An Overview of Health Care Worker Reported Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: As of May 13, 2020, 1004 health care worker (HCW) deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported globally. This study seeks to organize deaths by demographic group, including age, gender, country, and occupation. METHODS: We collected data from a crowdsourced list of global HCW COVID-19 deaths published by Medscape, including age, gender, country, occupation, and physician specialty. RESULTS: As of May 13, 2020, of 1004 HCW deaths, 550 were physicians. The average age of physician death is 62.49, skewed right, and nonphysician is 52.62, approximately symmetrical. The majority of U.S. HCW deaths are male (64.1%). General practitioners and family medicine and primary care physicians account for 26.9% of physician deaths. Anesthesiologists and emergency medicine and critical care physicians account for 7.4%. The United States has the highest number of HCW deaths but a similar number as a fraction of national cases and deaths compared with other developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: Among HCWs globally, in the United States there have been more reported deaths of physicians, primary care physicians, males, and HCWs versus opposing groups. Further research is needed to understand relative risks of death due to COVID-19 in each of these demographic groups.

Sevoflurane modulates breast cancer cell survival via modulation of intracellular calcium homeostasis.

BACKGROUND: Some retrospective and in vitro studies suggest that general anesthetics influence breast cancer recurrence and metastasis. We compared the effects of general anesthetics sevoflurane versus propofol on breast cancer cell survival, proliferation and invasion in vitro. The investigation focused on effects in intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis as a mechanism for general anesthetic-mediated effects on breast cancer cell survival and metastasis. METHODS: Estrogen receptor-positive (MCF7) and estrogen receptor-negative (MDA-MB-436) human breast cancer cell lines along with normal breast tissue (MCF10A) were used. Cells were exposed to sevoflurane or propofol at clinically relevant and extreme doses and durations for dose- and time-dependence studies. Cell survival, proliferation and migration following anesthetic exposure were assessed. Intracellular and extracellular Ca2+ concentrations were modulated using Ca2+ chelation and a TRPV1 Ca2+ channel antagonist to examine the role of Ca2+ in mediating anesthetic effects. RESULTS: Sevoflurane affected breast cancer cell survival in dose-, time- and cell type-dependent manners. Sevoflurane, but not propofol, at equipotent and clinically relevant doses (2% vs. 2 µM) for 6 h significantly promoted breast cell survival in all three types of cells. Paradoxically, extreme exposure to sevoflurane (4%, 24 h) decreased survival in all three cell lines. Chelation of cytosolic Ca2+ dramatically decreased cell survival in both breast cancer lines but not control cells. Inhibition of TRPV1 receptors significantly reduced cell survival in all cell types, an effect that was partially reversed by equipotent sevoflurane but not propofol. Six-hour exposure to sevoflurane or propofol did not affect cell proliferation, metastasis or TRPV1 protein expression in any type of cell. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane, but not propofol, at clinically relevant concentrations and durations, increased survival of breast cancer cells in vitro but had no effect on cell proliferation, migration or TRPV1 expression. Breast cancer cells require higher cytoplasmic Ca2+ levels for survival than normal breast tissue. Sevoflurane affects breast cancer cell survival via modulation of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis.

Efficacy of New Long-Acting Bupivacaine HTX-011 in Providing Pain Relief for Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery - A Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present meta-analysis is to critically analyze the various prospective randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of a new, yet unapproved long-acting local anesthetic HTX-011. This is a combination of bupivacaine and meloxicam, and like its predecessors' liposomal bupivacaine and SABER bupivacaine, the combination slowly releases bupivacaine and provides therapeutic analgesic concentrations at the site of infiltration. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials comparing the use of HTX-011 with placebo and/or bupivacaine in patients undergoing abdominoplasty, bunionectomy, and herniorrhaphy. Comparisons were made for the patients who were opioid free at 24 h, pain scores at 24 h, patients likely to be opioid free at 72 h, and reduction of morphine consumption at 72 h. RESULTS: While comparing pain scores at 24 h, we found that the use of HTX-011 was associated with a significant decrease in pain score in relation to both bupivacaine and placebo. The overall comparison of 12 groups showed that with HTX-011, patients are 3.25 times more likely to be opioid free at 72 h than either placebo or control. More patients were free of opioid at 24 h in the HTX-011 group when compared to bupivacaine. Finally, the consumption of morphine was less by 10.61 (95% CI: 8.13-13.09) in 14 groups that reported such consumption. CONCLUSION: HTX-011 has a clear advantage in comparison to both placebo and bupivacaine and provides better pain relief and reduces opioid consumption.

A cross-sectional study to assess the difference in perception of day surgery information between patients and medical staff in China.

PURPOSE: The development of day surgery in China is still in its infancy. The aim of this study is to examine the difference in perception between patients and medical staff about day surgery and to find out what kind of information should be delivered to patients perioperatively. METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional study using survey questionnaires. Patients undergoing day surgery and medical staff working in the day surgery center received a preoperative teaching questionnaire (PTQ). The PTQ consisted of preoperative, operative, postoperative and anesthesia information. Participants were asked to rate accurately what day surgery information they perceived as important on a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from very important to not important. The main outcome was the value patients and staff place on perioperative information. RESULTS: For patients, details of anesthesia (82.6%) was the most important day surgery information, while for medical staff, preoperative (58.1%), postoperative (60.7%) and anesthesia (60.0%) information were of the same importance. Patients ranked surgery effect (83.3%) and pain management (82.5%) as two of the top five most important details about day surgery, but these were not listed in the top 5 rankings of staff. Student's t-test results of mean rankings also showed that patients placed more importance on surgery effect (4.8±0.6, 4.6±0.6, P=0.036) and pain management (4.8±0.5, 4.5±0.5, P=0.031) than the medical staff did. CONCLUSION: In China, day surgery is an emerging practice with both patients and medical practitioners still lacking experience, so high-quality perioperative teaching is necessary and important. Our study examining patients and staffs' views on day surgery information should be considered when developing perioperative teaching programs. To increase patient satisfaction of the day surgery experience, delivery of patient-specific information tailored to individual circumstances is necessary.

Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesize that being an editorial board member (EBM) in a high impact factor specialty medical journal increases the chances of publishing in the same journal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The publication trends of the first five EBMs in the five highest impact factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology journals were analyzed. Preceding 5 years' publications appearing on PubMed were grouped into as follows: number of publications in the journal in which the EBM serves (N1), number of publications by the same author in the other four highest impact factor (IF) journals (N2) and number of publications in all the other journals (N3). We evaluated the probability of the observed distribution of publications in the five highest IF journals happening by chance alone, assuming that all the EBMs had the same opportunity of publishing in any of these journals. The probability of publishing in their own journal was assumed to be one fifth. RESULTS: The EBMs published their manuscripts in their own journal at a very high frequency. Encompassing all ten journals, the calculated P value for such a distribution was <0.001. In two journals, Anesthesia and Analgesia and Anaesthesia, the EBMs' publications in their journal were more than twice the cumulative total in the remaining four journals. In three of the five gastroenterology journals analyzed, combined publications of the five EBMs were greater in their own journal than the remaining four journals combined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite proclaimed fair peer review process, EBMs seem to get preference in their own journals.

Efficacy of palonosetron in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)-a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.

Safety of Non-anesthesia Provider-Administered Propofol (NAAP) Sedation in Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures: Comparative Meta-Analysis of Pooled Results.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAAP)-administered propofol sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures with those of anesthesia provider (AAP). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 519 publications, 26 were identified to meet inclusion criteria (10 AAPs and 16 NAAPs) and were analyzed. Data were analyzed for hypoxia rate, airway intervention rates, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction scores and total propofol administered. RESULTS: Total number of procedures in NAAP and AAP groups was 3018 and 2374, respectively. Pooled hypoxia (oxygen saturation less than 90 %) rates were 0.133 (95 % CI 0.117-0.152) and 0.143 (95 % CI 0.128-0.159) in NAAP and AAP, respectively. Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates were 0.035 (95 % CI 0.026-0.047) and 0.133 (95 % CI 0.118-0.150), respectively. Pooled patient satisfaction rate, pooled endoscopist satisfaction rate, and mean propofol administered dose for NAAP were 7.22 (95 % CI 7.17-7.27), 6.03 (95 % CI 5.94-6.11), and 251.44 mg (95 % CI 244.39-258.49) in that order compared with 9.82 (95 % CI 9.76-9.88), 9.06 (95 % CI 8.91-9.21), and 340.32 mg (95 % CI 327.30-353.33) for AAP. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of NAAP sedation compared favorably with AAP sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. However, it came at the cost of decreased patient and endoscopist satisfaction.