ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

Use of herbal medication in the perioperative period: Potential adverse drug interactions

Use of herbal medications and supplements has experienced immense growth over the last two decades, with retail sales in the USA exceeding $13 billion in 2021. Since the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 reduced FDA oversight, these products have become less regulated. Data from 2012 shows 18% of U.S. adults used non-vitamin, non-mineral natural products. Prevalence varies regionally, with higher use in Western states. Among preoperative patients, the most commonly used herbal medications included garlic, ginseng, ginkgo, St. John's wort, and echinacea. However, 50-70% of surgical patients fail to disclose their use of herbal medications to their physicians, and most fail to discontinue them preoperatively. Since herbal medications can interact with anesthetic medications administered during surgery, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) recommend stopping herbal medications 1-2 weeks before elective surgical procedures. Potential adverse drug effects related to preoperative use of herbal medications involve the coagulation system (e.g., increasing the risk of perioperative bleeding), the cardiovascular system (e.g., arrhythmias, hypotension, hypertension), the central nervous system (e.g., sedation, confusion, seizures), pulmonary (e.g., coughing, bronchospasm), renal (e.g., diuresis) and endocrine-metabolic (e.g., hepatic dysfunction, altered metabolism of anesthetic drugs). During the preoperative evaluation, anesthesiologists should inquire about the use of herbal medications to anticipate potential adverse drug interactions during the perioperative period.

Trends in Adolescent Comorbid Cannabis Use Disorder and Postoperative Complications

BACKGROUND

Increasing legalization and widespread misinformation about the dangers of cannabis use have contributed to the rising prevalence of cannabis use disorder (CUD) among adolescents. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of CUD in adolescent surgical patients and evaluate its association with postoperative complications.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, 1:1 propensity-matched cohort study of adolescents (aged 10-17 years) with and without CUD who underwent inpatient operations at US hospitals participating in the Pediatric Health Information System from 2009 to 2022. The primary outcome was the trend in prevalence of CUD. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Using a Bonferroni correction, we considered a P value < .008 to be significant.

RESULTS

Of 558 721 adolescents undergoing inpatient surgery from 2009 to 2022, 2604 (0.5%) were diagnosed with CUD (2483 were propensity matched). The prevalence of CUD increased from 0.4% in 2009 to 0.6% in 2022 (P < .001). The adjusted odds of respiratory complications, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and extended hospital stay were significantly higher in adolescents with CUD (respiratory complications: odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.00; P = .002; ICU admission: OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.61-1.98; P < .001; mechanical ventilation: OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 2.10-2.77; P < .001; extended hospital stay: OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.74-2.20; P < .001). The propensity score-adjusted odds of postoperative mortality or stroke for adolescents with CUD were not significantly increased (mortality: OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.87-2.25; P = .168; stroke: OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.13-5.36; P = .024).

CONCLUSIONS

CUD is increasing among adolescents scheduled for surgery. Given its association with postoperative complications, it is crucial to screen adolescents for cannabis use to allow timely counseling and perioperative risk mitigation.

Perioperative Cannabis Use in Bariatric Patients: A Review of Outcomes and Proposed Clinical Pathway for Management

Legalization of marijuana has led to increased prevalence of medical and recreational cannabis use, underscoring the importance for anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians to understand the effects of this drug in patient care. Bariatric surgical patients represent a unique target population to understand peri-operative cannabis use and its effects as these patients undergo an extensive preoperative psychological and nutritional evaluation. Standardized guidelines on cannabis use in bariatric surgery are lacking and many clinicians remain uncertain on how to handle cannabis use in the peri-operative period. Here, we summarize the data on cannabis use in bariatric patients, specifically exploring anesthetic considerations, weight loss, complications, mortality, and psychiatric outcomes. We propose a clinical pathway to assist clinicians with perioperative decision making in bariatric patients who use marijuana.

Cannabinoid products for pain management: recommendations from the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology

There is growing interest in using cannabinoids across various clinical scenarios, including pain medicine, leading to the disregard of regulatory protocols in some countries. Legislation has been implemented in Brazil, specifically in the state of São Paulo, permitting the distribution of cannabinoid products by health authorities for clinical purposes, free of charge for patients, upon professional prescription. Thus, it is imperative to assess the existing evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these products in pain management. In light of this, the São Paulo State Society of Anesthesiology (SAESP) established a task force to conduct a narrative review on the topic using the Delphi method, requiring a minimum agreement of 60% among panelists. The study concluded that cannabinoid products could potentially serve as adjuncts in pain management but stressed the importance of judicious prescription. Nevertheless, this review advises against their use for acute pain and cancer-related pain. In other clinical scenarios, established treatments should take precedence, particularly when clinical protocols are available, such as in neuropathic pain. Only patients exhibiting poor therapeutic responses to established protocols or demonstrating intolerance to recommended management may be considered as potential candidates for cannabinoids, which should be prescribed by physicians experienced in handling these substances. Special attention should be given to individual patient characteristics and the likelihood of drug interactions.

Cannabis use in liver transplant candidates and recipients

The increasing legality and acceptance of cannabis sale and consumption across the United States has led to a measurable increase in cannabis use nationwide, including in liver transplant (LT) candidates and recipients. With over 75% of liver transplant recipients transplanted in states with legalized use of medicinal and/or recreational cannabis, liver transplant clinicians must have expertise in the assessment of cannabis use given its potential impact on clinical care. In this review, the authors provide an understanding of nomenclature and tools to assess cannabis use, highlight essential components to guide clinical policy development and implementation, and discuss the potential impacts of cannabis use on patients' transplant course.

Cannabinoids for Acute Pain Management: Approaches and Rationale

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Acute pain management remains a challenge and postoperative pain is often undermanaged despite many available treatment options, also including cannabinoids.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the light of the opioid epidemic, there has been growing interest in alternative care bundles for pain management, including cannabinoids as potential treatment to decrease opioid prescribing. Despite the lack of solid evidence on the efficacy of cannabinoids, their use among patients with pain, including those using opioids, is currently increasing. This use is supported by data suggesting that cannabinoids could potentially contribute to a better pain management and to a reduction in opioid doses while maintaining effective analgesia with minimum side effects. The scientific basis for supporting the use of cannabis is extensive, although it does not necessarily translate into relevant clinical outcomes. The use of cannabinoids in acute pain did not always consistently show statistically significant results in improving acute pain. Large randomized, controlled trials evaluating diverse cannabis extracts are needed in different clinical pain populations to determine safety and efficacy.

Marijuana Use, Vaping, and Preoperative Anesthetic and Surgical Considerations in Clinical Practice

In recent years, marijuana and vaping have acquired widespread popularity, with millions of people using them for a variety of reasons, including recreational purposes. However, these practices have often overlooked the implications on surgery and the preoperative anesthesia considerations. Marijuana can influence a patient's response to anesthesia, alter postoperative pain management, and increase the risk of complications, whereas vaping can have negative effects on the respiratory system and hinder the body's ability to recover after surgery.

The Association of Cannabis Use After Discharge From Surgery With Opioid Consumption and Patient-reported Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients using versus not using cannabis as a treatment for pain after discharge from surgery.

BACKGROUND

Cannabis is increasingly available and is often taken by patients to relieve pain. However, it is unclear whether cannabis use for pain after surgery impacts opioid consumption and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Using Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry data at 69 hospitals, we analyzed a cohort of patients undergoing 16 procedure types between January 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. The key exposure was cannabis use for pain after surgery. Outcomes included postdischarge opioid consumption (primary) and patient-reported outcomes of pain, satisfaction, quality of life, and regret to undergo surgery (secondary).

RESULTS

Of 11,314 included patients (58% females, mean age: 55.1 years), 581 (5.1%) reported using cannabis to treat pain after surgery. In adjusted models, patients who used cannabis consumed an additional 1.0 (95% CI: 0.4-1.5) opioid pills after surgery. Patients who used cannabis were more likely to report moderate-to-severe surgical site pain at 1 week (adjusted odds ratio: 1.7, 95% CIL 1.4-2.1) and 1 month (adjusted odds ratio: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.7-2.7) after surgery. Patients who used cannabis were less likely to endorse high satisfaction (72.1% vs 82.6%), best quality of life (46.7% vs 63.0%), and no regret (87.6% vs 92.7%) (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported cannabis use, to treat postoperative pain, was associated with increased opioid consumption after discharge from surgery that was of clinically insignificant amounts, but worse pain and other postoperative patient-reported outcomes.

Peri-Operative Impact of Cannabis Use in Conjunction With Elective Primary Breast Augmentation in a Private Practice

Background The consumption of recreational and medicinal cannabis in the United States continues to increase. Understanding the effects of cannabis in patients undergoing elective primary breast augmentation (EPBA) is of paramount importance with the expanding rates of reported cannabis consumption. Objectives This study aims to analyze the peri-operative impact of cannabis use in conjunction with EPBA in a single-surgeon practice in San Francisco, California. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed of 134 adult female patients undergoing EPBA from August 2018 to January 2022 within a single-surgeon practice plastic surgery office. Cannabis use was self-reported as current use or former use. Cohorts were grouped as cannabis users and cannabis non-users. Results Of the 134 patient charts identified for analysis, 58 (43.3%) reported cannabis use. Cannabis users were significantly younger than cannabis non-users (26.8 years versus 31.5 years, P<0.001). No significant differences were found between groups among intra-operative blood loss, post-operative complication rates, post-operative narcotic use, or intra-operative anesthetic requirements. The incidence of adverse events, including wound breakdown, skin necrosis, and capsular contracture requiring reoperation, did not differ significantly between cannabis users and cannabis non-user groups. Ninety-six percent of patients had their implants placed subpectorally, and all procedures were done using a Keller funnel. Eighty-three percent of patients had Sientra implants, and 96% of all implants were silicone gel implants. All procedures were done under general anesthesia. Patients were followed for up to two years. Discussion This review found no significant differences in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes between cannabis users and cannabis non-users.

Cannabis smoking and abdominal wall reconstruction outcomes: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Despite increasing use of cannabis, literature on perioperative effects is lagging. We compared active cannabis-smokers versus non-smokers and postoperative wound morbidity and reoperations following open abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

METHODS

Patients who underwent open, clean, AWR with transversus abdominis release and retromuscular synthetic mesh placement at our institution between January 2014 and May 2022 were identified using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database. Active cannabis-smokers were 1:3 propensity matched to non-smokers based on demographics and comorbidities. Wound complications, 30 day morbidity, pain (PROMIS 3a-Pain Intensity), and hernia-specific quality of life (HerQles) were compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-two cannabis-smokers were matched to 216 non-smokers. SSO (18% vs 17% p = 0.86), SSI (11.1% vs 9.3%, p = 0.65), SSOPI (12% vs 12%, p = 0.92), and all postoperative complications (46% vs 43%, p = 0.63) were similar between cannabis-smokers and non-smokers. Reoperations were more common in the cannabis-smoker group (8.3% vs 2.8%, p = 0.041), driven by major wound complications (6.9% vs 3.2%, p = 0.004). No mesh excisions occurred. HerQles scores were similar at baseline (22 [11, 41] vs 35 [14, 55], p = 0.06), and were worse for cannabis-smokers compared to non-smokers at 30 days (30 [12, 50] vs 38 [20, 67], p = 0.032), but not significantly different at 1 year postoperatively (72 [53, 90] vs 78 [57, 92], p = 0.39). Pain scores were worse for cannabis-smokers compared to non-smokers at 30 days postoperatively (52 [46, 58] vs 49 [44, 54], p = 0.01), but there were no differences at 6 months or 1 year postoperatively (p > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

Cannabis smokers will likely experience similar complication rates after clean, open AWR, but should be counseled that despite similar wound complication rates, the severity of their wound complications may be greater than non-smokers.

Perioperative considerations for patients exposed to hallucinogens

Hallucinogen exposure in patients in the perioperative period presents challenges for anesthesiologists and other anesthesia providers. Acute and chronic exposure to these substances can cause physiological impacts that can affect the function of anesthetic and analgesic medications used during perioperative care. The objective of this narrative review is to educate readers on the wide array of hallucinogens and psychedelics that may influence the perioperative management of patients exposed to these substances. A narrative review of the literature surrounding hallucinogens and psychedelics was completed. Hallucinogens and psychedelics are quite varied in their mechanisms of action and therefore present a variety of perioperative implications and perioperative considerations. Many of these substances increase serotonin levels or act directly at serotonergic receptors. However, there are other relevant actions that may include varied mechanisms from N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonism to stimulation of muscarinic receptors. With hallucinogen exposure rates on the rise, understanding the effects of hallucinogens is important for optimizing management and reducing risks perioperatively for patients with acute or chronic exposure.

Cannabis Use Following Total Joint Arthroplasty is Associated With Increased Risks? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the increased legalization of cannabis, a new unknown emerges for orthopaedic surgeons and their patients. This systematic review aimed to (1) evaluate complications of cannabis use; (2) determine the effects of cannabis on pain and opioid consumption; and (3) evaluate healthcare utilizations associated with cannabis use among patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed. A search of the literature was performed in 5 databases. We included studies between January 2012 and July 2022 reporting cannabis use and complications, pain management, opioid consumption, length of stay, costs, or functional outcomes following TJA. A meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) and continuous variables was performed. A total of 19 articles were included in our final analysis.

RESULTS

Cannabis use was associated with higher odds for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR: 1.46, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.89) and revisions (OR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.41 to 1.53]) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cannabis use was associated with similar odds for DVT in total hip arthroplasty (THA) (OR: 1.30 [95% CI: 0.79 to 2.13]), pulmonary embolus in both TKA (OR: 1.29 [95% CI: 0.95 to 1.77]), THA (OR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.09 to 3.28]), and cardiovascular complications in TKA (OR: 1.97 [95% Cl: 0.93 to 4.14]). Cannabis use did not alter pain scores, opioid consumption, or cost of care in THA (estimate: $2,550.51 [95% CI: $356.58 to $5,457.62]) but was associated with higher costs in TKA (estimate: $3,552.46 [95% CI: $1,729.71 to $5,375.22]). There was no difference in lengths of stay or functional outcomes; however, there may be a potentially increased risk for prosthetic complications, pneumonia, and cerebrovascular accidents among cannabis users.

CONCLUSION

Cannabis use may be associated with an increased risk of DVTs, revisions, pneumonia, cerebrovascular accidents, and cardiac complications after TJA. Higher-level studies are needed to ascertain the impact of cannabis use for patients undergoing TJA.

The role of stigma in cannabis use disclosure: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Although cannabis use incidence, societal acceptance, and legislation all trend positively, cannabis remains federally illegal in the USA. Prior studies have revealed that patients are reluctant to disclose their cannabis use history in the healthcare system, which can negatively impact patient care. This study reports the frequency of cannabis use disclosure with special considerations for stigmatization. To better understand the limitations, providers face in providing collaborative, comprehensive, and informed care, this study evaluated four domains of stigma: perceived, anticipated, enacted, and internalized.

METHODS

This study used a descriptive exploratory design. Data collection occurred using an anonymous, online national survey with a convenience sample in the USA. Recruitment relied on electronic media and occurred between July and December 2022. Participants were adults older than 21 years and self-identified as having used cannabis and accessed the healthcare system within the last five years. The survey measured demographic characteristics, cannabis use, and disclosure patterns. Stigma was measured using the Stigma Use Stigma Mechanism Scale (SU-SMS) and Substance Abuse Use Self-Stigma Scale (SASSS) with language modifications for cannabis. Ordinal logistic regression models were performed to evaluate associations between the frequency of cannabis use disclosure patterns and each stigma category. Associations were assessed using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Data were available for 249 respondents. Most participants (57.1%) reported initiating a conversation about cannabis with their healthcare provider; 27.8% of the time, cannabis is never discussed, and healthcare providers initiate only 15.1% of related discussions. Anticipated stigma [95% CI 1.045-1.164] and total stigma [95% CI 1.001-1.039] had statistically significant associations with nondisclosure. Annual household income (p = .04), chronicity of cannabis use (p = .03), frequency of cannabis use (p = .02), and a known amount of CBD in products consumed (p = .01) had statistically significant associations with the frequency of cannabis use disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who use cannabis experience stigmatization in the healthcare setting that may limit disclosure of cannabis use history. Future studies would be well served to explore anticipated stigma more deeply. Healthcare providers should be knowledgeable to lead such conversations relating to cannabis while maintaining an unbiased perspective.

A Pragmatic, Person-Centered View of Cannabis in the United States: Pursuing Care That Transcends Beliefs

BACKGROUND

Rates of cannabis use are increasing in the United States, likely as a result of changes in societal attitudes and expanding legalization. Although many patients report wanting to discuss the risks and benefits of cannabis use with their clinical providers, many providers hold conflicting beliefs regarding cannabis use and often do not engage patients in discussion about cannabis. This dilemma is underscored by the limitations imposed on cannabis related research, and lack of empirically based best-practice guidelines for clinicians when addressing cannabis use with patients.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to briefly summarize clinician and patient attitudes toward cannabis use and review current clinical guidelines and provide suggestions to assist health care providers and clinicians in increasing their comfort and skill in discussing cannabis use with patients.

METHODS

A narrative review on attitudes toward cannabis use and clinical guidelines was performed to summarize the literature and provide evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Attitudes toward cannabis use have been shaped by personal and political factors and contribute to clinician hesitance in speaking with patients about the topic. Administrative barriers have hindered the development of clearer public health guidelines that might enable the dissemination of evidence-based information on the health effects of cannabis use and might ultimately lead to better health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Not discussing cannabis use with patients may be a crucial missed opportunity for harm reduction. In the absence of empirically supported best-practice guidelines, a person-centered approach can facilitate conversations on the harms and benefits of cannabis use.

Cannabis Use Disorder and Perioperative Complications

Importance

Cannabis use is growing in the US and is increasingly perceived as harmless. However, the perioperative impact of cannabis use remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess whether cannabis use disorder is associated with increased morbidity and mortality after major elective, inpatient, noncardiac surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, population-based, matched cohort study used data from the National Inpatient Sample for adult patients aged 18 to 65 years who underwent major elective inpatient surgery (including cholecystectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia repair, femoral hernia repair, mastectomy, lumpectomy, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, hysterectomy, spinal fusion, and vertebral discectomy) from January 2016 to December 2019. Data were analyzed from February to August 2022.

Exposure

Cannabis use disorder, as defined by the presence of specific International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary composite outcome was in-hospital mortality and 7 major perioperative complications (myocardial ischemia, acute kidney injury, stroke, respiratory failure, venous thromboembolism, hospital-acquired infection, and surgical procedure-related complications) based on ICD-10 discharge diagnosis codes. Propensity score matching was performed to create a 1:1 matched cohort that was well balanced with respect to covariates, which included patient comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, and procedure type.

Results

Among 12 422 hospitalizations, a cohort of 6211 patients with cannabis use disorder (median age, 53 years [IQR, 44-59 years]; 3498 [56.32%] male) were matched with 6211 patients without cannabis use disorder for analysis. Cannabis use disorder was associated with an increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with hospitalizations without cannabis use disorder in adjusted analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37; P = .01). The outcome occurred more frequently in the group with cannabis use disorder (480 [7.73%]) compared with the unexposed group (408 [6.57%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, cannabis use disorder was associated with a modest increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality after major elective, inpatient, noncardiac surgery. In the context of increasing cannabis use rates, our findings support preoperative screening for cannabis use disorder as a component of perioperative risk stratification. However, further research is needed to quantify the perioperative impact of cannabis use by route and dosage and to inform recommendations for preoperative cannabis cessation.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

INTRODUCTION

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.

METHODS

Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Consensus Practice Guidelines on Postdural Puncture Headache From a Multisociety, International Working Group: A Summary Report

Importance

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking.

Objective

To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH.

Evidence Review

With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

Findings

After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Substance Use Disorders in Adolescents and Young Adults: History and Perioperative Considerations From the Society for Pediatric Pain Medicine

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are on the rise in children and young adults in the United States. According to reports, over 40 million people aged 12 and older had a diagnosed SUD in 2020.1 A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that overdose death in children aged 10 to 19 years old increased 109% from 2019 to 2021.2 Given the rapidly increasing prevalence of SUD, anesthesiologists will almost certainly encounter children, adolescents, and young adults with a history of recreational drug use or nonmedical use of prescription opioids in the perioperative period. Since the perioperative period can be a particularly challenging time for patients with SUD, anesthesiologists can tailor their perioperative care to reduce rates of relapse and can serve as both advocates and educators for this vulnerable patient population. This article examines the history of SUD and physiology of substance use in children, adolescents, and young adults, including reasons why young people are more susceptible to the addictive effects of many substances. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted many aspects of life, including increased social isolation and shifted dynamics at home, both thought to impact substance use.3 Substance use patterns in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic are explored. Although current literature is mostly on adults, the evidence-based medical treatments for patients with SUD are reviewed, and recommendations for perioperative considerations are suggested. The emphasis of this review is on opioid use disorder, cannabis, and vaping particularly because these have disproportionately affected the younger population. The article provides recommendations and resources for recognizing and treating adolescents and young adults at risk for SUD in the perioperative period. It also provides suggestions to reduce new persistent postoperative opioid use.