Background Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors. Methods The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success. Results Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported—an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non–rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001). Conclusions The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic IntubateCOVID is a large, multinational, multispecialty, voluntary, self-reported database of healthcare workers who have performed intubations on patients with known or suspected COVID-19 established shortly after the widespread onset of the pandemic in March 2020. Data collection focuses on practitioner and hospital level characteristics related to the intubation, and no patient identifiable characteristics are collected. Practitioners record any subsequent symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or positive tests for it. What This Article Tells Us That Is New The authors report a secondary analysis of associations of intubation and operator characteristics related to the primary outcome of first-attempt intubation success in 4,476 intubations among 1,722 clinicians at 607 institutions across 32 countries, also considering differential rates of success between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Although successful first-attempt intubation was noted in 89.7% of intubations, 0.5% required four or more attempts, an emergency surgical airway was required in 0.2%, and a composite variable of failed intubation occurred in 0.8%. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that successful first attempts were more likely with rapid sequence intubations, when operators used powered air-purifying respirators, and with increasing operator experience. Intubations performed in low- and middle-income countries were nearly half as likely to be successful on first attempt than in high-income countries. These results provide potentially useful information for global and local policy-making related to this and future pandemics. However, the observational nature, along with lack of patient level characteristics, leave room for residual confounding of these associations.

Background While persistent opioid use after surgery has been the subject of a large number of studies, it is unknown how much variability in the definition of persistent use impacts the reported incidence across studies. The objective was to evaluate the incidence of persistent use estimated with different definitions using a single cohort of postoperative patients, as well as the ability of each definition to identify patients with opioid-related adverse events. Methods The literature was reviewed to identify observational studies that evaluated persistent opioid use among opioid-naive patients requiring surgery, and any definitions of persistent opioid use were extracted. Next, the authors performed a population-based cohort study of opioid-naive adults undergoing 1 of 18 surgical procedures from 2013 to 2017 in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent opioid use, defined by each extracted definition of persistent opioid use. The authors also assessed the sensitivity and specificity of each definition to identify patients with an opioid-related adverse event in the year after surgery. Results Twenty-nine different definitions of persistent opioid use were identified from 39 studies. Applying the different definitions to a cohort of 162,830 opioid-naive surgical patients, the incidence of persistent opioid use in the year after surgery ranged from 0.01% (n = 10) to 14.7% (n = 23,442), with a median of 0.7% (n = 1,061). Opioid-related overdose or diagnosis associated with opioid use disorder in the year of follow-up occurred in 164 patients (1 per 1,000 operations). The sensitivity of each definition to identify patients with the composite measure of opioid use disorder or opioid-related toxicity ranged from 0.01 to 0.36, while specificity ranged from 0.86 to 1.00. Conclusions The incidence of persistent opioid use reported after surgery varies more than 100-fold depending on the definition used. Definitions varied markedly in their sensitivity for identifying adverse opioid-related event, with low sensitivity overall across measures. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Persistent opioid use after surgery is a matter of great concern Defining appropriate opioid prescribing practices and policies depends critically on understanding the rate of and reasons for persistent postoperative opioid use What This Article Tells Us That Is New A systematic search of the literature revealed 29 distinct definitions of persistent opioid use employed in 39 different studies Applying the definitions to a separate study cohort of more than 162,000 surgical patients identified persistent opioid use rates varying more than 100-fold with low sensitivity for the identification of opioid use disorder

Background In 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reclassified hydrocodone from Schedule III to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, resulting in new restrictions on refills. The authors hypothesized that hydrocodone rescheduling led to decreases in total opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery and reduced new long-term opioid dispensing among surgical patients. Methods The authors studied privately insured, opioid-naïve adults undergoing 10 general or orthopedic surgeries between 2011 and 2015. The authors conducted a differences-in-differences analysis that compared overall opioid dispensing before versus after the rescheduling rule for patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before rescheduling ( i.e. , patients who were functionally exposed to rescheduling’s impact) while adjusting for secular trends via a comparison group of patients treated by surgeons who rarely prescribed hydrocodone ( i.e. , unexposed patients). The primary outcome was any filled opioid prescription between 90 and 180 days after surgery; secondary outcomes included the 30-day refill rate and the amount of opioids dispensed initially and at 30 days postoperatively. Results The sample included 65,136 patients. The percentage of patients filling a prescription beyond 90 days was similar after versus before rescheduling (absolute risk difference, −1.1%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 0.1%; P = 0.084). The authors estimated the rescheduling rule to be associated with a 45.4-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (difference-in-differences estimate; 95% CI, 34.2–56.7 mg; P < 0.001) in initial opioid dispensing, a 4.1% absolute decrease (95% CI, −5.5% to −2.7%; P < 0.001) in refills within 30 days, and a 37.7-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (95% CI, 20.6–54.8 mg; P = 0.008) in opioids dispensed within 30 days. Conclusions Among patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before the Drug Enforcement Agency 2014 hydrocodone rescheduling rule, rescheduling did not impact long-term opioid receipt, although it was associated with an increase in opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Hydrocodone is a commonly prescribed but also commonly misused analgesic The rescheduling of hydrocodone from Schedule III to Schedule II by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 2014 was intended to reduce unnecessary hydrocodone use What This Article Tells Us That Is New Data derived from a large insurance database for a group of 10 common ambulatory orthopedic surgeries suggested that hydrocodone dispensing increased after rescheduling for the 30-day period after surgery Data from the same source showed no difference in hydrocodone prescribing from 90 to 180 days after surgery

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Obstetric specialty societies recommend neuraxial anesthesia, when possible, for cesarean delivery Current data regarding the association of obstetric anesthesiologist specialization and use of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery remain lacking What This Manuscript Tells Us That Is New Maternal and provider factors are strongly associated with use of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery Patients receiving care from obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists are 29% less likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean delivery Background Guidelines for obstetric anesthesia recommend neuraxial anesthesia ( i.e ., spinal or epidural block) for cesarean delivery in most patients. Little is known about the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with a patient’s likelihood of receiving general anesthesia. The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare utilization of general anesthesia for cesarean delivery among patients treated by generalist versus obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists. Methods The authors studied patients undergoing cesarean delivery for live singleton pregnancies from 2013 through 2017 at one academic medical center. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The authors estimated the association of anesthesiologist specialization in obstetric anesthesia with the odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Results Of the cesarean deliveries in our sample, 2,649 of 4,052 (65.4%) were performed by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists, and 1,403 of 4,052 (34.6%) by generalists. Use of general anesthesia differed for patients treated by specialists and generalists (7.3% vs. 12.1%; P < 0.001). After adjustment, the odds of receiving general anesthesia were lower among patients treated by obstetric-specialized anesthesiologists among all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.92; P = 0.011), and in a subgroup analysis restricted to urgent or emergent cesarean deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99; P = 0.049). There was no association between provider specialization and the odds of receiving general anesthesia in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening or weekend deliveries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03; P = 0.085). Conclusions Treatment by an obstetric anesthesiologist was associated with lower odds of receiving general anesthesia for cesarean delivery; however, this finding did not persist in a subgroup analysis restricted to evening and weekend deliveries.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE What We Already Know about This Topic Dantrolene effectively treats malignant hyperthermia, but there are discrepant recommendations for dantrolene availability in facilities that stock succinylcholine for airway rescue but do not use volatile anesthetics. What This Article Tells Us That Is New The authors performed an analysis of data from three databases and a systematic literature review. Providers frequently use succinylcholine, including during difficult mask ventilation. Succinylcholine given without volatile anesthetics triggered 24 malignant hyperthermia events, 13 of which were treated with dantrolene. Fourteen patients experienced substantial complications, and one died. Delayed dantrolene treatment worsened patient outcomes. Background Although dantrolene effectively treats malignant hyperthermia (MH), discrepant recommendations exist concerning dantrolene availability. Whereas Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States guidelines state dantrolene must be available within 10 min of the decision to treat MH wherever volatile anesthetics or succinylcholine are administered, a Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia protocol permits Class B ambulatory facilities to stock succinylcholine for airway rescue without dantrolene. The authors investigated (1) succinylcholine use rates, including for airway rescue, in anesthetizing/sedating locations; (2) whether succinylcholine without volatile anesthetics triggers MH warranting dantrolene; and (3) the relationship between dantrolene administration and MH morbidity/mortality. Methods The authors performed focused analyses of the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (2005 through 2016), North American MH Registry (2013 through 2016), and Anesthesia Closed Claims Project (1970 through 2014) databases, as well as a systematic literature review (1987 through 2017). The authors used difficult mask ventilation (grades III and IV) as a surrogate for airway rescue. MH experts judged dantrolene treatment. For MH morbidity/mortality analyses, the authors included U.S. and Canadian cases that were fulminant or scored 20 or higher on the clinical grading scale and in which volatile anesthetics or succinylcholine were given. Results Among 6,368,356 queried outcomes cases, 246,904 (3.9%) received succinylcholine without volatile agents. Succinylcholine was used in 46% (n = 710) of grade IV mask ventilation cases (median dose, 100 mg, 1.2 mg/kg). Succinylcholine without volatile anesthetics triggered 24 MH cases, 13 requiring dantrolene. Among 310 anesthetic-triggered MH cases, morbidity was 20 to 37%. Treatment delay increased complications every 10 min, reaching 100% with a 50-min delay. Overall mortality was 1 to 10%; 15 U.S. patients died, including 4 after anesthetics in freestanding facilities. Conclusions Providers use succinylcholine commonly, including during difficult mask ventilation. Succinylcholine administered without volatile anesthetics may trigger MH events requiring dantrolene. Delayed dantrolene treatment increases the likelihood of MH complications. The data reported herein support stocking dantrolene wherever succinylcholine or volatile anesthetics may be used.

Background Hip fracture is a common, morbid, and costly event among older adults. Data are inconclusive as to whether epidural or spinal (regional) anesthesia improves outcomes after hip fracture surgery. Methods The authors examined a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture in 126 hospitals in New York in 2007 and 2008. They tested the association of a record indicating receipt of regional versus general anesthesia with a primary outcome of inpatient mortality and with secondary outcomes of pulmonary and cardiovascular complications using hospital fixed-effects logistic regressions. Subgroup analyses tested the association of anesthesia type and outcomes according to fracture anatomy. Results Of 18,158 patients, 5,254 (29%) received regional anesthesia. In-hospital mortality occurred in 435 (2.4%). Unadjusted rates of mortality and cardiovascular complications did not differ by anesthesia type. Patients receiving regional anesthesia experienced fewer pulmonary complications (359 [6.8%] vs. 1,040 [8.1%], P < 0.005). Regional anesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio: 0.710, 95% CI 0.541, 0.932, P = 0.014) and pulmonary complications (odds ratio: 0.752, 95% CI 0.637, 0.887, P < 0.0001) relative to general anesthesia. In subgroup analyses, regional anesthesia was associated with improved survival and fewer pulmonary complications among patients with intertrochanteric fractures but not among patients with femoral neck fractures. Conclusions Regional anesthesia is associated with a lower odds of inpatient mortality and pulmonary complications among all hip fracture patients compared with general anesthesia; this finding may be driven by a trend toward improved outcomes with regional anesthesia among patients with intertrochanteric fractures.