To assess disparities in hypoxemia detection by pulse oximetry across self-identified racial groups and associations with clinical outcomes.

Objective: To synthesize the evidence regarding the effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on opioid and pain medication reduction in patients with intractable spine or limb pain. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs of patients with chronic back and/or limb pain of greater than one year duration. Only comparative studies were included (ie, conventional SCS vs medical therapy, conventional SCS vs high-frequency SCS) and were required to have a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. Random effect meta-an alysis was used to compare the three interventions. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We identified five trials enrolling 489 patients. Three of the trials reported the results as a number of patients who were able to reduce or eliminate opioid consumption in the SCS vs medical therapy group. The odds of reducing opioid consumption were significantly increased in the SCS group compared to medical therapy (OR 8.60, CI {1.93–38.30}). Two of the trials reported the results as mean medication dose reduction as measured by the Medication Quantification Scale (MQS) in the SCS group vs medical therapy group. MQS score significantly decreased in the SCS group and not in the medical group (WMD –1.97, 95% CI {–3.67, –0.27}). One trial reported a number of patients in high-frequency SCS who were able to reduce opioids vs number of patients in conventional SCS group who were able to reduce opioids. Thirty-four percent of the patients in the high-frequency group and 26% of the patients in the conventional SCS group were able to reduce opioid consumption; however, there was not a significant difference between groups (OR 1.43, 95% CI {0.74, 2.78}). This trial also quantified the opioid reduction in morphine equivalent dosage (MED). In the high-frequency SCS group, average MED decreased by 24.8 mg vs average MED decrease of 7.3 mg in the conventional SCS group. Again, the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (–17.50, CI {–66.27, 31.27}). Conclusions: In patients with intractable spine/limb pain, SCS was associated with increased odds of reducing pain medication consumption. However, results should be treated with caution as available data were limited, and clinical significance of these findings requires further study.

The use of buprenorphine, a mixed opioid agonist-antagonist, for the management of chronic pain and/or opioid use disorder is increasing. As such, medical providers will more frequently encounter patients on this therapy. In this paper, we synthesize existing knowledge (derived through keyword searches using MEDLINE databases) in a novel conceptual framework for patients on buprenorphine presenting with acute pain or for those requiring surgical or invasive procedures. This framework is based on three unique domains: the patient, the features of the acute pain insult, and the environment. We discuss important considerations regarding the unique aspects of buprenorphine formulations and dosing, and we describe the importance of multidisciplinary planning and multimodal analgesic strategies. We also highlight important differences in management strategies based upon the presence or absence of opioid use disorder. All medical providers must be prepared to guide the patient on buprenorphine safely through the acute care episode, which includes adequate treatment of acute pain and avoidance of iatrogenic harm, including both short-term complications (eg, respiratory depression) and long-term complications (eg, relapse to opioid use).

Postoperative pain is not adequately managed in greater than 40% of surgical patients and is a high priority for perioperative research. In this meta-analysis, we examined studies comparing postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores in surgical patients who received methadone by any route vs those who received another opioid by any route. Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus from January 1966 to November 2018. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for a primary outcome of postoperative opioid consumption and secondary outcomes of time-to-extubation, time-to-first postoperative analgesia request, satisfaction, hospital length-of-stay, and complications. Postoperative pain scores were assessed qualitatively. Ten studies (617 patients) were included. Postoperative opioid consumption at 24 hours was lower in the methadone group vs control (mean difference = −15.22 mg oral morphine equivalents, 95% confidence interval −27.05 to −3.38; P = 0.01). Patients in the methadone group generally reported lower postoperative pain scores in 7 of 10 studies. Meta-analysis revealed greater satisfaction scores with analgesia in the methadone group vs control (0-100 visual analog scale; mean difference = 7.16, 95% confidence interval 2.30-12.01; P = 0.004). There was no difference in time-to-extubation, time-to-first analgesia request, hospital length-of-stay, or complications (nausea, sedation, respiratory depression, and hypoxemia). The results demonstrate that surgical patients who received intraoperative methadone had lower postoperative opioid consumption, generally reported lower pain scores and experienced better satisfaction with analgesia. However, these advantages need to be weighed carefully against dangerous risks with perioperative methadone, specifically respiratory depression and arrhythmia. Future studies should explore logistics, safety, and cost effectiveness.

Both AKI and CKD are common in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, often occurring simultaneously. Type 2 HRS was not identified, suggesting that its diagnostic criteria may need reevaluation or that this syndrome may not represent a unique functional kidney disorder.