Rate-Dependent Left Bundle Branch Block in an Ambulatory Surgery Patient: A Case Report.

A 52-year-old woman, ASA II (American Society of Anesthesia classification II) scheduled for cholecystectomy in an ambulatory center, exhibited a wide-complex tachycardia with ectopy on the monitor after induction with propofol and succinylcholine. Blood pressure remained stable; amiodarone was administered for presumed ventricular tachycardia. A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showed a new left bundle branch block (LBBB) at 98 beats per minute (bpm), which resolved when the heart rate slowed. Surgery was postponed, and both the LBBB and ectopy recurred frequently during the next 24 hours in the intensive care unit, particularly at heart rates >90 bpm. Troponins were normal, and the patient was diagnosed with a rate-dependent LBBB and cleared for surgery.

Performance outcomes in anesthesiology residents completing categorical (anesthesia) or advanced (nonspecific) internship training.

BACKGROUND: The internship or first year (PGY 1) of anesthesiology training may be categorical (within anesthesiology), or obtained in more diverse settings. Revisions recently proposed in the training requirements incorporated the PGY 1 into the existing curriculum. PURPOSES: We studied whether this change improved measurable outcomes. METHODS: There were 518 residents studied retrospectively from four institutions that offered entry following both "Categorical" and "Other" internships. Thus the training in clinical anesthesia was identical. RESULTS: No differences were observed in percentile scores on the Anesthesiology In-Service Training Examination during clinical anesthesia training, the receipt of awards, board certification or time to certification, or in reports of unsatisfactory performance to the American Board of Anesthesiology. "Categorical" residents were more frequently appointed chief resident. CONCLUSIONS: Easily accessible performance measures may function as valuable aids in decision making, particularly when significant changes in curricula are contemplated. Data do not support the proposed changes in anesthesiology.

Coping with disaster: relocating a residency program.

In September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Tulane University School of Medicine relocated temporarily from New Orleans to the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. For Tulane's residency program in anesthesiology, a training consortium was formed in Texas consisting of the University of Texas at Houston, Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The authors explain the collaborative process that allowed the consortium to find spaces to accommodate Tulane's 30 anesthesiology residents within 30 days after they left New Orleans, and they offer reflections and recommendations. The residents were grateful to continue training close to home, and for maintaining the Tulane program. The consortium successfully provided an administrative and academic framework, logistical support, clinical capacity for the residents to complete the required numbers and types of cases, and integration into preexisting didactic programs. Communications represented a major challenge; the importance of having an up-to-date disaster plan, including provisions for communication using more than one modality or provider, cannot be underestimated. Other challenges included resuming a training program without basic information regarding medical credentials or training status, competing for resources with businesses that had also relocated, maintaining a coordinated decision-making process, and managing the behavioral sequelae after the disaster. Of the original 30 Tulane residents, 23 (77%) relocated to Houston. Seventeen (74%) of those who relocated either graduated or returned with the program to New Orleans. The program has retained its status of full accreditation.

Increasing the value of time reduces the lost economic opportunity of caring for surgeries of longer-than-average times.

UNLABELLED: Anesthesiology groups that provide care for surgical procedures of longer-than-average duration are economically disadvantaged by both increased staffing costs and reduced revenue. Under the current billing system, anesthesia time is valued the same regardless of the total case duration. In this study, we evaluated the effect on four academic anesthesiology departments of two hypothetical scenarios by changing the anesthesia care billing system to make more valuable either 1) all time units or 2) just second-hour and subsequent time units. From the four departments, case-specific data (anesthesia Current Procedural Terminology code and minutes of care) were collected for all anesthesia cases billed for 1 yr. Basic units were determined from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) relative value guide. The average time for each case was defined as the average anesthesia time for that specific Current Procedural Terminology code, as published by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The actual total ASA units per hour (tASA/h) was determined by adding all the basic units and time units and dividing by hours of anesthesia care (minutes of anesthesia care divided by 60). We then calculated a hypothetical CMS tASA/h for each group by substituting the CMS average time for each anesthesia procedure time for the actual time reported by each group and using 15-min time units. For each group, the Actual (Act) tASA/h and CMS tASA/h were calculated for both options-changing the interval for all time units or only for second and subsequent hours. Intervals were 15, 12, 10, 7, 6, or 5 min. When changing all time units, Act tASA/h and CMS tASA/h were never equal for all groups. The two productivity measures became approximately equal if only time units after the first hour were changed to 6- to 7-min intervals. When changes were applied only to the Act tASA/h (with CMS tASA/h remaining at 15-min intervals), at the 12-min interval either option resulted in a similar or higher Act tASA/h than CMS tASA/h. Both options increase the value of time and help compensate for the lost economic opportunity of longer-than-average surgical durations. IMPLICATIONS: Longer-than-average surgical durations result in less potential revenue per hour under current billing methodology. This study quantifies the increase in billing productivity when the value of time is increased, when evaluating the billing productivity of four academic anesthesiology groups.

Comparing clinical productivity of anesthesiology groups.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup comparisons of clinical productivity are important for strategic planning and evaluation of clinical and business operations. However, in a preliminary study, comparisons of two anesthesiology groups using "per full-time equivalent" measurements were confounded by different concurrencies or staffing ratios, whereas measurements based on "per operating room (OR) site," "per case," and "billed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) units per hour of care" permitted meaningful comparisons despite differing concurrencies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether these measurements would allow for meaningful comparisons when applied to multiple groups. METHODS: Annual totals of total ASA units (tASA), 15-min time units, and the number of cases billed, as well as the average number of daily anesthetizing sites (OR sites) staffed and the average number of anesthesiologists required to the staff sites, were collected from each group that participated. All anesthesia care billed with ASA units was included, except for obstetric care. Any clinical service not billed using ASA units was excluded. Productivity measurements (concurrency, tASA/OR site, hours billed per OR site per day, hours billed per case, tASA billed per hour of anesthesia care, and base units per case) were calculated. Median and range for all groups and for private-practice and academic groups were determined. RESULTS: Eleven private-practice and nine academic groups from 12 states participated in the study. Productivity measurements that are influenced by duration of surgery (hours billed per case, tASA billed per hour of anesthesia care) differed significantly between groups, with private-practice groups having shorter duration than academic groups (median hours billed per case, 1.5 2.6, respectively). Although tASA/OR site measurements were similar in private-practice and academic groups, academic groups worked significantly longer hours billed per OR site per day (median, 6.0 h 7.8, respectively) to achieve the same level of tASA/OR site. Hourly billing productivity (tASA billed per hour of anesthesia care) correlated highly with surgical duration (hours billed per case). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a method of comparing departmental clinical productivity between anesthesiology groups. Private-practice groups provided care for cases of shorter duration than academic groups. This difference was evident in several productivity measurements.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil or alfentanil: how important is the opioid?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency and duration of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and either remifentanil or alfentanil in outpatients undergoing arthroscopic surgery of the extremities. DESIGN: Randomized, third-party blinded study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 100 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for arthroscopic surgery of the knee or shoulder. INTERVENTIONS: The anesthesia regimen consisted of a bolus followed by continuous infusion of propofol (2 mg/kg followed by 120 microg/kg/min) and the opioid (remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg followed by 0.1 microg/kg/min or alfentanil 10 microg/kg followed by 0.25 microg/kg/min). Patients breathed 100% oxygen spontaneously through a Laryngeal Mask Airway (or an endotracheal tube when medically indicated). Opioids were titrated to maintain blood pressure and heart rate within 20% of baseline and a respiratory rate of 10 to 16 breaths/min. Propofol was titrated downward as low as possible without permitting patient movement. MEASUREMENTS: Nausea was determined by an 11-point categorical scale and was recorded before surgery and multiple time points thereafter. The times of emetic episodes were recorded. Treatment of PONV was at the discretion of the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses who were blinded to the identity of the opioid used. MAIN RESULTS: Nausea scores were 0 at all time points in over 70% of the patients in each group. None of the 100 patients vomited while in the hospital, and only one patient required antiemetic therapy. CONCLUSION: When propofol-based TIVA is used for arthroscopic surgery, short-acting opioids do not significantly affect the risk of PONV.