Daily Anesthesiology Research Analysis

BACKGROUND: Guidance on acute pain management among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) is limited. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the benefits and harms of acute pain interventions among people with OUD. DATA SOURCES: APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycExtra, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection through 7 July 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design that evaluated acute pain interventions among adults with OUD and included pain or OUD outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent dual screening, single-investigator data extraction with verification, and dual quality and strength of evidence assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen trials, 20 controlled observational studies, and 78 uncontrolled observational studies met eligibility criteria. Continuing use of buprenorphine during acute pain episodes may be associated with similar or improved pain-related outcomes versus discontinuing, based on cohort studies conducted primarily in perioperative settings. Single well-conducted randomized controlled trials in emergency department (ED) or perioperative settings in adults not prescribed medications for OUD suggest oral clonidine, intramuscular haloperidol and midazolam with intravenous (IV) morphine, and intraoperative IV lidocaine may improve pain outcomes and warrant study in diverse patient populations. Few studies evaluated methadone or the effect of interventions on OUD outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Most evidence is observational and at risk of bias due to confounding. All studies were conducted in ED or hospital settings, most before widespread use of high-potency synthetic opioids or among non-U.S. populations using opium. CONCLUSION: The overall evidence for pain outcomes in people with OUD is low. The effect of pain interventions on OUD outcomes is an important evidence gap. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (Protocol registered a priori on Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/25hbs]).

BACKGROUND: Preschool children who received sevoflurane anaesthesia were associated with a high incidence of emergence agitation (EA). Studies have shown that a subanaesthetic dose of propofol (1 mg/kg) at the end of inhalational anaesthesia could reduce EA in paediatric patients, but the optimal administrations are still under investigation. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 160 preschool children (ASA I or II, 2-5 years old) undergoing day surgery of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with sevoflurane anaesthesia were randomly assigned into four groups: the control group, single bolus 3 min before the end of the surgery (bolus A), single bolus at the end of the surgery (bolus B) and continuous infusion for 3 min at the end of the surgery (continuous infusion). The dose of propofol in the bolus A group, bolus B group and continued infusion group is 1 mg/kg. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of EA assessed by the Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale and Watcha scales. The secondary outcomes included extubation time, emergence time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate. RESULTS: The incidence of EA was as follows: 65.0% in the control group, 30.0% in the bolus A group, 32.5% in the bolus B group and 5.0% in the continuous infusion group (p<0.05). Furthermore, the peak PAED scores in the continuous infusion group were significantly lower than those in the other groups. However, extubation time and emergence time showed no differences among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of subanaesthetic dose propofol (1 mg/kg) for 3 min at the end of sevoflurane anaesthesia seems to be more appropriate than other administration as it reduced EA and did not prolong the time to wake. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05420402.

OBJECTIVES: Studies in elective surgery report adverse outcomes with transfusion of a solitary unit of red blood cells (RBC). We quantified the effect of discretionary transfusion of one unit of blood in trauma patients with borderline transfusion indications. We hypothesized that transfusion of a discretionary unit of RBCs would increase complications. METHODS: Admitted adults from the 2017-2021 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included if they had an injury severity score between 10 and 25 and a Glasgow Coma Scale >8: moderately to severely injured patients. Associations between single-unit RBC transfusion in the first 4 h (with no subsequent transfusion) and three primary outcomes (mortality, infection, thromboembolic event) were assessed using inverse probability-weighting propensity matching with regression adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 649,841 patients were included in the study. Approximately 4.2% received one unit of RBC. Propensity matching (with fractional weighting) for transfusion resulted in 307,840.7 cases and 342,000.3 controls. Transfusion of a solitary unit of RBC was independently associated with each outcome: mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.11, 95% CI 1.66-2.69), infection (aOR 3.92, 95% CI 2.91-5.27), and thromboembolic event (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.55-2.64). CONCLUSION: Transfusion of a single unit of RBC within the first 4 h of arrival in trauma patients with no subsequent transfusion during hospitalization was associated with an increased risk of mortality, infection, and a thromboembolic event. When weighing the decision to transfuse trauma patients with equivocal signs of hemorrhage, one needs to balance the potential harm against the likelihood that such transfusion is necessary.