Use of CPAP Machines in the Perioperative Setting in Ambulatory Surgical Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnea is a common sleep-related breathing disorder that is associated with significant perioperative complications. In 2012 and 2017, Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia and Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine published consensus statements for the selection of patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery. Despite these recommendations, the need for a CPAP device in the immediate postoperative period at ambulatory surgical centers remains controversial because these ambulatory patients are healthier and have fewer complications. This study aims to investigate the compliance rate with this recommendation among busy ASCs. METHODS: We created a survey to investigate if ASCs require patients to bring their CPAP devices to the facility. The survey measured compliance rates of ASCs to SAMBA's recommended guidelines of having CPAP machines available. RESULTS: The survey had a response rate of 60.9% encompassing 408,147 cases among 1946 providers. Of the facilities that responded, only 59.7% of them required their patients to bring their CPAP devices on the day of surgery. Out of the 67 facilities that responded, only 25.37% reported using a CPAP machine postoperatively within the past 2 years, with the highest CPAP usage at one facility being 20 times in that 2-year period. DISCUSSION: This would mean that 40.3% of ASCs that did respond do not have access to a CPAP device on-site and may possibly lack the proper equipment needed to handle these complications. The frequency and fatality rate associated with postoperative respiratory complications requiring a CPAP device are still inconclusive, making the need for CPAP devices during perioperative management controversial. Studies further in-depth are therefore necessary to assess postoperative complications that require the use of a CPAP device to determine the urgency of ASCs implementing SAMBA's recommendations.

Direct effects of UV-B radiation on the freshwater heterotrophic nanoflagellate Paraphysomonas sp.

The formation of DNA photoproducts in organisms exposed to ambient levels of UV-B radiation can lead to death and/or reduced population growth in aquatic systems. Dependence on photoenzymatic repair to reverse DNA damage caused by UV-B radiation is demonstrated for Paraphysomonas sp., a member of a widely distributed genus of heterotrophic nanoflagellates. At 20 degrees C, Paraphysomonas sp. was exposed to a range of UV-B intensities encountered in natural systems. Populations of the flagellate survived and grew in a dose-dependent manner, but only when simultaneously exposed to photorepair radiation (PRR). In contrast, flagellates exposed to UV-B at 15 degrees C suffered 100% mortality except at the lowest UV-B level (with PRR) tested, which suggested a photorepair temperature optimum above 15 degrees C. After acute UV-B exposures, DNA damage (measured as the formation of pyrimidine dimers) was reduced only in organisms that underwent subsequent exposure to PRR. Populations kept in the dark after UV-B exposure maintained the initial levels of pyrimidine dimers. These results are the first to demonstrate the reliance of a heterotrophic flagellate on photoenzymatic DNA repair for survival from UV-B exposure.

Dexmedetomidine infusion during laparoscopic bariatric surgery: the effect on recovery outcome variables.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine (Dex), an alpha(2) agonist, has well-known anesthetic and analgesic-sparing effects. We designed this prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled dose-ranging study to evaluate the effect of Dex on both early and late recovery after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. METHODS: Eighty consenting ASA II-III morbidly obese patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: (1) control group received a saline infusion during surgery, (2) Dex 0.2 group received an infusion of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV, (3) Dex 0.4 group received an infusion of 0.4 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV, and (4) Dex 0.8 group received an infusion of 0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) IV. Mean arterial blood pressure values were maintained within +/-25% of the preinduction baseline values by varying the inspired desflurane concentration. Perioperative hemodynamic variables, postoperative pain scores, and the need for "rescue" analgesics and antiemetics were recorded at specific intervals. Follow-up evaluations were performed on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, and 7 to assess severity of pain, analgesic requirements, patient satisfaction with pain management, quality of recovery, as well as resumption of dietary intake and recovery of bowel function. RESULTS: Dex infusion, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1), reduced the average end-tidal desflurane concentration by 19, 20, and 22%, respectively. However, it failed to facilitate a significantly faster emergence from anesthesia. Although the intraoperative hemodynamic values were similar in the four groups, arterial blood pressure values were significantly reduced in the Dex 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 groups compared with the control group on admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (P < 0.05). The length of the PACU stay was significantly reduced in the Dex groups (81 +/- 31 to 87 +/- 24 vs 104 +/- 33 min in the control group, P < 0.05). The amount of rescue fentanyl administered in the PACU was significantly less in the Dex 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 groups versus control group (113 +/- 85, 108 +/- 67, and 120 +/- 78 vs 187 +/- 99 microg, respectively, P < 0.05). The percentage of patients requiring antiemetic therapy was also reduced in the Dex groups (30, 30, and 10% vs 70% in the control group). However, the patient-controlled analgesia morphine requirements on PODs 1 and 2 were not different among the four groups. Pain scores in the PACU, and on PODs 1, 2, and 7, in the three Dex groups were not different from the control group. Finally, quality of recovery scores and times to recovery of bowel function and hospital discharge did not differ among the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of an intraoperative Dex infusion (0.2-0.8 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1)) decreased fentanyl use, antiemetic therapy, and the length of stay in the PACU. However, it failed to facilitate late recovery (e.g., bowel function) or improve the patients' overall quality of recovery. When used during bariatric surgery, a Dex infusion rate of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1) is recommended to minimize the risk of adverse cardiovascular side effects.

Optimal timing of acustimulation for antiemetic prophylaxis as an adjunct to ondansetron in patients undergoing plastic surgery.

We designed this study to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation in combination with ondansetron when applied before, after, or both before and after plastic surgery. A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study design was used to compare three prophylactic acustimulation treatment schedules: preoperative--an active device was applied for 30 min before and a sham device for 72 h after surgery; postoperative--a sham device was applied for 30 min before and an active device for 72 h after surgery; and perioperative--an active device was applied for 30 min before and 72 h after surgery (n = 35 per group). All patients received a standardized general anesthetic, and ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered at the end of surgery. The incidence of vomiting/retching and the need for rescue antiemetics were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. Nausea scores were recorded with an 11-point verbal rating scale. Other outcome variables assessed included discharge times (for outpatients), resumption of normal activities of daily living, complete antiemetic response rate, and patient satisfaction with antiemetic therapy and quality of recovery. Perioperative use of the ReliefBand significantly increased complete responses (68%) compared with use of the device before surgery only (43%). Median postoperative nausea scores were significantly reduced in the peri- and postoperative (versus preoperative) treatment groups. Finally, patient satisfaction with the quality of recovery (83 +/- 16 and 85 +/- 13 vs 72 +/- 18) and antiemetic management (96 +/- 9 and 94 +/- 10 vs 86 +/- 13) on an arbitrary scale from 0 = worst to 100 = best was significantly higher in the groups receiving peri- or postoperative (versus preoperative) acustimulation therapy. For patients discharged on the day of surgery, the time to home readiness was significantly reduced (114 +/- 41 min versus 164 +/- 50 min; P < 0.05) when acustimulation was administered perioperatively (versus preoperatively). In conclusion, acustimulation with the ReliefBand was most effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting and improving patients' satisfaction with their antiemetic therapy when it was administered after surgery.

Comparison of a lower-lipid propofol emulsion with the standard emulsion for sedation during monitored anesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: The currently used emulsion formulations of 1% propofol contain 10% soybean oil. However, a new emulsion of 1% propofol (Ampofol) containing 50% less lipid has recently become available for clinical investigation. This study was designed to compare the pharmacodynamic properties of Ampofol with those of a standard formulation (Diprivan) when administered for intraoperative sedation. METHODS: Sixty healthy outpatients undergoing minor operations with local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either Ampofol (n = 31) or Diprivan (n = 29) for intravenous sedation. The sedation was initiated with an intravenous loading dose of propofol, 0.75 mg/kg, followed by an initial infusion rate of 50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) to achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3. The targeted level of sedation was maintained with a variable-rate propofol infusion during the operation. The onset times to achieving a sedation score of 3, the severity of pain on injection of the loading dose, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and electroencephalographic Bispectral Index values were recorded. In addition, recovery times, postoperative pain and nausea, and patient satisfaction with the sedative medication were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between Ampofol and Diprivan with respect to onset times, dosage requirements, Bispectral Index values, hemodynamic variables, recovery times, or patient satisfaction scores. The incidence of moderate pain on injection was higher in the Ampofol group (26%vs. 7% with Diprivan; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ampofol was equipotent to Diprivan with respect to its sedative properties during monitored anesthesia care. Although both groups received pretreatment with intravenous lidocaine, Ampofol was associated with more pain on injection.

Comparative efficacy of acustimulation (ReliefBand) versus ondansetron (Zofran) in combination with droperidol for preventing nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.

Dexamethasone in combination with dolasetron for prophylaxis in the ambulatory setting: effect on outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a common problem despite routine antiemetic prophylaxis. Therefore, the authors investigated the effect of administering 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone as an adjunct to a 5-HT3 antagonist (12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron) with respect to patient outcome. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 140) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, institutional review board-approved protocol involving two antiemetic treatment groups. After induction of anesthesia, the control group received 1 ml intravenous saline, whereas the dexamethasone group received 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone. Both groups received 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron at the time of gallbladder removal. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic episodes, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea score, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores were assessed at 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the early recovery period, the dexamethasone group had a shorter stay in the day-surgery unit (136 +/- 57 vs. 179 +/- 62 min) and more rapidly achieved discharge criteria (161 +/- 32 vs. 209 +/- 39 min). In addition, fewer patients in the dexamethasone group experienced nausea at home within 24 h after discharge (13 vs. 28%, P < 0.05). Finally, the dexamethasone group reported higher quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the adjunctive use of 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone shortened the time to achieve discharge criteria and improved the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores after laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures in outpatients receiving prophylaxis with 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron.