The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) are major complications that cause disability and distress for millions of patients annually.¹ Delirium is an acute attentional deficit that typically occurs during the initial postoperative days and manifests with hyperactive, hypoactive, or mixed symptoms.² Postoperative delirium has been reported to occur in 10% to 60% of elderly surgical patients, varying by surgical procedure.^3,4 Assessed with neuropsychological tests and in the absence of delirium, POCD is a decline in cognitive ability occurring between 1 week and 1 year after surgery.⁵ The incidence of POCD is approximately 10% to 12% and varies with clinical, demographic, and surgical variables, as well as the interval between surgery and assessment.¹ Both postoperative delirium and POCD are associated with longer hospital stay, functional decline, lower likelihood of return to independent living, and increased mortality.^6-8

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is increasingly being used as a sedative for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) because of its analgesic properties, “cooperative sedation,” and lack of respiratory depression. In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind, Phase III Food and Drug Administration study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of two doses of DEX for sedation of patients undergoing a broad range of surgical or diagnostic procedures requiring MAC. Three hundred twenty-six patients were randomized 2:2:1 to DEX 0.5 μg/kg, DEX 1 μg/kg, or saline placebo initial loading dose, followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.2–1.0 μg · kg−1 · h−1 of DEX (or equivalent volume of saline) titrated to a targeted level of sedation (≤4 on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale [OAA/S]). Study drug was started at least 15 min before placement of regional or local anesthetic block. Midazolam was given for OAA/S >4 and fentanyl for pain. The primary end-point was the percentage of patients not requiring rescue midazolam. Significantly fewer patients in the 0.5- and 1-μg/kg DEX groups required supplemental midazolam compared with placebo (59.7% [80/134], 45.7% [59/129] vs 96.8% [61/63], respectively; P < 0.001) and at lower doses to achieve an OAA/S ≤4 before and during surgery compared with the saline group (1.4 and 0.9 mg vs 4.1 mg, respectively; P < 0.001, each group compared with placebo). Both DEX groups required significantly less fentanyl (84.8 and 83.6 μg vs 144.4 μg, respectively; P < 0.001, for both DEX groups versus placebo) for all surgical subtypes. Anesthesiologists indicated significantly increased ease of achieving and maintaining targeted sedation in both DEX groups compared with placebo with midazolam (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher with DEX (P ≤ 0.009, both groups versus placebo). Common adverse events with DEX were protocol-defined bradycardia and hypotension that were predominately mild to moderate in severity. The incidence of clinically significant respiratory depression (defined as a respiratory rate of <8 or an oxygen saturation of <90%) was lower in DEX-treated patients (P = 0.018, for both groups versus placebo). DEX is an effective baseline sedative for patients undergoing MAC for a broad range of surgical procedures providing better patient satisfaction, less opioid requirements, and less respiratory depression than placebo rescued with midazolam and fentanyl.

Literature on the anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is limited. Anesthetic management during these procedures is still mostly dependent on individual or institutional preferences. Thus, the Society of Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) created a task force to provide expert consensus recommendations on anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of AIS. The task force conducted a systematic literature review (up to August 2012). Because of the limited number of research articles relating to this subject, the task force solicited opinions from experts in this area. The task force created a draft consensus statement based on the available data. Classes of recommendations and levels of evidence were assigned to articles specifically addressing anesthetic management during endovascular treatment of stroke using the standard American Heart Association evidence rating scheme. The draft consensus statement was reviewed by the Task Force, SNACC Executive Committee and representatives of Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) and Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) reaching consensus on the final document. For this consensus statement the anesthetic management of endovascular treatment of AIS was subdivided into 12 topics. Each topic includes a summary of available data followed by recommendations. This consensus statement is intended for use by individuals involved in the care of patients with acute ischemic stroke, such as anesthesiologists, interventional neuroradiologists, neurologists, neurointensivists, and neurosurgeons.

Background: Liposome bupivacaine is a novel formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine, designed to provide prolonged postsurgical analgesia. This analysis examined pooled efficacy data as reflected in cumulative pain scores from 10 randomized, double-blind liposome bupivacaine clinical studies in which the study drug was administered via local wound infiltration. Methods: A total of 823 patients were exposed to liposome bupivacaine in 10 local wound infiltration studies at doses ranging from 66 mg to 532 mg in five surgical settings; 446 patients received bupivacaine HCl (dose: 75–200 mg) and 190 received placebo. Efficacy measures were assessed through 72 hours after surgery. Results: Overall, 45% of patients were male and 19% were ≥65 years of age. In the analysis of cumulative pain intensity scores through 72 hours, liposome bupivacaine was associated with lower pain scores than the comparator in 16 of 19 treatment arms assessed, achieving statistically significant differences compared with bupivacaine HCl (P < 0.05) in five of 17 treatment arms. These results were supported by results of other efficacy measures, including time to first use of opioid rescue medication, proportion of patients avoiding opioid rescue medication, total postsurgical consumption of opioid rescue medication, and patient/care provider satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. Local infiltration of liposome bupivacaine resulted in significant systemic plasma levels of bupivacaine, which could persist for 96 hours; systemic plasma levels of bupivacaine following administration of liposome bupivacaine were not correlated with local efficacy. Liposome bupivacaine and bupivacaine HCl were generally well tolerated. Conclusion: Based on this integrated analysis of multiple efficacy measures, liposome bupivacaine appears to be a potentially useful therapeutic option for prolonged reduction of postsurgical pain in soft tissue and orthopedic surgeries.

Introduction The use of opioids has been increasing in operating room and intensive care unit to provide perioperative analgesia as well as stable hemodynamics. However, many authors have suggested that the use of opioids is associated with the expression of acute opioid tolerance (AOT) and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) in experimental studies and clinical observations in dose and/or time dependent exposure even when used within the clinically accepted doses. Recently, remifentanil has been used for pain management during anesthesia as well as in the intensive care units because of its rapid onset and offset. Objectives Search of the available literature to assess remifentanil AOT and OIH based on available published data. Methods We reviewed articles analyzing remifentanil AOT and OIH, and focused our literature search on evidence based information. Experimental and clinical studies were identified using electronic searches of Medline (PubMed, Ovid, Springer, and Elsevier, ClinicalKey). Results Our results showed that the development of remifentanil AOT and OIH is a clinically significant phenomenon requiring further research. Discussions and Conclusions AOT - defined as an increase in the required opioid dose to maintain adequate analgesia, and OIH - defined as decreased pain threshold, should be suspected with any unexplained pain report unassociated with the disease progression. The clinical significance of these findings was evaluated taking into account multiple methodological issues including the dose and duration of opioids administration, the different infusion mode, the co-administrated anesthetic drug’s effect, method assessing pain sensitivity, and the repetitive and potentially tissue damaging nature of the stimuli used to determine the threshold during opioid infusion. Future studies need to investigate the contribution of remifentanil induced hyperalgesia to chronic pain and the role of pharmacological modulation to reverse this process.