The Performance of Opioid-Free Anesthesia for Bariatric Surgery in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an alternative to conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Several small studies and a meta-analysis have suggested advantages of OFA for bariatric surgery, but current evidence is still contradictory, and a universally accepted concept has not yet been established. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing bariatric surgery experience less postoperative pain and better postoperative recovery when anesthetized with an OFA regimen than with an OBA regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study, conducted between October 2020 and July 2021, compared patients receiving OFA with patients receiving OBA. Patients were visited 24 and 48 h after the surgical procedure and asked about their postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, the quality of recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) and the postoperative opioid requirements were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included and analyzed in this study (OFA: N = 50; OBA: N = 49). The OFA cohort exhibited less postoperative pain than the OBA cohort within 24 h (VAS median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 2.2 [1-4.4] vs. 4.1 [2-6.5]; P ≤ 0.001) and 48 h (VAS median [IQR]: 1.9 [0.4-4.1] vs. 3.1 [1.4-5.8]; P ≤ 0.001) postoperatively. Additionally, the OFA cohort had higher QoR-40 scores and required less opioid therapy postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Based on our results the use of OFA for bariatric surgery results in less pain, reduced opioid requirements, and improved postoperative recovery-adding additional evidence regarding the use of OFA in everyday clinical practice.

Characterization of 2 Different Prothrombin Complex Concentrates by Different Hemostatic Assays in an In Vitro Hemodilution Model.

BACKGROUND: Viscoelastically guided coagulation factor concentrate-based algorithms for the treatment of trauma-induced coagulopathy include the administration of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). However, the exact role of PCC preparations in this context is a matter of debate. Particularly, the ideal diagnostic trigger for their administration and potential differences between heparin-containing and heparin-free preparations remain unclear. We investigated the hypothesis that 2 different PCCs might have distinct influences on in vitro blood coagulation. METHODS: We conducted a direct comparison of 2 commercially available PCC preparations (the heparin-containing Beriplex P/N and the heparin-free Cofact) in an in vitro hemodilution model. Sole fibrinogen substitution served as the control group. To characterize the hemostatic changes, we utilized conventional coagulation tests, a thrombin generation assay (TGA), and 2 different viscoelastic hemostatic assays (VHAs; ROTEM delta and ClotPro). RESULTS: Irrespective of the diagnostic assay used, no significant differences between the 2 PCC groups were observed. Fibrinogen levels remained stable from the baseline throughout every dilution level. The control group already showed an increased endogenous thrombin potential (ETP; nM·L -1 ·min -1 ) at all dilution levels compared to baseline (baseline, 2829.4 (432.8); 40% dilution, 4211.7 (391.6); 60% dilution, 4290.9 (300.8); 80% dilution, 3861.4 (303.5); all P < .001). Spiking with both PCC preparations led to a further-pronounced thrombin elevation in comparison to the control group (ETP at 40% dilution, PCC1: 4913.3 [370.2], PCC2: 4988.1 [265.7]; 60% dilution, PCC1: 5174.5 [234.7], PCC2: 5390.4 [334.9]; 80% dilution, PCC1: 5253.8 [357.9], PCC2: 5392.6 [313.4]; all P < .001). Conventional coagulation tests did not mirror the TGA results. Despite increased thrombin generation, prothrombin time was significantly prolonged at all dilution levels for the control group, and both PCC groups exhibited significant prolongations at the 60% and 80% dilution levels (all P < .001) compared to baseline. Similarly, VHA did not depict the thrombin elevation. Furthermore, descriptive analyses revealed relevant differences between the 2 VHA devices, particularly at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCC preparations (ie, irrespective of heparin content) induced significant elevation of thrombin generation, which was not depicted by conventional coagulation tests or VHA. Our in vitro results suggest that diagnostic assays routinely used to guide PCC administration might not adequately reflect thrombin generation in bleeding patients.

Comparison of the New Viscoelastic Coagulation Analyzer ClotPro® With ROTEM® Delta and Conventional Coagulation Tests in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

Background: Viscoelastic coagulation testing has been suggested to help manage coagulopathy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, results from different viscoelastic devices are not readily comparable. ClotPro® is a novel thromboelastometry analyzer offering a wider range of commercially available assays. Methods: We compared the results from ClotPro with results from the well-established ROTEM® Delta device and conventional coagulation tests in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results: Viscoelastic parameters indicated the presence of a potentially hypercoagulable state in the majority of patients. In up to 95 paired measurements, we found strong correlations between several parameters routinely used in clinical practice: (i) EX test vs. EXTEM CT, A5, A10, MCF, (ii) IN test vs. INTEM A5, A10, MCF, and (iii) FIB test vs. FIBTEM A5, A10, MCF (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). In contrast, IN test CT vs. INTEM CT showed only a moderate correlation (R = 0.53 and p < 0.001). Clot strength parameters of both devices exhibited strong correlations with platelet counts and fibrinogen levels (all R > 0.7 and p < 0.001). Divergent correlations of intrinsically activated assays with aPTT and anti-factor Xa activity were visible. Regarding absolute differences of test results, considerable delta occurred in CT, CFT, and clot strength parameters (all p < 0.001) between both devices. Conclusions: Several parameters obtained by ClotPro show strong correlations with ROTEM Delta. Due to weak correlations of intrinsically activated clotting times and considerable absolute differences in a number of parameters, our findings underline the need for device-specific algorithms in this patient cohort.

Thrombin Generation and Platelet Function in ICU Patients Undergoing CVVHD Using Regional Citrate Anticoagulation.

Background: To investigate pro- and anticoagulant alterations in uremic critically ill patients prior to and during continuous renal replacement therapy. In addition to the conventional thrombin generation assay (TGA), we performed a thrombomodulin-modified variant to better elucidate procoagulant imbalances. Platelet function was determined via multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) to round off hemostatic analysis. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients at surgical intensive care units (ICU) with acute kidney injury undergoing continuous veno-venous hemodialysis using regional citrate anticoagulation. TGA and platelet function testing were performed at baseline (≤ 12 h prior to continuous renal replacement therapy) and on 3 consecutive days (day A-C) of extracorporeal therapy. Results: We did not observe significant changes in thrombin generation after start or during renal replacement therapy. Ratios of endogenous thrombin potential in patients were significantly increased (p < 0.001) compared to standardized plasma of healthy donors confirming the assumed procoagulant alterations in ICU patients. Test results of the conventional TGA differed significantly (p < 0.05) from those of the thrombomodulin-modified assay. The area under the curve remained below MEA reference values during the entire observation period, indicating a persistent reduction in platelet function. Conclusion: In summary, in-depth analysis using standard and modified TGA, as well as calculation of endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) ratios, revealed no further aggravation of the procoagulatory shift in the critically ill patient during CVVHD using regional citrate anticoagulation. MEA ruled out the potential impact of platelets. Clinical Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004336), 29 August 2012; www.drks.de.

The effect of oral Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on the minimal alveolar concentration of sevoflurane: A randomised, controlled, observer-blinded experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis has increasingly been used for medical and recreational purposes. The main pharmacological compound in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which has sedative, anxiolytic and analgesic effects. In some animal models, THC has also been shown to reduce the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of halothane and cyclopropane, but its effect on sevoflurane, currently the most commonly used inhalational anaesthetic agent, has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of THC on the MAC of sevoflurane in rats. METHODS: Observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Centre for Biomedical Research of the Medical University of Vienna, 2019. INDIVIDUALS: Thirty-eight adult Wistar rats. INTERVENTIONS: The rats were allocated randomly into one of two groups. Group A received THC 10 mg kg and group B received the corresponding volume of placebo via gastric gavage (administration through a tube placed in the distal oesophagus). The rats were then individually anaesthetised in an airtight sevoflurane-flooded chamber, and the MAC in both groups was determined using Dixon's up-and-down method. Blood samples were drawn to measure serum concentrations of THC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the MAC of sevoflurane in Groups A and B. RESULTS: The bootstrap estimate of the MAC of sevoflurane was 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.4) vol% in the THC group and 2.8 (95% confidence interval 2.7 to 2.9) vol% in the placebo group, corresponding to a significant MAC reduction of 26% in response to THC. CONCLUSION: Gastric administration of THC 10 mg kg significantly reduced the MAC of sevoflurane by 26%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.