2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting: Carbohydrate-containing Clear Liquids with or without Protein, Chewing Gum, and Pediatric Fasting Duration-A Modular Update of the 2017 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting.

These practice guidelines are a modular update of the "Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: Application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures." The guidance focuses on topics not addressed in the previous guideline: ingestion of carbohydrate-containing clear liquids with or without protein, chewing gum, and pediatric fasting duration.

2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and Antagonism of Neuromuscular Blockade: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade.

These practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of neuromuscular monitoring and antagonism of neuromuscular blocking agents during and after general anesthesia. The guidance focuses primarily on the type and site of monitoring and the process of antagonizing neuromuscular blockade to reduce residual neuromuscular blockade.

Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring in Clinical Practice: A Professional Practice Change Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular blockade can be avoided with quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The authors embarked on a professional practice initiative to attain documented train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in all patients for improved patient outcomes through reducing residual paralysis. METHODS: The authors utilized equipment trials, educational videos, quantitative monitors in all anesthetizing locations, and electronic clinical decision support with real-time alerts, and initiated an ongoing professional practice metric. This was a retrospective assessment (2016 to 2020) of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.9 that were documented before extubation. Anesthesia records were manually reviewed for neuromuscular blockade management details. Medical charts of surgical patients who received a neuromuscular blocking drug were electronically searched for patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: From pre- to postimplementation, more patients were assigned American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status III to V, fewer were inpatients, the rocuronium average dose was higher, and more patients had a prereversal train-of-four count less than 4. Manually reviewed anesthesia records (n = 2,807) had 2 of 172 (1%) cases with documentation of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in November 2016, which was fewer than the cases in December 2020 (250 of 269 [93%]). Postimplementation (February 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020), sugammadex (650 of 935 [70%]), neostigmine (195 of 935 [21%]), and no reversal (90 of 935 [10%]) were used to attain train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 in 856 of 935 (92%) of patients. In the electronically searched medical charts (n = 20,181), postimplementation inpatients had shorter postanesthesia care unit lengths of stay (7% difference; median [in min] [25th, 75th interquartile range], 73 [55, 102] to 68 [49, 95]; P < 0.001), pulmonary complications were less (43% difference; 94 of 4,138 [2.3%] to 23 of 1,817 [1.3%]; P = 0.010; -1.0% difference [95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3%]), and hospital length of stay was shorter (median [in days] [25th, 75th], 3 [2, 5] to 2 [1, 4]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this professional practice initiative, documentation of train-of-four ratios greater than or equal to 0.90 occurred for 93% of patients in a busy clinical practice. Return-of-strength documentation is an intermediate outcome, and only one of many factors contributing to patient outcomes.

Using Lean tools to improve the efficiency of awake fibreoptic intubation setup.

BACKGROUND: Awake fibreoptic intubation is a complex advanced airway technique used by anaesthesiologists in the management of a difficult airway. The time to setup this important procedure can be significant which may dissuade its use by some providers. In our institution, the awake intubation setup process was highly variable and error prone. METHODS: We deployed Lean methods to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the awake fibreoptic intubation setup process. A 2-day improvement event with a multidisciplinary team addressed the setup process, tested solutions and created standard work documents. Twenty awake fibreoptic intubation simulations were conducted before and after the intervention to quantify gains in setup efficiency and error reduction. RESULTS: Variability in the setup process, including clinical locations visited, was reduced through creating a standardised process. The average time to for an awake fibreoptic intubation setup was reduced by approximately 50%, from 23 min to 11 min (p<0.001). In addition, awake fibreoptic intubation equipment set out without error increased in the postintervention simulations from 59% to 85% (p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Using Lean tools, we were able to make the setup of awake fibreoptic intubation not only more efficient, but also more accurate. A similar methodological approach may have value for other complex anaesthesia procedures.

Neuromuscular Blockade Monitoring.

Neuromuscular monitoring is essential for optimal management of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade continues to occur with an unacceptably high incidence and is associated with adverse patient outcomes. Use of a peripheral nerve stimulator and subjective tactile or visual assessment is useful for intraoperative management of neuromuscular blockade, especially when the patient's hand is accessible. Quantitative monitoring is necessary for confirmation of adequate reversal and for identification of patients who have recovered spontaneously and therefore should not receive pharmacologic reversal agents. Guidelines, as well as more user-friendly monitoring equipment, have created momentum toward improving routine perioperative neuromuscular monitoring.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects. METHODS: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. RESULTS: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases). DISCUSSION: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.

Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation for Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Is Effective, Efficient, and Safe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) allows non-anesthesiologists to administer propofol for gastrointestinal procedures in relatively healthy patients. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use, we report our 1-year experience with CAPS for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 926 outpatients underwent elective EGDs with CAPS at our center. All EGDs were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of CAPS. Procedural success rates, procedure times, and recovery times were compared against corresponding historical controls done with midazolam and fentanyl sedation from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in CAPS patients were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 56.7 years (45% male); 16.2% of the EGDs were for variceal screening or Barrett's surveillance and 83.8% for symptoms. The procedural success rates were similar to that of historical controls (99.0% vs. 99.3%; p = 0.532); procedure times were also similar (6.6 vs. 7.4 min; p = 0.280), but recovery time was markedly shorter (31.7 vs. 52.4 min; p < 0.001). There were 11 (1.2%) cases of mild transient oxygen desaturation (< 90%), 15 (1.6%) cases of marked agitation due to undersedation, and 1 case of asymptomatic hypotension. In addition, there were six (0.6%) patients with more pronounced desaturation episodes that required brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing sedation for EGD in healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical controls.

Process improvement for a complex dual medical procedure.

Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is accepted worldwide as a treatment for a large, symptomatic, obstructing pancreatic stones. However, timely completion of the combined process requires coordination of equipment and personnel from two different complex procedures. We used Lean management tools in a week-long event to redesign the process around the patient. Using idea-generated Plan Do Study Act cycles to refine the process, from scheduling to postprocedure recovery, equipment and personnel were aligned to allow these two procedures to occur in immediate succession. The redesigned process resulted in all patients receiving both procedures without delay. This eliminated over 8 hours of wait time. Standard work and a newly created complex scheduler improved flow. We reduced the number of anaesthetics for patients without prolonging the procedure length.

Nonoperating room anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the trends in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy over the past few years, and to describe alternative methods of delivering propofol sedation in selected low-risk patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of NORA for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has been rising steadily over the past decade in the United States, considerably increasing healthcare costs. Because of this, there have been attempts to develop nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation methods in low-risk patients. There is controversy as to whether properly trained nonanesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation SUMMARY: The deployment of nonanesthesia-administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall healthcare costs without sacrificing sedation quality. We also address the realm of anesthesia provider care for advanced endoscopic procedures including setup for administration of anesthesia, decision-making regarding placement of an endotracheal tube, and the potential need to move a challenging case to the operating room.

One year experience with computer-assisted propofol sedation for colonoscopy.

AIM: To report our one-year experience with computer assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) for colonoscopy as the first United States Medical Center to adopt CAPS technology for routine clinical use. METHODS: Between September 2014 and August 2015, 2677 patients underwent elective outpatient colonoscopy with CAPS at our center. All colonoscopies were performed by 1 of 17 gastroenterologists certified in the use of the CAPS system, with the assistance of a specially trained nurse. Procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, procedure times and recovery times were recorded and compared against corresponding historical measures from 2286 colonoscopies done with midazolam and fentanyl from September 2013 to August 2014. Adverse events in the CAPS group were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the CAPS cohort was 59.9 years (48.7% male); 31.3% were ASA I, 67.3% ASA II and 1.4% ASA III. 45.1% of the colonoscopies were for screening, 31.5% for surveillance, and 23.4% for symptoms. The mean propofol dose administered was 250.7 mg (range 16-1470 mg), with a mean fentanyl dose of 34.1 mcg (0-100 mcg). The colonoscopy completion and polyp detection rates were similar to that of historical measures. Recovery times were markedly shorter (31 min vs 45.6 min, P < 0.001). In CAPS patients, there were 20 (0.7%) cases of mild desaturation (< 90%) treated with a chin lift and reduction or temporary discontinuation of the propofol infusion, 21 (0.8%) cases of asymptomatic hypotension (< 90 systolic blood pressure) treated with a reduction in the propofol rate, 4 (0.1%) cases of marked agitation or discomfort due to undersedation, and 2 cases of pronounced transient desaturation requiring brief (< 1 min) mask ventilation. There were no sedation-related serious adverse events such as emergent intubation, unanticipated hospitalization or permanent injury. CONCLUSION: CAPS appears to be a safe, effective and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for colonoscopy in relatively healthy patients. Recovery times were much shorter than historical measures. There were few adverse events, and no serious adverse events, related to CAPS.

The First US Clinical Experience With Computer-Assisted Propofol Sedation: A Retrospective Observational Comparative Study on Efficacy, Safety, Efficiency, and Endoscopist and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) is now approved for moderate sedation of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing routine endoscopy. As the first US medical center to adopt CAPS for routine clinical use, we compared patient and endoscopist satisfaction with CAPS versus midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective outpatient upper endoscopy and colonoscopy with CAPS were compared with concurrent patients sedated with MF. The primary end points were patient satisfaction (measured by the validated Patient Sedation Satisfaction Index [PSSI]), and endoscopist satisfaction (Clinician Sedation Satisfaction Index [CSSI]). Secondary end points included procedural success rates, polyp detection rates, adverse events, and procedure/recovery times. Multivariable regression was used for comparative analysis. RESULTS: CAPS was utilized to sedate 244 patients, of whom 55 underwent upper endoscopy, 173 colonoscopy, and 16 double procedures. During the same period, 75 upper endoscopies, 223 colonoscopies, and 30 doubles were performed with MF on similar patients. For upper endoscopy, the procedural success rate was 98.2% for CAPS versus 98.7% for MF (P = .96), whereas for colonoscopy, the success rate was 98.9% vs 98.8% (P = .59). Colonoscopic polyp detection rate was 54.5% for CAPS and 59.3% for MF (P = .67). Procedure times were similar between CAPS and MF. For CAPS, the mean recovery time was 26.4 vs 39.1 minutes for MF (P < .001). One CAPS patient required mask ventilation, 4 experienced asymptomatic hypotension or desaturation, and 5 experienced marked agitation resulting from undersedation. For MF, 5 patients had hypotension or desaturation, and 8 experienced undersedation. For colonoscopy, the CAPS group had higher PSSI scores for sedation adequacy, the recovery process and global satisfaction, and higher CSSI scores for ease of sedation administration, the recovery process and global satisfaction. For upper endoscopy and doubles, the CAPS CSSI score was higher for the recovery process only. All P values were adjusted for confounding by using regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients, CAPS appears to be effective and efficient. CAPS is associated with higher satisfaction than MF for colonoscopies and, to a lesser extent, upper endoscopies.

Redesigning an airway cart using lean methodology.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Use lean methodology to create a more efficient difficult airway management equipment transport and setup. DESIGN: The 5S steps of sort, set in order, sweep, standardize, and sustain were used to create a redesigned airway cart. The 5S steps provided the framework to separate the needed from unneeded equipment, logical equipment placement on the cart, and a plan to maintain improvements. Simulations were utilized to compare the revised airway cart to the previous airway equipment storage. SETTING: Hospital operating rooms and equipment storage rooms. PATIENTS: Simulated difficult airway scenarios without patient involvement. INTERVENTION: Difficult airway equipment 5S process. MEASUREMENTS: Total pieces and cost of airway equipment before and after intervention. Walking distance and time to retrieve equipment, setup equipment, and setup defect rate during a simulation. MAIN RESULTS: Previously, airway equipment was stored in 4 locations which was reduced a single difficult airway cart. The total pieces of equipment stored was reduced 89% and the cost of disposable equipment inventory was reduced 81%. Simulations looking at the acquisition and setup of equipment during a difficult airway scenario revealed a 39% reduction in equipment set up time, a 77% reduction in non-valued-added set up time, and a 74% reduction in walking distance. There was no difference in set up defect rates. CONCLUSION: Application of this lean method resulted in a revised single cart with equipment pared down to only what is needed, arranged according to frequency and order of use in a difficult airway. In a simulated difficult airway, there was a reduction in non-value-added time and walking distance to retrieve the equipment.

Difficult Ventilation After Successful Intubation in the Emergency Setting due to a Ball Valve Clot.

The inability to ventilate a patient after successful intubation is a rare but emergent situation and may be caused by obstruction of the endotracheal tube, bilateral tension pneumothorax, esophageal intubation, severe bronchospasm, or mainstem bronchus intubation. We describe an increase in mean airway pressure, inability to ventilate, and loss of cardiac output secondary to a blood clot acting as a ball valve at the end of an endotracheal tube.

Detecting unidirectional valve incompetence by the modified pressure decline method.

The 1993 Food and Drug Administration anesthesia apparatus checkout recommendation provides guidance for a standardized circle system checkout but, we believe, inadequately tests unidirectional valve (UDV) function. We developed the modified pressure decline method (MPDM) for checking UDVs. The test involves pressurizing reservoir bags downstream of the UDVs to check for competency. Thirty-six UDVs in 18 anesthesia circle systems were evaluated using the MPDM. One Draeger (Draeger Medical Inc., Telford, PA) and one Ohmeda (Datex-Ohmeda Inc., Madison, WI) machine were then retested using incompetent valve discs. One incompetent UDV (3%) was identified of the 36 valves tested in 18 anesthesia machines. The MPDM detected the valve leak (Draeger 0.6 L/min flow leak; Ohmeda 0.9 L/min flow leak) when the incompetent valve discs were intentionally introduced into each type of machine. MPDM provides a quick and effective way of identifying incompetent UDVs.