Anesthesia and analgesia最新文献

Background: Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing.

Methods: Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically.

Results: There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes).

Conclusions: Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.

The increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus has been accompanied by a rapid expansion in wearable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and insulin pumps. Systems combining these components in a "closed loop," where interstitial glucose measurement guides automated insulin delivery (AID, or closed loop) based on sophisticated algorithms, are increasingly common. While these devices' efficacy in achieving near-normoglycemia is contributing to increasing usage among patients with diabetes, the management of these patients in operative and procedural environments remains understudied with limited published guidance available, particularly regarding AID systems. With their growing prevalence, practical management advice is needed for their utilization, or for the rational temporary substitution of alternative diabetes monitoring and treatments, during surgical care. CGM devices monitor interstitial glucose in real time; however, there are potential limitations to use and accuracy in the perioperative period, and, at the present time, their use should not replace regular point-of-care glucose monitoring. Avoiding perioperative removal of CGMs when possible is important, as removal of these prescribed devices can result in prolonged interruptions in CGM-informed treatments during and after procedures, particularly AID system use. Standalone insulin pumps provide continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery without automated adjustments for glucose concentrations and can be continued during some procedures. The safe intraoperative use of AID devices in their hybrid closed-loop mode (AID mode) requires the CGM component of the system to continue to communicate valid blood glucose data, and thus introduces the additional need to ensure this portion of the system is functioning appropriately to enable intraprocedural use. AID devices revert to non-AID insulin therapy modes when paired CGMs are disconnected or when the closed-loop mode is intentionally disabled. For patients using insulin pumps, we describe procedural factors that may compromise CGM, insulin pump, and AID use, necessitating a proactive transition to an alternative insulin regimen. Procedure duration and invasiveness is an important factor as longer procedures increase the risk of stress hyperglycemia, tissue malperfusion, and device malfunction. Whether insulin pumps should be continued through procedures, or substituted by alternative insulin delivery methods, is a complex decision that requires all parties to understand potential risks and contingency plans relating to patient and procedural factors. Currently available CGMs and insulin pumps are reviewed, and practical recommendations for safe glycemic management during the phases of perioperative care are provided.

Background: During the anesthetic-induced loss of responsiveness (LOR), a "paradoxical excitation" with activation of β-frequencies in the electroencephalogram (EEG) can be observed. Thus, spectral parameters-as widely used in commercial anesthesia monitoring devices-may mistakenly indicate that patients are awake when they are actually losing responsiveness. Nonlinear time-domain parameters such as permutation entropy (PeEn) may analyze additional EEG information and appropriately reflect the change in cognitive state during the transition. Determining which parameters correctly track the level of anesthesia is essential for designing monitoring algorithms but may also give valuable insight regarding the signal characteristics during state transitions.

Methods: EEG data from 60 patients who underwent general anesthesia were extracted and analyzed around LOR. We derived the following information from the power spectrum: (i) spectral band power, (ii) the spectral edge frequency as well as 2 parameters known to be incorporated in monitoring systems, (iii) beta ratio, and (iv) spectral entropy. We also calculated (v) PeEn as a time-domain parameter. We used Friedman's test and Bonferroni correction to track how the parameters change over time and the area under the receiver operating curve to separate the power spectra between time points.

Results: Within our patient collective, we observed a "paradoxical excitation" around the time of LOR as indicated by increasing beta-band power. Spectral edge frequency and spectral entropy values increased from 19.78 [10.25-34.18] Hz to 25.39 [22.46-30.27] Hz ( P = .0122) and from 0.61 [0.54-0.75] to 0.77 [0.64-0.81] ( P < .0001), respectively, before LOR, indicating a (paradoxically) higher level of high-frequency activity. PeEn and beta ratio values decrease from 0.78 [0.77-0.82] to 0.76 [0.73-0.81] ( P < .0001) and from -0.74 [-1.14 to -0.09] to -2.58 [-2.83 to -1.77] ( P < .0001), respectively, better reflecting the state transition into anesthesia.

Conclusions: PeEn and beta ratio seem suitable parameters to monitor the state transition during anesthesia induction. The decreasing PeEn values suggest a reduction of signal complexity and information content, which may very well describe the clinical situation at LOR. The beta ratio mainly focuses on the loss of power in the gamma-band. PeEn, in particular, may present a single parameter capable of tracking the LOR transition without being affected by paradoxical excitation.

Background: Colorectal resections are associated with a pronounced inflammatory response, severe postoperative pain, and postoperative ileus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the main effects of lidocaine and ketamine, and their interaction in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after open surgery. The interaction could be additive if the effect of 2 drugs given in combination equals the sum of their individual effects, or multiplicative if their combined effect exceeds the sum of their individual effects. We hypothesized that the combination of lidocaine and ketamine might reduce the inflammatory response additively or synergistically.

Methods: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective open colorectal resection were randomized to receive either lidocaine or placebo and either ketamine or placebo in a 2 × 2 factorial design. After induction of general anesthesia, all subjects received an intravenous bolus (lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg and/or ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and/or a matched saline volume) followed by a continuous infusion (lidocaine 2 mg·kg -1 ·h -1 and/or ketamine 0.2 mg·kg -1 ·h -1 and/or a matched saline volume) until the end of surgery. Primary outcomes were serum levels of white blood cell (WBC) count, interleukins (IL-6, IL-8), and C-reactive protein (CRP) measured at 2 time points: 12 and 36 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative opioid consumption; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively; cumulative analgesic consumption within 48 hours after surgery; and time to first bowel movement. We assessed the main effects of each of lidocaine and ketamine and their interaction on the primary outcomes using linear regression analyses. A Bonferroni-adjusted significance level was set at .05/8 = .00625 for primary analyses.

Results: No statistically significant differences were observed with either lidocaine or ketamine intervention in any of the measured inflammatory markers. No multiplicative interaction between the 2 treatments was confirmed at 12 or 36 hours after surgery: WBC count, P = .870 and P = .393, respectively; IL-6, P = .892 and P = .343, respectively; IL-8, P = .999 and P = .996, respectively; and CRP, P = .014 and P = .445, respectively. With regard to inflammatory parameters, no evidence of additive interactions was found. Lidocaine and ketamine, either together or alone, significantly reduced intraoperative opioid consumption versus placebo, and, except for lidocaine alone, improved pain scores. Neither intervention significantly influenced gut motility.

Conclusions: Our study results do not support the use of an intraoperative combination of lidocaine and ketamine in patients undergoing open surgery for CRC.

Background: Continuous cardiac output monitoring is not standard practice during cardiac surgery, even though patients are at substantial risk for systemic hypoperfusion. Thus, the frequency of low cardiac output during cardiac surgery is unknown.

Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study at a tertiary medical center from July 2021 to November 2023. Eligible patients were ≥18 undergoing isolated coronary bypass (CAB) surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Cardiac output indexed to body surface area (CI) was continuously recorded at 5-second intervals throughout surgery using a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved noninvasive monitor from the arterial blood pressure waveform. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) were also analyzed. Low CI was defined as <2 L/min/m 2 and low MAP as <65 mm Hg. We calculated time with low CI for each patient for the entire surgery, pre-CPB and post-CPB periods, and the proportion of time with low CI and normal MAP. We used Pearson correlation to evaluate the relationship between CI and MAP and paired Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess the difference in correlations of CI with MAP before and after CPB.

Results: In total, 101 patients were analyzed (age [standard deviation, SD] 64.8 [9.8] years, 25% female). Total intraoperative time (mean [SD]) with low CI was 86.4 (62) minutes, with 61.2 (42) minutes of low CI pre-CPB and 25.2 (31) minutes post-CPB. Total intraoperative time with low CI and normal MAP was 66.5 (56) minutes, representing mean (SD) 69% (23%) of the total time with low CI; 45.8 (38) minutes occurred pre-CPB and 20.6 (27) minutes occurred post-CPB. Overall, the correlation (mean [SD]) between CI and MAP was 0.33 (0.31), and the correlation was significantly higher pre-CPB (0.53 [0.32]) than post-CPB (0.29 [0.28], 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference [0.18-0.34], P < .001); however, there was substantial heterogeneity among participants in correlations of CI with MAP before and after CPB. Secondary analyses that accounted for CVP did not alter the correlation between CI and MAP. Exploratory analyses suggested duration of low CI (C <2 L/min/m 2 ) was associated with increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.09; 95% CI; 1.01-1.13; P = .018).

Conclusions: In a prospective cohort of patients undergoing CAB surgery, low CI was common even when blood pressure was normal. CI and MAP were correlated modestly. Correlation was higher before than after CPB with substantial heterogeneity among individuals. Future studies are needed to examine the independent relation of low CI to postoperative kidney injury and other adverse outcomes related to hypoperfusion.