The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.

Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Special indications for Opioid Free Anaesthesia and Analgesia, patient and procedure related: Including obesity, sleep apnoea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, complex regional pain syndromes, opioid addiction and cancer surgery.

The purpose of the present study is to review the international literature, using a systematic review, for studies comparing propofol and dexmedetomidine for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) or sedation in which there is a description of the effect of the agents on the upper airway and associated variables (e.g., vital signs, sedation scores). This is a systematic review through October 4, 2016. PubMed/MEDLINE and four additional databases were accessed for this study. Two hundred twenty studies were screened, 79 were downloaded, and 10 met criteria. The majority of the studies identified dexmedetomidine as the preferred pharmacologic agent for DISE due to an overall safer and more stable profile based upon hemodynamic stability. However, propofol provided greater airway obstruction with oxygen desaturations. With either agent, the degree of obstruction in the upper airway lacks some degree of validity as to whether the obstructions accurately represent natural sleep or are simply a drug-induced effect. Dexmedetomidine and propofol have their advantages and disadvantages during DISE. Generally, dexmedetomidine was preferred and seemed to provide a more stable profile based upon cardiopulmonary status. However, propofol has a quicker onset, has a shorter half-life, and can demonstrate larger degrees of obstruction, which might more accurately reflect what happens during REM sleep. Additional research is recommended.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy and sedation: a systematic review

Adenotonsillectomy is the most commonly performed operation for pediatric snoring/sleep disordered breathing (S/SDB). However, 20–40% of patients will fail to improve. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) may provide a more individualized surgical plan and limit unsuccessful surgeries. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of DISE on surgical decision-making in surgically naive children with S/SDB. A retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken at the Stollery Children’s Hospital. Patients 3–17 years of age who underwent DISE-directed surgery for S/SDB between January 2009 and December 2015 were eligible. We excluded other indications for tonsillectomy and syndromic children. The primary outcome was the level of agreement between a DISE-based surgical decision and the reference standard based on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines via un-weighted Cohen’s kappa. Secondary outcomes included the frequency and type of alternate surgical targets identified by DISE. The agreement on tonsil size between in-office physical assessment and DISE was also calculated. The effectiveness of DISE-directed surgery on postoperative S/SDB was not investigated. Five hundred fifty-eight patients were included. DISE changed the surgical plan in 35% of patients. Agreement between DISE-based and AAP clinical practice guidelines-based management was low (κ = 0.354 +/- 0.021 [95% CI 0.312–0.395]). An alternate diagnosis or surgical target was identified by DISE in 54% of patients. There was moderate agreement on tonsil size (κ = 0.44 [0.33–0.55]) between DISE and in-office clinical assessment. This is a first phase diagnostic study, which demonstrates that DISE affects decision-making in surgically naive children with S/SDB in up to 35% of patients. It has utility in individualizing first stage surgical treatments as well as identifying alternate targets for further surgical or medical therapy, while potentially limiting unsuccessful surgeries. Further studies to examine the effect of DISE on surgical outcomes are required.

/pdf/does-drug-induced-sleep-endoscopy-change-the-surgical-vehg2covei.pdf

Does drug-induced sleep endoscopy change the surgical decision in surgically naïve non-syndromic children with snoring/sleep disordered breathing from the standard adenotonsillectomy? A retrospective cohort study

Objective To systematically review the scoring systems used to report findings during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) for adults and children with obstructive sleep apnea. Data Sources PubMed, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Embase, and Scopus databases. Review Methods This is a systematic review of all indexed years of publications referring to scoring of DISE for children and adults with obstructive sleep apnea. The type of DISE scoring system utilized was the primary outcome. PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out this review; articles were independently reviewed by 2 investigators. All pediatric and adult studies that utilized ≥1 DISE grading systems were included. Results Of 492 identified abstracts, 44 articles (combined population, N = 5784) were ultimately included; 6 reported on children, 35 on adults, and 1 on children and adults. Twenty-one reporting methods were used in these studies, with the most common being the VOTE system (velum, oropharynx, tongue base, and epiglottis; 38.6%) and the Pringle and Croft classification (15.9%). The sites of obstruction most commonly included in a scoring system were the tongue base (62%), lateral pharynx/oropharynx (57%), palate (57%), epiglottis/supraglottis (38%), and hypopharynx (38%). Less commonly included sites were the larynx (29%), velum (23%), nose (23%), tongue (14%), adenoids (10%), and nasopharynx (10%). Conclusion There is no consensus regarding which scoring system should be utilized to report findings during DISE. The VOTE system and the Pringle and Croft classification were the most frequent scoring systems reported for patients undergoing DISE. Standardization of the reporting of DISE findings would improve comparability among studies.

Systematic Review of Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy Scoring Systems:

ObjectiveTo compare VOTE classification findings (velum, oropharyngeal-lateral walls, tongue base, and epiglottis) for drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) using 2 sedation protocols.Study DesignCase series with chart review.SettingSingle tertiary institution.SubjectsPatients with OSA who underwent DISE.MethodsA total of 216 patients underwent DISE between November 23, 2011, and May 1, 2015. DISE findings based on VOTE classification were compared between patients receiving the propofol- and dexmedetomidine-based sedation protocols.ResultsPatients with OSA (N = 216; age, 44.3 ± 11.7 years; body mass index, 27.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2) underwent DISE with intravenous administration of propofol (n = 52) or dexmedetomidine (n = 164). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in baseline apnea-hypopnea index, oxygen desaturation index, Mallampati score, tonsil size, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, peripheral oxygen saturation nadir, age, sex...

David Yung-An Tsou

Papers

Variable Findings for Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy in Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine