Clinical Focus

  • Anesthesia

Academic Appointments

  • Clinical Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine

Professional Education

  • Fellowship: Guy's Hospital Medical School (2018) England
  • Fellowship: Kings College and Univ College (2017) England
  • Board Certification: Royal College of Anaesthetists, Anesthesia (2012)
  • Residency: South East Thames School of Anaesthesia Training (2010) United Kingdom
  • Residency: Colchester General Hospital (2008) England
  • Internship: Royal London Hospital (2007) United Kingdom
  • Medical Education: University of Nottingham (2006) United Kingdom

All Publications

  • A modern roadmap for the use of simulation in regional anesthesiology training. Current opinion in anaesthesiology Kumar, A. H., Sultan, E., Mariano, E. R., Udani, A. D. 2022


    PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A variety of educational modalities are used to teach regional anesthesia. Simulation is an educational tool that facilitates hands-on learning in a well tolerated, reproducible environment, eliminating potential harm to patients during the process of learning. Available literature and expert consensus statements support customizing simulation programs according to the level of training and experience of the learners.RECENT FINDINGS: Simulation is useful for learners of all levels of expertise, though the application and frequency of simulation must be adapted to meet the learners' objectives.SUMMARY: This review presents recommendations for the use of simulation for residents, fellows, practicing anesthesiologists without formal training in regional anesthesia, and practicing anesthesiologists with regional anesthesia expertise. Passports and portfolio programs that include simulation can be used to verify training. Virtual applications of simulation are growing, expanding the scope of regional anesthesia simulation and increasing access to lower resource areas.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001179

    View details for PubMedID 35942715

  • Expert Consensus Regarding Core Outcomes for Enhanced Recovery after Cesarean Delivery Studies: A Delphi study. Anesthesiology Sultan, P., George, R., Weiniger, C. F., El-Boghdadly, K., Pandal, P., Carvalho, B., CRADLE Study Investigators, Ansari, J. R., Benhamou, D., Baluku, M., Bernstein, P. S., Bollag, L. A., Bowden, S. J., Fay, E., Habib, A. S., Halder, S., Landau, R., Lim, G., Liu, V., Moreno, C., Nelson, G. S., Powell, M. F., Pujic, B., Sharawi, N., Singh, N., Smith, R., Stockert, E., Sultan, E., Tiouririne, M., Wilson, R. D., Wrench, I. J., Yun, R., Zakowski, M. 2022


    BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity among reported outcomes from enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery impact studies is high. This study aimed to develop a standardized enhanced recovery core outcome set for use in future enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery studies.METHODS: An international consensus study involving physicians, patients and a director of Midwifery and Nursing Services, was conducted using a three-round modified Delphi approach (2 rounds of electronic questionnaires and a 3rd round e-discussion), to produce the core outcome set. An initial list of outcomes was based on a previously published systematic review. Consensus was obtained for the final core outcome set, including definitions for key terms, and preferred units of measurement. Strong consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and weak consensus as 50-69% agreement. Of the 64 stakeholders who were approached, 32 agreed to participate. All 32, 31 and 26 stakeholders completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively.RESULTS: The number of outcomes in the final core outcome set was reduced from 98 to 15. Strong consensus (≥70% stakeholder agreement) was achieved for 15 outcomes. The core outcome set included: length of hospital stay; compliance with enhanced recovery protocol; maternal morbidity (hospital re-admissions or unplanned consultations); provision of optimal analgesia (maternal satisfaction, compliance with analgesia, opioid consumption / requirement and incidence of nausea or vomiting); fasting times; breastfeeding success; and times to mobilization and urinary catheter removal. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 item composite measure was also included in the final core outcome set. Areas identified as requiring further research included readiness for discharge and analysis of cost savings.CONCLUSIONS: Results from an international consensus to develop a core outcome set for enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery are presented. These are outcomes that could be considered when designing future enhanced recovery studies.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004263

    View details for PubMedID 35511169

  • A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess postpartum pain using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. British journal of anaesthesia Sultan, P. n., Ando, K. n., Sultan, E. n., Hawkins, J. E., Chitneni, A. n., Sharawi, N. n., Sadana, N. n., Blake, L. E., Singh, P. M., Flood, P. n., Carvalho, B. n. 2021


    We performed a systematic review using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify the best available patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of postpartum pain.This review follows COSMIN guidelines. We searched four databases with no date limiters, for previously identified validated PROMs used to assess postpartum pain. PROMs evaluating more than one author-defined domain of postpartum pain were assessed. We sought studies evaluating psychometric properties. An overall rating was then assigned based upon COSMIN analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of evidence for psychometric properties of included PROMs. These assessments were used to make recommendations and identify the best PROM to assess postpartum pain.We identified 19 studies using seven PROMs (involving 3511 women), which evaluated postpartum pain. All included studies evaluated ≥1 psychometric property of the included PROMs. An adequate number of pain domains was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Short Form-BPI (SF-BPI), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The SF-BPI was the only PROM to demonstrate adequate content validity and at least a low-level of evidence for sufficient internal consistency, resulting in a Class A recommendation (the best performing instrument, recommended for use).SF-BPI is the best currently available PROM to assess postpartum pain. However, it fails to assess several important domains and only just met the criteria for a Class A recommendation. Future studies are warranted to develop, evaluate, and implement a new PROM designed to specifically assess postpartum pain.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.bja.2021.03.035

    View details for PubMedID 34016441

  • Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Assess Outpatient Postpartum Recovery: A Systematic Review. JAMA network open Sultan, P., Sharawi, N., Blake, L., Ando, K., Sultan, E., Aghaeepour, N., Carvalho, B., Sadana, N. 2021; 4 (5): e2111600


    Outpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery.To evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.An initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended).In total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations).This review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.

    View details for DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11600

    View details for PubMedID 34042993