially catastrophic complication. The fifth edition of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s Evidence-Based Guidelines on regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy uses similar methodology as previous editions but is reorganized and significantly condensed. Therefore, the clinicians are encouraged to review the earlier texts for more detailed descriptions of methods, clinical trials, case series and pharmacology. It is impossible to perform large, randomized controlled trials evaluating a complication this rare; therefore, where the evidence is limited, the authors continue to maintain an ‘antihemorrhagic’ approach focused on patient safety and have proposed conservative times for the interruption of therapy prior to neural blockade. In previous versions, the anticoagulant doses were described as prophylactic and therapeutic. In this version, we will be using ‘low dose’ and ‘high dose,’ which will allow us to be consistent with other published guidelines and more accurately describe the dose in the setting of specific patient characteristics and indications. For example, the same ‘high’ dose may be used in one patient as a treatment for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and in another patient as prophylaxis for recurrent DVT. Due to the increasing ability to obtain drug-specific assays, we have included suggestions for when ordering these tests may be helpful and guide practice. Like previous editions, at the end of each recommendation the authors have clearly noted how the recommendation has changed from previous editions.

Background Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

Background There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. Methods We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. Results Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. Conclusions Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.