Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

Early Opioid Use and Postoperative Delirium Following Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium is a common complication following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR). Opioids have been found to contribute to delirium, especially at higher doses. This study assessed the impact of early postoperative opioid analgesia on postoperative delirium incidence and time to onset. We hypothesized that higher early postoperative opioid utilization would be associated with increased postoperative delirium incidence.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of OAR cases at a single quaternary care center from years 2012-2020. The primary exposure was oral morphine equivalents use (OME), calculated for postoperative days 1-7. A cut point analysis using a receiver operator curve for postoperative delirium determined the threshold for high OME (OME>37 mg). The primary outcome was postoperative delirium incidence identified via chart review. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for postoperative delirium and adjusted for covariates meeting P < 0.1 on bivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among 194 OAR cases, 67 (35%) developed postoperative delirium with median time to onset of 3 days (IQR = 2-6). Patients with postoperative delirium were older (74 years vs. 69 years), more frequently presented with symptomatic AAA (47% vs. 27%) and had a higher proportion of comorbidities (all P < 0.05). Cases with high OME utilization on postoperative day 1 (55%) were younger (69 vs. 73 years), less frequently had an epidural (46% vs. 77%), and more frequently developed delirium (42% vs. 25%, all P < 0.05). Epidural use was associated with a significant decrease in OME utilization on postoperative day 1 (33 vs. 83, P < 0.01). Postoperative delirium onset was later in those with high OME use (4 vs. 2 days, P = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, high OME remained associated with postoperative delirium (Table II).

CONCLUSIONS

High opioid utilization on postoperative day 1 is associated with increased postoperative delirium and epidural along with acetaminophen use reduced opioid utilization. Future study should examine the impact of opioid reduction strategies on outcomes after major vascular surgery.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

Anterior spinal cord syndrome from a spinal epidural hematoma following removal of an epidural catheter

PURPOSE

Spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) is a rare yet significant complication associated with neuraxial anesthesia. Here, we present the case of a 74-yr-old male who underwent open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Following the removal of an epidural catheter, the patient developed anterior spinal cord syndrome due to an SEH despite having a normal coagulation profile.

CLINICAL FEATURES

This patient's neurologic presentation was marked by a loss of motor function while maintaining fine touch sensation distal to the spinal cord injury. Initial truncal computed tomography (CT) angiography failed to detect vascular compromise or diagnose the SEH. Subsequently, delayed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a multilevel thoracic epidural hematoma, spinal cord infarction, and ischemia. Immediate surgical decompression was performed, but unfortunately, the patient had a poor outcome.

CONCLUSION

Anterior spinal cord syndrome (ASCS) represents an uncommon neurologic manifestation of SEH, which is typically characterized by a triad of back pain and sensory and motor deficits. Although the initial CT scan was necessary to diagnose the postvascular surgery complication, it did not immediately detect the SEH. In cases of ASCS subsequent to thoracic epidural placement and removal, MRI is the preferred imaging modality for precise diagnosis and assessment of the need for surgical intervention. Despite adherence to anticoagulation guidelines, patients undergoing neuraxial anesthesia may face an elevated risk of developing SEH. Health care professionals should remain vigilant in monitoring for neurologic abnormalities following epidural catheter insertion or removal, particularly in the context of vascular surgery.

Transitional Pain Service: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic Postsurgical Pain (CPSP) and the risk for long-term opioid dependency are known complications following major surgery. The idea of Transitional Pain Service (TPS) has been introduced as an interdisciplinary setting to manage pain in the perioperative continuum. We expand on the basic framework and principles of TPS and summarize the current evidence of the TPS and possible interventions to adress postoperative pain. Areas of future work in TPS-related research are discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies support the effectiveness of TPS in reducing opioid consumption in the perioperative period and following discharge. Some studies also show an improvement in functional outcome with TPS with patients reporting lower pain severity and pain interference. The TPS aims to halt the progress of acute postoperative pain to CPSP by providing longitudinal support with patient-centered care. While some studies suggest a positive impact of TPS implementation in terms of reduction in postoperative opioid consumption and improvement of some functional outcomes, direct evidence in terms of reduction in the incidence of CPSP is still missing. The cost-effectiveness of TPS and the expansion of TPS through e-health services and digital applications also need to be evaluated.

Uncomplicated epidural removal in a patient on a therapeutic heparin infusion: a case report

BACKGROUND

Unanticipated postoperative thrombotic complications can occur in complex patients who receive preoperative epidurals. Therefore, it is imperative that we consider the risks and benefits of epidural management in the setting of therapeutic anticoagulation. We present a case of epidural catheter removal on a heparin infusion, due to the extreme risk of holding anticoagulation for any duration.

CASE REPORT

A woman with hilar cholangiocarcinoma presented after uncomplicated hepatectomy, bile duct resection and hepaticojejunostomy, with a thoracic epidural for analgesia. On postoperative day 1, she developed a total portal vein thrombosis, requiring emergent open thrombectomy, transhepatic stenting and high-dose heparin infusion while the epidural was indwelling. The patient was deemed to have a profound risk of re-thrombosis if heparin were paused. Therefore, a multidisciplinary discussion between hepatobiliary surgery, critical care, neurosurgery, haematology, acute pain service and the patient's family ensued regarding epidural management. Options included catheter-directed thrombolytics to her stent while holding systemic anticoagulation, sterilely leaving the epidural catheter in place indefinitely, injecting prothrombotic agent into the epidural prior to removal, or removing the catheter without holding anticoagulation. Due to the risk of re-thrombosis in the portal vein and liver infarction, the heparin infusion was decreased to achieve the lowest therapeutic anti-Xa level, and the epidural was removed. The patient was continuously monitored in the intensive care unit without any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary discussion is paramount to weigh the risk of epidural haematoma if a catheter is removed on therapeutic anticoagulation against catastrophic thrombosis if anticoagulation is paused.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in patient controlled epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy and incidence of adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine (DEX) as a local anesthetic adjuvant for patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) are inconclusive. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and risks of DEX for PCEA using opioids as a reference.

METHODS

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine for randomized controlled trials comparing DEX and opioids as local anesthetic adjuvants in PCEA.

RESULTS

In total, 636 patients from seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Postoperative patients who received DEX had lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores than those who received opioids at 4-8 h (mean difference [MD]: 0.61, 95% CI [0.45, 0.76], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 12 h (MD: 0.85, 95% CI [0.61, 1.09], P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), 24 h (MD: 0.59, 95% CI [0.06, 1.12], P = 0.030, I2 = 82%), and 48 h (MD: 0.54, 95% CI [0.05, 1.02], P = 0.030, I2 = 91%). Additionally, patients who received DEX had a lower incidence of itching (odds ratio [OR]: 2.86, 95% CI [1.18, 6.95], P = 0.020, I2 = 0%) and nausea and vomiting (OR: 6.83, 95% CI [3.63, 12.84], P < 0.001, I2 = 24%). In labor analgesia, no significant differences in neonatal (pH and PaO2 of cord blood, fetal heart rate) or maternal outcomes (duration of labor stage, mode of delivery) were found between the DEX and opioid groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with opioids, using DEX as a local anesthetic adjuvant in PCEA improved postoperative analgesia and reduced the incidence of itching and nausea and vomiting without increasing the incidence of adverse events.

The Role of Regional Anaesthesia and Acute Pain Services in Value-Based Healthcare

Value-based healthcare prioritizes patient outcomes and quality relative to costs, shifting focus from service volume to delivered value. This review explores the significant role of regional anaesthesia (RA) and acute pain services (APS) within the evolving value-based healthcare (VBHC) framework. At the heart of VBHC is the goal to enhance patient outcomes while simultaneously optimizing operational efficiency and reducing costs. The review underscores the need for VBHC and illustrates how integrating RA/APS with Enhanced Recovery Protocols can lead to improved outcomes, aligning directly with the goals of the Triple Aim. Several clinical studies show that RA improves patient outcomes, enhances operating room efficiency, and reduces costs. This is complemented by a discussion on the integration of RA and APS into the VBHC model, highlighting emerging value-based payment structures and strategies for their successful implementation. By merging specialized RA/APS protocols with standardized clinical practices, significant improvements in operating room efficiency and associated economic benefits are observed. Across the healthcare spectrum, from providers to payers, this synergy results in enhanced operational efficiency and communication, raising the standard of patient care. Additionally, the potential of RA and APS to address the opioid crisis, through alternative pain management methods, is emphasized. Globally, the shift towards VBHC requires international collaboration, sharing of best practices, and efficient resource allocation, with RA and APS playing a crucial role. In conclusion, as healthcare moves toward a value-driven model, RA and APS become increasingly essential, signaling a future of refined, patient-centered care.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Comparison of median and paramedian technique of thoracic epidural anaesthesia in patients undergoing laparotomy under combined general and epidural anaesthesia - A prospective observational study

Background and Aims

Most studies have found that lumbar epidural catheterisation is technically easier with a paramedian than median approach. There is scant literature comparing the two approaches to the epidural space in the mid-thoracic spine. This study aims to compare the median versus paramedian approaches in the location of epidural space in the T7-9 region in patients undergoing laparotomy under combined general and epidural anaesthesia.

Methods

A prospective observational study was conducted after ethical approval and written informed consent on 70 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients received epidural analgesia either through a median or paramedian approach (Group M, n = 35 and Group P, n = 35). The primary objective was the incidence of successful epidural catheter placement in the first attempt. The secondary objectives were the overall success rate, the requirement of change of intervertebral space, approach or operator and complications associated with the procedure.

Results

Sixty-seven patients were analysed. Epidural catheter was placed successfully in the first attempt in 40% of patients in Group M and 78.1% in Group P (P = 0.003). The overall success rate was 74.3% in Group M and 87.5% in Group P (P = 0.223). The number of attempts in Group M was more (one attempt 14, two 6, three 5 and four 1) as compared to Group P (one 25, two 2, three 1 and four 0) (P = 0.014). The incidence of complications was comparable between the groups.

Conclusion

Epidural catheter insertion was technically easier in paramedian as compared to the median approach in T7-9 thoracic region with no difference in complications.

Muscarinic receptor regulation of chronic pain-induced atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF), one of the most common arrhythmias, is associated with chronic emotional disorder. Chronic pain represents a psychological instability condition related to cardiovascular diseases, but the mechanistic linkage connecting chronic pain to AF occurrence remains unknown. Wild-type C57BL/6J male mice were randomly divided into sham and chronic pain groups. Autonomic nerve remodeling was reflected by the increased atrial parasympathetic tension and muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M2 expression. AF susceptibility was assessed through transesophageal burst stimulation in combination with electrocardiogram recording and investigating AERP in Langendorff perfused hearts. Our results demonstrated the elevated protein expression of muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M2 in the atria of mice subjected to chronic pain stress. Moreover, chronic pain induced the increase of atrial PR interval, and atrial effective refractory periods as compared to the sham group, underlying the enhanced susceptibility of AF. Thus, autonomic cholinergic nerve may mediate mice AF in the setting of chronic pain.

Guidelines on the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE)

The objective of these Guidelines was to revise and update the previous 2016 Italian Guidelines on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Disease, in accordance with the National Guidelines System (SNLG), to guide every practitioner toward the most correct management pathway for this pathology. The methodology applied in this update was the GRADE-SIGN version methodology, following the instructions of the AGREE quality of reporting checklist as well. The first methodological step was the formulation of clinical questions structured according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) model according to which the Recommendations were issued. Then, systematic reviews of the Literature were carried out for each PICO question or for homogeneous groups of questions, followed by the selection of the articles and the assessment of the methodological quality for each of them using qualitative checklists. Finally, a Considered Judgment form was filled in for each clinical question, in which the features of the evidence as a whole are assessed to establish the transition from the level of evidence to the direction and strength of the recommendations. These guidelines outline the correct management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in terms of screening and surveillance. Medical management and indication for surgery are discussed, as well as preoperative assessment regarding patients' background and surgical risk evaluation. Once the indication for surgery has been established, the options for traditional open and endovascular surgery are described and compared, focusing specifically on patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms as well. Finally, indications for early and late postoperative follow-up are explained. The most recent evidence in the Literature has been able to confirm and possibly modify the previous recommendations updating them, likewise to propose new recommendations on prospectively relevant topics.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Enhanced Recovery for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery

Introduction: Open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and high length of stay (LOS). Enhanced recovery is now commonplace and has been shown to decrease these in other non-vascular surgery settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the benefits of enhanced recovery (ERAS) in aortic surgery. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to undertake a systematic review via Ovid MEDLINE and Embase on 10.07.2021. The search terms were "aortic aneurysm" and "fast track" or "enhanced recovery". Data was obtained on major complications, 30-day mortality and LOS. Results: 107 papers were identified and 10 papers included for meta-analysis. Complication rates were significantly reduced with ERAS compared to non-ERAS protocols (ERAS n = 709, non-ERAS n = 930) (odds ratio .38, .22 to .65: P = .0005). LOS was also significantly reduced with an ERAS protocol (ERAS n = 708, non-ERAS n = 956) with a mean reduction of 3 .18 days (-5.01 to -1.35 days) (P = .0007: I2 = 97%). There was no significant difference however in 30-day mortality (P = .92). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates significant benefits to an enhanced recovery programme in open AAA surgery. There is a need for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial to assess this further.

Effects of Perioperative Epidural Analgesia on Cancer Recurrence and Survival

Surgical resection is the main curative avenue for various cancers. Unfortunately, cancer recurrence following surgery is commonly seen, and typically results in refractory disease and death. Currently, there is no consensus whether perioperative epidural analgesia (EA), including intraoperative and postoperative epidural analgesia, is beneficial or harmful on cancer recurrence and survival. Although controversial, mounting evidence from both clinical and animal studies have reported perioperative EA can improve cancer recurrence and survival via many aspects, including modulating the immune/inflammation response and reducing the use of anesthetic agents like inhalation anesthetics and opioids, which are independent risk factors for cancer recurrence. However, these results depend on the cancer types, cancer staging, patients age, opioids use, and the duration of follow-up. This review will summarize the effects of perioperative EA on the oncological outcomes of patients after cancer surgery.

Monitoring of Cardiac Output Using a New Smartphone Application (Capstesia) vs. Vigileo FloTrac System

(1) Background: We tested Capstesia against a reference system, Vigileo FloTrac, in patients undergoing major vascular surgery procedures. (2) Methods: Twenty-two adult patients (236 data pairs) were enrolled. Cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and related indexed parameters from the two monitoring systems were collected and compared at eleven time points during surgery. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Bland–Altman plots with percentages of error were used. (3) Results: The interclass correlation coefficients for CO, SV, and SVR were 0.527 (95%CI 0.387 to 0.634), 0.580 (95%CI 0.454 to 0.676), and 0.609 (95%CI 0.495 to 0.698), respectively. In the Bland–Altman analysis, bias (and limits of agreement) of CO was 0.33 L min−1 (−2.44; 3.10), resulting in a percentage error of 61.91% for CO. For SV, it was 5.02 mL (−36.42; 46.45), with 57.19% of error. Finally, the bias (and limit of agreement) of SVR was −75.99 dyne sec cm−5 (−870.04; 718.06), resulting in an error of 69.94%. (4) Conclusions: Although promising, cost-effective, and easy to use, the moderate level of agreement with Vigileo and the high level of error make Capstesia unsuitable for use in the intraoperative setting of vascular surgery. Critical errors in acquisition or digitalization of the snap might have a strong impact on the accuracy and performance. Further standardization of the acquisition technique and improvements in the processing algorithm are needed.

Preoperative Pulmonary Risk Assessment

Postoperative pulmonary complications have a significant impact on perioperative morbidity and mortality and contribute substantially to health care costs. Surgical stress and anesthesia lead to changes in respiratory physiology, altering lung volumes, respiratory drive, and muscle function that can cumulatively increase the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Preoperative medical evaluation requires a structured approach to identify patient-, procedure-, and anesthesia-related risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications. Validated risk prediction models can be used for risk stratification and to help tailor the preoperative investigation. Optimization of pulmonary comorbidities, smoking cessation, and correction of anemia are risk-mitigation strategies. Lung-protective ventilation, moderate PEEP application, and conservative use of neuromuscular blocking drugs are intra-operative preventive strategies. Postoperative early mobilization, chest physiotherapy, oral care, and appropriate analgesia speed up recovery. High-risk patients should receive inspiratory muscle training prior to surgery, and there should be a focus to minimize surgery time.

A Narrative Review on Perioperative Pain Management Strategies in Enhanced Recovery Pathways-The Past, Present and Future

Effective pain management is a key component in the continuum of perioperative care to ensure optimal outcomes for surgical patients. The overutilization of opioids in the past few decades for postoperative pain control has been a major contributor to the current opioid epidemic. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been repeatedly shown to significantly improve postoperative outcomes such as pain, function and satisfaction. The current review aims to examine the history of perioperative MMA strategies in ERAS and provide an update with recent evidence. Furthermore, this review details recent advancements in personalized pain medicine. We speculate that the next important step for improving perioperative pain management could be through incorporating these personalized metrics, such as clinical pharmacogenomic testing and patient-reported outcome measurements, into ERAS program.

Association of Perioperative Regional Analgesia with Postoperative Patient-Reported Pain Outcomes and Opioid Requirements: Comparing 22 Different Surgical Groups in 23,911 Patients from the QUIPS Registry

(1) Background: In many surgical procedures, regional analgesia (RA) techniques are associated with improved postoperative analgesia compared to systemic pain treatment. As continuous RA requires time and experienced staff, it would be helpful to identify settings in which continuous RA has the largest benefit. (2) Methods: On the basis of 23,911 data sets from 179 German and Austrian hospitals, we analyzed the association of perioperative RA with patient-reported pain intensity, functional impairment of movement, nausea and opioid use for different surgeries. Regression analyses adjusted for age, sex and preoperative pain were performed for each surgery and the following groups: patients receiving continuous RA (surgery and ward; RA++), RA for surgery only (RA+−) and patients receiving no RA (RA−−). (3) Results: Lower pain scores in the RA++ compared to the RA−− group were observed in 13 out of 22 surgeries. There was no surgery where pain scores for RA++ were higher than for RA−−. If maximal pain, function and side effects were combined, the largest benefit of continuous RA (RA++) was observed in laparoscopic colon and sigmoid surgery, ankle joint arthrodesis, revision (but not primary) surgery of hip replacement, open nephrectomy and shoulder surgery. The benefit of RA+− was lower than that of RA++. (4) Discussion: The additional benefit of RA for the mentioned surgeries is larger than in many other surgeries in clinical routine. The decision to use RA in a given surgery should be based on the expected pain intensity without RA and its additional benefits.

Evaluation of early postoperative intravenous opioid rescue as a novel quality measure in patients who receive thoracic epidural analgesia: a retrospective cohort analysis and prospective performance improvement intervention

BACKGROUND

In this study, we explored the utility of intravenous opioid rescue analgesia in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU-OpResc) as a single marker of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) failure and evaluated the resource implications and quality improvement applications of this measure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all TEA placements over a three-year period at a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. The study exposure was PACU-OpResc. Primary outcome was PACU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included reasons for delayed PACU discharge and intraoperative hypotension. The analyses were adjusted for confounding variables including patient comorbidities, surgical complexity, intraoperative intravenous opioids, chronic opioid use and local anesthetic bolus through TEA catheter. Post analysis chart review was conducted to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of PACU-OpResc for inadequate TEA. As a first Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, we then introduced a checkbox for documentation of a sensory level check after TEA placement. Post implementation data was collected for 7 months.

RESULTS

PACU-OpResc was required by 211 (22.1%) patients who received preoperative TEA, was associated with longer PACU LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.20, 95% CI:1.07-1.34, p = 0.001) and delayed discharge due to inadequate pain control (odds ratio 5.15, 95% CI 3.51-7.57, p <  0.001). PACU-OpResc had a PPV of 76.3 and 60.4% for re-evaluation and manipulation of the TEA catheter in PACU, respectively. Following implementation of a checkbox, average monthly compliance with documented sensory level check after TEA placement was noted to be 39.7%. During this time, a reduction of 8.2% in the rate of PACU-OpResc was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that PACU-OpResc can be used as a quality assurance measure or surrogate for TEA efficacy, to track performance and monitor innovation efforts aimed at improving analgesia, such as our intervention to facilitate sensory level checks and reduced PACU-OpResc.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not applicable.

Sugammadex is associated with shorter hospital length of stay after open lobectomy for lung cancer: a retrospective observational study

Background

Sugammadex is associated with few postoperative complications. Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are related to prolonged hospitalizations. Present study explored whether the use of sugammadex could reduce PPCs and thereby reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) after lung surgery.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent elective open lobectomy for lung cancer from January 2010 to December 2015. Patients were divided into the sugammadex group and pyridostigmine group.

The primary outcome was hospital LOS and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications and overall survival at 1 year. The cohort was subdivided into patients with and without prolonged LOS to explore the effects of sugammadex on outcomes in each group. Risk factors for LOS were determined via multivariate analyses. After propensity score matching, 127 patients were assigned to each group.

Results

Median hospital LOS was shorter (10.0 vs. 12.0 days) and the incidence of postoperative atelectasis was lower (18.1 vs. 29.9%) in the sugammadex group. However, no significant difference in overall survival between the groups was seen over 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.967; 95% confidence interval, 0.363 to 2.577). Sugammadex was a predictor related to LOS (exponential coefficient 0.88; 95% CI 0.82–0.95).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that sugammadex is a preferable agent for neuromuscular blockade (NMB) reversal than cholinesterase inhibitors in this patient population.

Trial registration

This study registered in the Clinical Research Information Service of the Korea National Institute of Health (approval number: KCT0004735, Date of registration: 21 January 2020, Retrospectively registered).

Parecoxib improves atherosclerotic plaque stability by suppressing inflammation and inhibiting matrix metalloproteinases production

With the aging population, coronary syndrome is one of the leading causes of mortality. Atherosclerosis is the pathophysiological basis of coronary syndrome, which is caused by plaque rupture and predisposed or aggravated by many perioperative complications. Parecoxib is one of the most widely used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory perioperative drugs. This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits of parecoxib on atherosclerosis progression. Apolipoprotein E-deficient (Apo E-/-) mice were intraperitoneally injected by parecoxib (par group) or saline (control group) and, meanwhile, were given a western diet for 12 weeks. The aorta and aortic root were examined by oil red O (ORO) staining for atherosclerotic lesions. The expression level of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), was investigated using immunofluorescence and western blot. Macrophage inflammation was investigated by Q-PCR. Parecoxib treatment increased the number of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) and amount of collagen, while and decreased the number of macrophages in murine aortic walls. The expression of MMP1, 2, 9, and 13 as well as IL- 1β and IL-6 were also decreased in the par group. However, there was no statistical difference in lipid infiltration between the two groups. Parecoxib could improve plaque stability by suppressing inflammation and inhibiting MMPs production.

Degradable polymeric vehicles for postoperative pain management

Effective control of pain management has the potential to significantly decrease the need for prescription opioids following a surgical procedure. While extended release products for pain management are available commercially, the implementation of a device that safely and reliably provides extended analgesia and is sufficiently flexible to facilitate a diverse array of release profiles would serve to advance patient comfort, quality of care and compliance following surgical procedures. Herein, we review current polymeric systems that could be utilized in new, controlled post-operative pain management devices and highlight where opportunities for improvement exist.

[Summary of the S3 guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm from an anesthesiological perspective]

The current article is a summary of the 2018 revised S3 guideline on screening, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from an anesthesiological point of view. It is the only interdisciplinary guideline that describes in particular the perioperative anesthesiological and intensive care management.

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures in adults

BACKGROUND

This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Updating was deemed necessary due to the high incidence of hip fractures, the large number of official societies providing recommendations on this condition, the possibility that perioperative peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may improve patient outcomes, and the major role that PNBs may play in reducing preoperative and postoperative opioid use for analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To compare PNBs used as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anaesthesia versus no nerve block (or sham block) for adults with hip fracture. Outcomes were pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction, chest infection, death, time to first mobilization, and costs of an analgesic regimen for single-injection blocks. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.

SEARCH METHODS

For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2019); Embase (Ovid SP, 1974 to November 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to November 2019), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing use of PNBs compared with no nerve block (or sham block) as part of the care provided for adults 16 years of age and older with hip fracture.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened new trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool, and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 trials (3061 participants; 1553 randomized to PNBs and 1508 to no nerve block (or sham block)). For this update, we added 18 new trials. Trials were published from 1981 to 2020. Trialists followed participants for periods ranging from 5 minutes to 12 months. The average age of participants ranged from 59 to 89 years. People with dementia were often excluded from the included trials. Additional analgesia was available for all participants. Results of 11 trials with 503 participants show that PNBs reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.86; equivalent to -2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10; high-certainty evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P = 0.0003). Based on 13 trials with 1072 participants, PNBs reduce the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 7 to 47; high-certainty evidence). For myocardial infarction, there were no events in one trial with 31 participants (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 131 participants, PNBs probably reduce the risk for chest infection (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 11 trials with 617 participants, the effects of PNBs on mortality within six months are uncertain due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 208 participants, PNBs likely reduce time to first mobilization (mean difference (MD) -10.80 hours, 95% CI -12.83 to -8.77 hours; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated there may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs with a single-injection PNB (MD -4.40 euros, 95% CI -4.84 to -3.96 euros; low-certainty evidence). We identified 29 ongoing trials, of which 15 were first posted or at least were last updated after 1 January 2018.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PNBs reduce pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement, risk of acute confusional state, and probably also reduce the risk of chest infection and time to first mobilization. There may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs for single-injection PNB. We did not find a difference for myocardial infarction and mortality, but the numbers of participants included for these two outcomes were insufficient. Although randomized clinical trials may not be the best way to establish risks associated with an intervention, our review confirms low risks of permanent injury associated with PNBs, as found by others. Some trials are ongoing, but it is unclear whether any further RCTs should be registered, given the benefits found. Good-quality non-randomized trials with appropriate sample size may help to clarify the potential effects of PNBs on myocardial infarction and mortality.

Regional analgesia techniques for pain management in patients admitted to the intensive care unit

Controlling pain should be a priority in the clinical practice of intensive care units (ICUs). Monomodal analgesic approaches, such as the administration of opioids, are widely employed; however, the widespread use of opioids has catastrophic consequences, given their multiple side effects and the development of dependence. Regional analgesia (RA), with single or continuous dosing using neuraxial and peripheral catheters, can play an important role in multimodal analgesia for management of pain in critical care patients. RA provides superior pain control, as compared to systemic treatments, and is associated with a lower rate of side effects. Nevertheless, RA remains underused in ICUs. Many critically ill, post-surgical or traumatically injured patients would benefit from these techniques. For these reasons, we aim to establish a set of potential indications integrating the use of RA in analgesia protocols routinely used in ICUs. We performed a review of literature sources with contrasted evidence levels to present RA techniques and their potential applications in ICU patients.

Epidural analgesia for adults undergoing cardiac surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass

BACKGROUND

General anaesthesia combined with epidural analgesia may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. However, use of epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery is controversial due to a theoretical increased risk of epidural haematoma associated with systemic heparinization. This review was published in 2013, and it was updated in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of perioperative epidural analgesia in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, with or without cardiopulmonary bypass, on perioperative mortality and cardiac, pulmonary, or neurological morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in November 2018, and two trial registers up to February 2019, together with references and relevant conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults undergoing any type of cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia and comparing epidural analgesia versus another modality of postoperative pain treatment. The primary outcome was mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 69 trials with 4860 participants: 2404 given epidural analgesia and 2456 receiving comparators (systemic analgesia, peripheral nerve block, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration). The mean (or median) age of participants varied between 43.5 years and 74.6 years. Surgeries performed were coronary artery bypass grafting or valvular procedures and surgeries for congenital heart disease. We judged that no trials were at low risk of bias for all domains, and that all trials were at unclear/high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel taking care of study participants.Epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesiaTrials show there may be no difference in mortality at 0 to 30 days (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01; 38 trials with 3418 participants; low-quality evidence), and there may be a reduction in myocardial infarction at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 26 trials with 2713 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of 0 to 30 days respiratory depression (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 21 trials with 1736 participants; low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of pneumonia at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; 10 trials with 1107 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and epidural analgesia probably reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter at 0 to 2 weeks (RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; 18 trials with 2431 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in cerebrovascular accidents at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials with 2232 participants; very low-quality evidence), and none of the included trials reported any epidural haematoma events at 0 to 30 days (53 trials with 3982 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia probably reduces the duration of tracheal intubation by the equivalent of 2.4 hours (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.55; 40 trials with 3353 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia reduces pain at rest and on movement up to 72 hours after surgery. At six to eight hours, researchers noted a reduction in pain, equivalent to a reduction of 1 point on a 0 to 10 pain scale (SMD -1.35, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.72; 10 trials with 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may increase risk of hypotension (RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.33; 17 trials with 870 participants; low-quality evidence) but may make little or no difference in the need for infusion of inotropics or vasopressors (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; 23 trials with 1821 participants; low-quality evidence).Epidural analgesia versus other comparatorsFewer studies compared epidural analgesia versus peripheral nerve blocks (four studies), intrapleural analgesia (one study), and wound infiltration (one study). Investigators provided no data for pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or for any of the comparisons. When reported, other outcomes for these comparisons (mortality, myocardial infarction, neurological complications, duration of tracheal intubation, pain, and haemodynamic support) were uncertain due to the small numbers of trials and participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, respiratory depression, and atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, as well as the duration of tracheal intubation and pain, in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. There may be little or no difference in mortality, pneumonia, and epidural haematoma, and effects on cerebrovascular accident are uncertain. Evidence is insufficient to show the effects of epidural analgesia compared with peripheral nerve blocks, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration.

Managing epidural catheters in critical care beds: An observation analysis in the Republic of Ireland

In certain hospitals, epidural analgesia is restricted to critical care beds. Due to critical care bed strain, it is likely that many patients are unable to avail of epidural analgesia. The aims of the study were to retrospectively review the number of patients admitted to critical care beds for epidural analgesia over a two-year period 2015–16, to determine the duration of epidural analgesia, to identify the average critical care bed occupancy during this period, to get updated information on the implementation of acute pain service in the Republic of Ireland and the availability of ward-based epidural analgesia. One hundred and sixty patients had a midline laparotomy, 40 of which had an epidural (25%). Forty-two patients were admitted to a critical care bed for epidural analgesia. Aside from epidural analgesia, 12% had other indications for ICU admission. Median duration epidural analgesia was 1.64 days (IQR 0.98–2.14 days). ICU bed occupancy rates were 88.7% in 2015 and 85.1% in 2016. Acute pain service and ward-based epidural analgesia were available in 46 and 42% of hospitals, respectively. Restricting epidural use to a critical care setting is likely to result in reduced access to epidural analgesia. The implementation of acute pain service and availability of ward-based epidural analgesia in the Republic of Ireland are suboptimal.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia and cardiopulmonary complications after colectomy: A retrospective cohort study of 20,880 patients using a national quality database

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Epidural analgesia may be associated with fewer postoperative complications and is associated with improved survival after colon cancer resection. This study used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to assess any association between epidural analgesia (versus non-epidural) and complications after colectomy.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

603 hospitals in the United States reporting data to NSQIP.

PATIENTS

From 2014-15 data, 4176 patients undergoing colectomy with records indicating epidural analgesia were matched 1:4 via propensity scores to 16,704 patients without.

INTERVENTIONS

None (observational study).

MEASUREMENTS

Primarily, we assessed the association between epidural analgesia and a composite of cardiopulmonary complications using an average relative effect generalized estimating equations model. Secondary outcomes included neurologic, renal, and surgical complications and length of hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses repeated the analyses on a subgroup of only open colectomies.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no association between epidural analgesia and the primary outcome: average relative effect (95% CI) 0.87 (0.68, 1.11); P = 0.25. We found no significant associations with any secondary outcomes. In the 8005 open colectomies, however, there was a significant association between epidural analgesia and fewer cardiopulmonary complications (average relative effect odds ratio [95% CI] of 0.58 [0.35, 0.95]; P = 0.03) and shortened hospital stay (HR for time to discharge [98.75% CI] of 1.10 [1.02, 1.18]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no overall association between epidural analgesia and reduced complications after colectomy. In open colectomies, however, epidural analgesia was associated with fewer cardiopulmonary complications and shorter hospitalization. This may inform analgesic choice when planning open colectomy.

New Advances in Acute Postoperative Pain Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative pain remains one of the most common challenges following inpatient and outpatient surgeries. With our advances in modern medicine, pain following surgical procedures still remains a challenge, though significant accomplishments have been made over the past few decades. This article highlights some of the promising new advances and approaches in postoperative pain management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade, Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways and protocols are becoming the benchmark standards for enhancing postoperative recovery. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) is an essential component of such care. Further, in the wake of serious and persistent concern on the opioid epidemic in the USA, there has been a recent renewal of interest in non-opioid alternatives or adjuncts in controlling postoperative pain, often in the context of MMA. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), magnesium, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, liposomal bupivacaine, and newer neuraxial and peripheral regional techniques as well as patient-controlled modalities are gaining importance. Gabapentinoids have become popular but recent meta-analytic reviews have cast doubt on their routine use in perioperative settings. Among opioids, sublingual sufentanil, IV oxycodone, and iontophoretic transdermal fentanyl hold promise. Acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation may be useful as adjuncts in MMA packages. Genetic testing, derivatives of herbal preparations, and an extended role of acute pain services may emerge as potential areas of importance in the future. There are, however, critical gaps in good quality evidence in many of the practice guideline recommendations. In the era of opioid epidemic, several lines of evidence have emerged to support non-opioid-based drugs and approaches along with a few newer opioid formulations for postoperative pain management, although more research is needed to find the right balance of efficacy and safety.

Continuous femoral nerve blockade and single-shot sciatic nerve block promotes better analgesia and lower bleeding for total knee arthroplasty compared to intrathecal morphine: a randomized trial

Background

Knee arthroplasty leads to postoperative pain. This study compares analgesia and postoperative bleeding achieved by intrathecal morphine with a continuous femoral plus single-shot sciatic nerve block.

Methods

A randomized non-blinded clinical trial enrolled patients aged over 18 years old, ASA I to III who underwent total knee arthroplasty. All patients underwent spinal anesthesia with isobaric bupivacaine, 20 mg. One group received 100 mcg of intrathecal morphine (M group), and the other received a femoral nerve block by continuous infusion plus a "single shot" block of the sciatic nerve at the end of the surgery (FI group). Pain score from verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) and morphine consumption during the first 72 h, as well as motor blockade, adverse effects, and postoperative bleeding were recorded. Analysis of variance of repeated measures with Bonferroni post-test, t-test and Fisher exact test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Thirty nine patients completed the study (M = 20; FI = 19 patients) and were similar except for higher age in the FI group. Motor blockade as well as movement pain during postanesthesia care unit (PACU) staying were not different between the groups, but movement pain was significantly lower in FI group after 24 h. Postoperative bleeding (ml) was lower in FI group.

Conclusions

Continuous femoral nerve block combined with sciatic nerve block provides effective for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, with lower pain scores after 24 h and a lower incidence of adverse effects and bleeding compared to intrathecal morphine.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ under identifier NCT02882152, 23^rd December, 2016.

Thoracic epidural analgesia reduces myocardial injury in ischemic patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery

Background and objectives

Major abdominal cancer surgeries are associated with significant perioperative mortality and morbidity due to myocardial ischemia and infarction. This study examined the effect of perioperative patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on occurrence of ischemic cardiac injury in ischemic patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery.

Patients and methods

One hundred and twenty patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade II and III) of either sex were scheduled for elective upper gastrointestinal cancer surgeries. Patients were allocated randomly into two groups (60 patients each) to receive, besides general anesthesia: continuous intra and postoperative intravenous (IV) infusion with fentanyl for 72 h postoperatively (patient controlled intravenous analgesia [PCIA] group) or continuous intra and postoperative epidural infusion with bupivacaine 0.125% and fentanyl (PCEA group) for 72 h postoperatively. Perioperative hemodynamics were recorded. Postoperative pain was assessed over 72 h using visual analog scale (VAS). All patients were screened for occurrence of myocardial injury (MI) by electrocardiography, echocardiography, and cardiac troponin I serum level. Other postoperative complications as arrhythmia, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, and death were recorded.

Results

There was a significant reduction in overall adverse cardiac events (myocardial injury, arrhythmias, angina, heart failure and nonfatal cardiac arrest) in PCEA group in comparison to PCIA group. Also, there was a significant reduction in dynamic VAS pain score in group PCEA in comparison to PCIA at all measured time points. Regarding perioperative hemodynamics, there was a significant reduction in intra-operative mean arterial pressure (MAP); and heart rate in PCEA group in comparison to PCIA group at most of measured time points while there was not a significant reduction in postoperative MAP and heart rate in the second and third postoperative days. The incidence of other postoperative complications such as DVT, pneumonia and in hospital mortality were decreased in PCEA group.

Conclusion

Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia in patients suffering from coronary artery disease subjected to major abdominal cancer surgery reduced significantly postoperative major adverse cardiac events with better pain control in comparison with perioperative IV analgesia.