American Society Of Regional Anesthesia Research Articles

Efficacy of epidural anesthesia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery

Introduction: The most commonly performed minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is lateral minithoracotomy, which requires one of the most painful incisions. Adequate postoperative pain management is essential for cardiac surgery to prevent perioperative complications. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the gold standard for thoracotomy; however, it is still controversial because of the risk of epidural hematoma following systematic heparinization. The objective of our study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of TEA following MICS. Methods: The clinical data of patients aged over 18 years who underwent elective MICS and received epidural analgesia along with general anesthesia between January 2014 and March 2019 were reviewed. Data were collected, including patient demographics, operative data, postoperative pain, postoperative course, and complications. Chronic pain was evaluated 6 months after discharge, and we defined it as a NRS score ≧3. Postoperative complications included epidural-related complications. Results: Seventy patients were included in the analysis. The mean NRS score was below 2. We collected chronic pain data from 52 patients and found that 11 patients had chronic pain. TEA-related complications were not observed. Conclusion: The current observational study revealed that TEA following lateral thoracotomy was effective for acute pain as well as chronic pain without causing any severe epidural-related complications. Protocols to prevent potential devastating complications, including epidural hematoma, should follow the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine recommendation. If the rules are strictly followed, TEA can be a safe and effective pain management method for patients who undergo MICS.

Danger, Danger, Gaston Labat! Does zero-shot artificial intelligence correlate with anticoagulation guidelines recommendations for neuraxial anesthesia?

IntroductionArtificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potentially disruptive technologies in healthcare. In this study GPT-3.5, an accessible LLM, was assessed for its accuracy and reliability in...

Perioperative antithrombotic medication: An approach for the primary care clinician.

The primary care clinician faces many challenges and is often left to manage complex pathology because of resource constraints at higher levels of care. One of these complex conditions is the perioperative management of antithrombotic medication. This narrative review is focused on helping the clinician navigate the complex path and multiple guidelines related to the perioperative use of antithrombotic medication. Perioperative antithrombotic guidelines (American College of Chest Physicians, European Society of Regional Anaesthesia, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia) and relevant publications were identified by a PubMed search using the terms perioperative AND anticoagulants OR antithrombotics AND guideline. Issues relevant to clinical practice were identified, and attempts were made to explain any ambiguity that arose. Adhering to basic pharmacological principles and evidence-based guidelines allows for the safe usage of antithrombotics. Knowing when to stop, continue, bridge and restart antithrombotic medication prevents perioperative morbidity and mortality. Stopping antithrombotic medication too early can lead to thromboembolic complications associated with their primary disease process. Not stopping antithrombotic medication or stopping it too late can potentially cause life-threatening bleeding, haematomas and increased transfusion requirements.

Use of corticosteroids for adult chronic pain interventions: sympathetic and peripheral nerve blocks, trigger point injections - guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, and the North American Spine Society

BackgroundThere is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses...

Assessment of the Educational and Training Modalities in Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for Anesthesiologists.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been developed as a critical tool for diagnostic patient evaluation and clinical management. Its transcendence into anesthesiology necessitates appropriate and effective educational strategies to assist in the development of anesthesia POCUS learners. Several professional societies, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA), and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for anesthesiology have established minimum training standards for POCUS education for anesthesiologists, residents, and fellows.1,4 The article at hand aims to summarize and provide insight into the various educational modalities utilized in POCUS training, incorporate these strategies in the established "Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision-making" (I-AIM) framework, and include recommendations on the minimum number of POCUS exams to aid in achieving competency.3.

Anticoagulation Management During a Spinal Cord Stimulator Trial on a Patient With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are indicated for the treatment of many pain syndromes. They are often trialed prior to placement of a permanent implant. Patients on anticoagulation therapy are instructed to follow the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine guidelines during this process. CASE REPORT: Here we describe a unique case of a patient who had an SCS trial, followed by an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on day 4 postimplantation. After coronary revascularization, the patient started dual antiplatelet therapy, which posed significant for epidural hematoma with recent stimulator implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The patient was bridged with intravenous antiplatelet agents prior to SCS trial removal and monitored closely. Our discussion will focus on all anticoagulation management of patients with a recent STEMI who had undergone a trial SCS implantation. KEY WORDS: Spinal cord stimulation, neuromodulation, chronic pain, anticoagulation

Gaston Labat, the Mayo Clinic, and the Introduction of Regional Anesthesia to the United States

Abstract Throughout the nineteenth century, transatlantic medical research and training was largely dominated by Western European hospitals. Americans trained in German, Austrian, French, and British medical schools and hospitals, and then returned to work in relatively subpar hospitals and medical schools in the U.S. This relationship was reversed after wwi, with European doctors seeking transition to a comparatively well-funded and respected medical community in the U.S. Recruited in 1920 from a French hospital system to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the young surgeon Gaston Labat (1897–1934) became a pioneer in the development of regional anesthesiology and pain management practices in America, establishing the Mayo Clinic as a leader in this nascent field. Published in the U.S. in 1922, Labat’s textbook Regional Anesthesia was based upon his earlier years of work in Paris and came to define the field over the subsequent decades. Labat moved to Bellevue Hospital in New York City, and in 1923 founded the American Society of Regional Anesthesia (asra). The asra acted as an engine of transformation in the professionalization of the field of anesthesia in the U.S. and formed part of the organized response to the opioid crises that emerged in the early twentieth century. Labat’s story serves as a window into this period of transition in global medical leadership and the introduction of regional anesthesiology and acute pain management, based upon European medical practice.

Literature review of spinal hematoma case reports: causes and outcomes in pediatric, obstetric, neuraxial and pain medicine cases

BackgroundThe risk of spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) has been described in the literature but the impact in various patient populations has not been assessed in the same study. We identified...

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and...

Clinical practice patterns of opioid prescribing by physicians -performing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation trials and implants.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain. Outcomes of SCS may be influenced by peri-implant opioid management; however, to date, standard practices of opioid management in this scenario remain undefined and unreported. A survey inquiring SCS management practices in the peri-implant period was sent to the members of the Spine Intervention Society and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia. The results of three questions pertaining to peri-implant opioid management are presented here. For each of the three questions examined, there were between 181 and 195 responses. Among respondents, 40 percent encouraged reduction of opioids prior to SCS trial, and 17 percent mandated reduction. After a SCS trial, 87 percent of respondents did not provide any additional opioids for periprocedure pain. After implant, the majority of respondents provided 1-7 days of opioids for post-operative pain. Based upon survey results and current literature, it is advisable to recommend or attempt opioid reduction before SCS and to not provide additional opioid for post-operative pain after trial lead insertion. Routine prescribing for the pain of the SCS implant beyond 7 days is not favored.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BackgroundThe past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of...

Pro: Does Every Anesthesiologist Need to Learn Point-of-Care Ultrasound?

THE APPLICATIONS OF ULTRASOUND for the anesthesiologist are diverse and expanding rapidly. Although national society guidelines governing the appropriate use of ultrasound in anesthesiology have been available only for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and vascular access imaging, clinical guidance has more recently been published describing the use of focused cardiac ultrasound in multiple clinical contexts. 1 Troianos CA Hartman GS Glas KE et al. Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: Recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011; 24: 1291-1318 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (257) Google Scholar , 2 American Society of Anesthesiologists and Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Task Force on Transesophageal EchocardiographyPractice guidelines for perioperative transesophageal echocardiography. An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Task Force on Transesophageal Echocardiography. Anesthesiology. 2010; 112: 1084-1096 Crossref PubMed Scopus (391) Google Scholar , 3 Spencer KT Kimura BJ Korcarz CE et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound: Recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013; 26: 567-581 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (398) Google Scholar , 4 Via G Hussain A Wells M et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014; 27 (683.e1-683.e33) Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar Additionally, numerous point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocols now exist to guide the examination of nearly every organ system and area, including cardiac, pulmonary and/or pleural, abdominal, genitourinary, ocular, and airway. 4 Via G Hussain A Wells M et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014; 27 (683.e1-683.e33) Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar , 5 Haskins SC Bronshteyn Y Perlas A et al. American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part I: Clinical indications. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021; 46: 1031-1047 Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar , 6 Haskins SC Bronshteyn Y Perlas A et al. American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part II: Recommendations. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021; 46: 1048-1060 Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar , 7 Holm JH Frederiksen CA Johl-Olsen P et al. Perioperative use of focus assessed transthoracic echocardiography (FATE). Anesth Analg. 2012; 115: 1029-1032 Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar , 8 Lichtenstein DA Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: The BLUE protocol. Chest. 2008; 134: 117-125 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1146) Google Scholar , 9 Volpicelli G Elbarbary M Blaivas M et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012; 38: 577-591 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1758) Google Scholar , 10 Scalea TM Rodriguez A Chiu WC et al. Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST): Results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma. 1999; 46: 466-472 Crossref PubMed Google Scholar , 11 Perlas A Van de Putte P Van Houwe P et al. I-AIM framework for point-of-care gastric ultrasound. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 116: 7-11 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar

Systemic Heparinization After Neuraxial Anesthesia in Vascular Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's guidelines recommend a 1-hour interval after neuraxial anesthesia (NA) before systemic heparinization to mitigate the risk of spinal hematoma (SH). The study authors aimed to characterize the time interval between NA and systemic heparinization in vascular surgery patients (primary outcome). The secondary outcomes included the historic incidence of SH, and risk estimation of the SH formation based on available data. Heparin dose, length of surgery, difficulty and/or the number of NA attempts, and patient demographics were recorded. A retrospective analysis between April 2012 and April 2022. A single (academic) center. Vascular surgery patients. Intravenous heparin administration. All (N=311) vascular patients were reviewed, of whom 127 (5 femoral-femoral bypass, 67 femoral-popliteal bypass, and 55 endovascular aneurysm repairs [EVAR]) received NA and were included in the final analysis. Patients receiving general anesthesia alone (N=184) were excluded. Neuraxial anesthesia included spinal (N=119), epidural (N=4), or combined spinal-epidural (N=4) blocks. The average time between NA and heparin administration was 42.8 ± 22.1 minutes, with 83.7% of patients receiving heparin within 1 hour of NA. The time between NA and heparin administration was 40.4 ± 22.3, 50.1 ± 23.4, and 31.3 ± 12.5 minutes for femoral-femoral bypass, femoral-popliteal bypass, and EVAR, respectively. Heparin was administered after 1 hour of NA in 20% of femoral-femoral bypass, 27% of femoral-popliteal bypass, and 3.9% of EVAR patients. No SHs were reported during the study period. The vast majority of vascular surgery patients at the authors' center received heparin within 1 hour of NA. Further studies are required to assess if their findings are consistent in other vascular surgery settings and/or centers.

Pediatric anesthesia practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought together the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA) to release a joint statement on anesthesia use. Their statement included a recommendation to use regional anesthesia whenever possible to mitigate the risk associated with aerosolizing procedures. We sought to examine the utilization of anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID-19. Using the Premier Health Database, we retrospectively analyzed pediatric patients undergoing a surgical intervention for fractures or ligament repair before and during COVID-19. We sought to determine if there were differences in anesthesia use among this cohort during the two time periods. Fracture groups included shoulder and clavicle, humerus and elbow, forearm and wrist, hand and finger, pelvis and hip, femur and knee, leg and ankles, and foot and toes. Ligament procedures included surgical intervention for the anterior cruciate ligament and ulnar collateral ligament repair. We identified a total of 5935 patients undergoing a surgical procedure for fractures or ligament repairs before and during COVID-19. After exclusion for unknown anesthesia use, 2,807 patients were included in our cohort with 81.5% (n = 2288) of patients undergoing a procedure under general anesthesia, 6.4% (n = 181) under regional anesthesia, and 12.0% (n = 338) under combined general-regional anesthesia. There did not appear to be a significant difference in the type of anesthesia used before and during COVID-19 (p = 0.052). Our study did not identify a difference in anesthesia use before and during COVID-19 among pediatric patients undergoing a surgical procedure. Further studies should estimate the change in anesthesia used during the time period when elective procedures were resumed.

Programmatic approaches to achieving equity for women in anesthesiology.

Programmatic approaches to achieving equity for women in anesthesiology.

A Survey on the Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Parameters and Implantable Pulse Generators and on Reasons for Explantation.

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a vital treatment for chronic intractable pain. In the last few years, the field has undergone dramatic changes in new waveform and frequency introduction as well as device miniaturization. It is important to understand contemporary practice patterns regarding these parameters. We surveyed the active membership of Spine Intervention Society (SIS), and American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) on their practices regarding various aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulation therapy. Here we report on SCS waveform usage, battery types, and causes of explant in this cohort of providers. There was similar degree of usage of tonic, burst, and 10 kHz usage at 71.5%, 74.1% and 61.7% respectively. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation was used by 32.6% and other modes of stimulation by 13.5%. Rechargeable systems were often or always used by 67.2% whereas 10% never used a rechargeable system. Most common cause of explant was loss of effectiveness, reported by 53.7%. There has been significant adoption of new waveforms in daily practice of spinal cord stimulation therapy and there is robust mixed usage of new waveforms and frequencies. Rechargeable systems are the most commonly used but primary cell is also used in significant numbers. Loss of efficacy remains the most common cause of explant for the majority of practitioners. This survey establishes practice patterns of SCS usage regarding these important variables against which future changes can be gauged.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2021 John J. Bonica Award Lecture

I am as deeply inspired and humbled to receive this prestigious award, as I am profoundly indebted to the Bonica Award selection committee and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia...

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundKetamine is administered intraoperatively to treat pain associated with primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ketamine in primary THA and TKA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management (ASRA). MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published prior to 2020 on ketamine in THA and TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative assessment and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ketamine. After a critical appraisal of 136 publications, 7 high-quality studies were included for analyses. ResultsHigh-quality evidence demonstrates that intraoperative ketamine decreases postoperative opioid consumption. Four of 7 studies found that ketamine reduces postoperative pain. Intraoperative ketamine is not associated with an increase in adverse events and may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.50-0.92). ConclusionHigh-quality evidence supports the use of ketamine intraoperatively in THA and TKA to reduce postoperative opioid consumption. Most studies found ketamine reduces postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Moderate quality evidence supports the safety of ketamine, but it should be used cautiously in patients at risk for postoperative delirium, such as the elderly.

Editorial introductions.

Current Opinion in Anesthesiology was launched in 1988. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The fields of anesthesiology is divided into 16 sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Section Editors for this issue. SECTION EDITORS Anthony AbsalomAnthony AbsalomProf. Anthony Absalom studied medicine at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and underwent specialist training in East Anglia and Scotland in the UK. He is currently Professor of Anaesthesiology at the University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands. His clinical interests are procedural sedation, anaesthesia for neurosurgery, and intravenous anaesthesia techniques. His research interests are mostly in the domains of pharmacology and neuroscience. He is an editor of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, past President of the Society for Intravenous Anaesthesia, and a former vice-president of the World Society for Intravenous Anaesthesia. He is currently Chairman of the Neuroanaesthesia Section of the Dutch Association of Anaesthetists and past-Chair of the General Anaesthesia Scientific Sub-committee of the European Society of Anesthesiology. Ellen SoffinEllen SoffinEllen M. Soffin, MD, PhD is an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, USA and an anesthesiologist at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA. She is the Director of the Anesthesia-Spine Service, and Co-Director of the Hospital for Special Surgery's interdisciplinary spine research program. Dr Soffin earned her medical degree at King's College Medical School, London, UK and PhD in neuroscience at Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK, before moving to the United States. She completed residency training in anesthesiology at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA and a fellowship in regional anesthesia and acute pain medicine at Hospital for Special Surgery. Dr Soffin's research interests include evaluating the role and value of field and fascial plane blocks for the spine surgery patient; optimizing surgical outcomes using enhanced recovery pathways for total joint arthroplasty and spine surgery; and implementation of regulatory, institutional, and clinical strategies for opioid stewardship programs. She has published extensively on outcomes related to pathway-based care, regional analgesia techniques, and opioid-minimizing approaches to the perioperative care of the orthopedic surgery patient. Dr Soffin serves on the editorial board of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and is the Section Editor, Acute Pain and Perioperative Care, for Journal of Pain Research. She is an active faculty member of American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the Society of Anesthesia & Sleep Medicine, where she is the co-chair of the research committee.

The Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Direct Meta-Analysis

BackgroundCorticosteroids are commonly used intraoperatively to treat pain and reduce opioid consumption and nausea associated with primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in primary TJA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published before February 2020 on corticosteroids in TJA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids. ResultsCritical appraisal of 1,581 publications revealed 23 studies regarded as the best available evidence for analysis. Intraoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Multiple doses lead to further reduction in pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting. There is insufficient evidence on the risk of adverse events with perioperative dexamethasone in TJA. ConclusionStrong evidence supports the use of a single dose or multiple doses of intravenous dexamethasone to reduce postoperative pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting after primary TJA. There is insufficient evidence on perioperative dexamethasone in primary TJA to determine the optimal dose, number of doses, or risk of postoperative adverse events.