Comparison of anesthetic management and outcomes of robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy.

Robot-assisted cystectomy surgery may be advantageous for patients. The purpose of this study was to compare anesthetic management and outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy. In a retrospective review of 256 cystectomy procedures, procedure duration, blood loss, respiratory parameters, recovery room opiate consumption, pain scores and antiemetic use in the recovery room, and hospital length of stay were compared. After exclusions, 96 robot-assisted and 102 open procedures were analyzed. Anesthesia and surgery duration were significantly longer in the robot-assisted group, while the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted group: 7.1 ± 5.8 versus 9.8 ± 5.03 days, p = 0.0005. Estimated blood loss was 601.8 ± 491.4 ml in the open group versus 257.7 ± 164.3 ml in the robot-assisted group, p < 0.0001. Recovery room opiate consumption was significantly less in the robot-assisted group: 9.5 ± 8.9 versus 12.6 ± 9.9 mg (morphine equivalents), p = 0.02. The highest recorded respiratory rate was significantly higher in the robot-assisted group, as was the highest recorded peak airway pressure. Among patients with arterial blood gas data, the highest arterial partial pressure of CO2 was significantly greater in the robot-assisted group than in the open surgery group: 42.6 ± 5.6 versus 37.4 ± 4.8 mmHg CO2, p = 0.0001. Surgeons and anesthesia providers can expect robot-assisted radical cystectomy surgery to last longer than traditional open surgery, but to be associated with less pain and blood loss. Positioning and abdominal insufflation for robot-assisted surgery may contribute to ventilation challenges.

More hypotension in patients taking antihypertensives preoperatively during shoulder surgery in the beach chair position.

PURPOSE: Hypotension is common in patients undergoing surgery in the sitting position under general anesthesia, and the risk may be exacerbated by the use of antihypertensive drugs taken preoperatively. The purpose of this study was to compare hypotensive episodes in patients taking antihypertensive medications with normotensive patients during shoulder surgery in the beach chair position. METHODS: Medical records of all patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy during a 44-month period were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the number of moderate hypotensive episodes (systolic blood pressure ≤ 85 mmHg) during the intraoperative period. Secondary endpoints included the frequency of vasopressor administration, total dose of vasopressors, and fluid administered. Values are expressed as mean (standard deviation). RESULTS: Of 384 patients who underwent shoulder surgery, 185 patients were taking no antihypertensive medication, and 199 were on at least one antihypertensive drug. The antihypertensive medication group had more intraoperative hypotensive episodes [1.7 (2.2) vs 1.2 (1.8); P = 0.01] and vasopressor administrations. Total dose of vasopressors and volume of fluids administered were similar between groups. The timing of the administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and of angiotensin receptor antagonists (≤ 10 hr vs > 10 hr before surgery) had no impact on intraoperative hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative use of antihypertensive medication was associated with an increased incidence of intraoperative hypotension. Compared with normotensive patients, patients taking antihypertensive drugs preoperatively are expected to require vasopressors more often to maintain normal blood pressure.

Sedation and analgesia in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory: a national survey of electrophysiologists investigating the who, how, and why?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate sedation and anesthesia trends and practice patterns for procedures in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory (EPL). DESIGN: A survey distributed by e-mail. SETTING: US teaching hospitals with a training program in cardiac electrophysiology. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiologists involved in procedures in the electrophysiology laboratory of academic electrophysiology programs. INTERVENTIONS: A survey was e-mailed to the selected programs. The survey questions included the use of anesthesia professional (MD/CRNA) and nonanesthesia professional (RN) services, medications administered, commonly performed airway interventions, satisfaction with anesthesia services, and reasons that anesthesia professionals are not used when RNs administer sedation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 95 academic electrophysiology programs surveyed, there were 38 responses (40%). The majority (71%) of respondents used a combined model of care with both anesthesia professional care and nonanesthesia professional (RN) sedation, although there were EPLs that had exclusively anesthesia professional (n = 6) and exclusively nonanesthesia professional coverage (n = 5); 26.3% of respondents answered that care by an anesthesia professional was warranted most (>50%) of the time regardless of their current care model. The main reasons cited for having RN-administered sedation were the lack of availability of anesthesia professionals, difficulty with scheduling, and increased operating room suite turnover times. Programs using exclusively RN sedation (13%) reported all levels of anesthesia including general anesthesia (patient unarousable to repeated deep stimulation). CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggested that sedation for EPL procedures was sometimes allowed to progress to deep sedation and general anesthesia and that selection of anesthesia provider frequently was made based on availability, operating room efficiency, and economic reasons before patient safety issues. The implications of the survey must be explored further in a larger-scale sample population before more definitive statements can be made, but results suggested that sedation in the EPL is an area that would benefit from updated guidelines specific to the current practice as well as attention from the anesthesia community to address the deficiency in provision of anesthesia care.

Airway interventions in the cardiac electrophysiology laboratory: a retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incidence of airway interventions during cardiac electrophysiology laboratory procedures. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review. SETTING: A tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred eight adult patients undergoing cardiac electrophysiology laboratory procedures during a 2-year period, March 2006 to March 2008. The patients underwent the following procedures: supraventricular tachycardia ablation, atrial tachycardia ablation, atrial flutter ablation, premature ventricular contraction ablation, and ventricular tachycardia ablation. Patients who were intubated (in the intensive care unit or emergency department) before the ablation began, patients with ventricular assist devices or intra-aortic balloon pumps, and patients receiving inotropic support before the procedure were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The data were summarized by using the mean and standard deviation. Of the 208 patients, 186 were planned monitored anesthesia care, and 22 were planned general anesthetics. Of the monitored anesthesia care cases, 20 were converted to general anesthesia, and 54 received some type of airway intervention including oral-pharyngeal airway or nasal airway insertion. Therefore, 40% (74/186) of the non-general anesthesia cases required an airway intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a significant proportion of the authors' patients undergoing cardiac electrophysiology laboratory procedures required deep sedation if not general anesthesia, although a non-general anesthetic was planned. The issue of depth of sedation has implications for patient safety, privileging, and regulatory compliance. Based on the present results, the authors believe sedation for these procedures is best given by anesthesia providers; furthermore, caregivers should be aware that these procedures are likely to require deep sedation if not general anesthesia.