This narrative review evaluates the evidence for using neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in patients being treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While large prospective randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking at this point in time, smaller observational studies and case series are reviewed to ascertain the indications and utility of NMBAs. Additionally, large RCTs that address similar clinical scenarios are reviewed and the authors translate these findings to patients with COVID-19. Specifically, NMBAs can be helpful during endotracheal intubation to minimize the risk of patient coughing and possibly infecting healthcare personnel. NMBAs can also be used in patients to promote patient-ventilator synchrony while reducing the driving pressure needed with mechanical ventilation, particularly in patients with the severe clinical presentation (Type H phenotype). Prone positioning has also become a cornerstone in managing refractory hypoxemia in patients with SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and NMB can be useful in facilitating this maneuver. In the perioperative setting, deep levels of neuromuscular blockade can improve patient outcomes during laparoscopic operations and may theoretically reduce the risk of aerosolization as lower insufflation pressures may be utilized. Regardless of the indication, quantitative neuromuscular monitoring remains the only reliable method to confirm adequate recovery following cessation of neuromuscular blockade. Such monitors may serve a unique purpose in patients with COVID-19 as automation of measurements can reduce healthcare personnel -patient contact that would occur during periodic subjective evaluation with a peripheral nerve stimulator.

Based on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, 3 329 patients underwent heart transplantation in the United States in 2021. The development of new surgical techniques and monitoring methods, along with new immunosuppressant drugs, has significantly increased the survival of heart transplant patients [1,2]. Thus, the number of patients who require non-cardiac surgery after heart transplantation is undoubtedly increasing [1,3].Heart transplant recipients present unique perioperative challenges, given their changes in anatomy, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics [4]. Specifically, sympathetic and parasympathetic denervation of the heart leads

No abstract

No abstract

Background Aortic stenosis (AS) is a cardiac valvular lesion that can cause sudden death. Spinal anesthesia (SA) has been considered a relative contraindication in patients with AS. We sought to compare outcomes in patients with AS undergoing SA versus general anesthesia (GA) for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of elective, primary TJA cases between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2017, at three tertiary care academic medical centers. Participants included 89 patients with AS undergoing TJA with SA, and 74 with AS undergoing TJA with GA. Primary endpoints included 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, hospital length of stay (LOS), and the 90-day incidence of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Propensity score matching was utilized to assess differences in outcomes between patients receiving GA vs. SA. Results After matching, there were no significant differences in mortality (GA 0% vs. SA 1%; OR: 1.01 [0.98, 1.05]; P = 0.498), serious complications GA 2.2% vs. SA 0%; OR: 1.00 [0.95, 1.05]; P = 0.233), blood transfusion (GA 12.4% vs. 9% SA; OR: 1.01 [0.86, 1.19]; P = 0.751) within 90 days in the GA vs. SA groups, nor hospital LOS (GA mean 3.0 vs. SA mean 2.9, β 0.3 [–0.11, 0.70]; P = 0.153). Conclusions There were no differences in the incidence of mortality or serious complications in matched patients with AS undergoing elective primary lower extremity TJA under SA versus GA.