Comparison of Transversus Abdominis Plane Infiltration with Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Continuous Epidural Analgesia versus Intravenous Opioid Analgesia

Epidural analgesia is considered the standard of care but cannot be provided to all patients Liposomal bupivacaine has been approved for field blocks such as transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks but has not been clinically compared against other modalities. In this retrospective propensity matched cohort study we thus tested the primary hypothesis that TAP infiltration are noninferior (not worse) to continuous epidural analgesia and superior (better) to intravenous opioid analgesia in patients recovering from major lower abdominal surgery. 318 patients were propensity matched on 18 potential factors among three groups (106 per group): 1) TAP infiltration with bupivacaine liposome; 2) continuous Epidural analgesia with plain bupivacaine; and; 3) intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA). We claimed TAP noninferior (not worse) over Epidural if TAP was noninferior (not worse) on total morphine-equivalent opioid and time-weighted average pain score (10-point scale) within first 72 hours after surgery with noninferiority deltas of 1 (10-point scale) for pain and an increase less of 20% in the mean morphine equivalent opioid consumption. We claimed TAP or Epidural groups superior (better) over IV PCA if TAP or Epidural was superior on opioid consumption and at least noninferior on pain outcome. Multivariable linear regressions within the propensity-matched cohorts were used to model total morphine-equivalent opioid dose and time-weighted average pain score within first 72 hours after surgery; joint hypothesis framework was used for formal testing. TAP infiltration were noninferior to Epidural on both primary outcomes (p<0.001). TAP infiltration were noninferior to IV PCA on pain scores (p = 0.001) but we did not find superiority on opioid consumption (p = 0.37). We did not find noninferiority of Epidural over IV PCA on pain scores (P = 0.13) and nor did we find superiority on opioid consumption (P = 0.98). TAP infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine and continuous epidural analgesia were similar in terms of pain and opioid consumption, and not worse in pain compared with IV PCA. TAP infiltrations might be a reasonable alternative to epidural analgesia in abdominal surgical patients. A large randomized trial comparing these techniques is justified.     

Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block versus Continuous Wound Infusion for Post-Caesarean Analgesia: A Randomized Trial

Objective

To compare the analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block versus Continuous Wound Infusion (CWI) with levobupivacaine after caesarean delivery.

Methods

We recruited parturients undergoing elective caesareans for this multicenter study. Following written informed consent, they received a spinal anaesthetic without intrathecal morphine for their caesarean section. The postoperative analgesia was randomized to either a bilateral ultrasound guided TAP block (levobupivicaine = 150 mg) or a CWI through an elastomeric pump for 48 hours (levobupivacaine = 150 mg the first day and 12.5 mg/h thereafter). Every woman received regular analgesics along with oral morphine if required. The primary outcome was comparison of the 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) pain scores. Secondary outcomes included morphine consumption, adverse events, and persistent pain one month postoperatively.

Results

Recruitment of 120 women was planned but the study was prematurely terminated due to the occurrence of generalized seizures in one patient of the TAP group. By then, 36 patients with TAP and 29 with CWI had completed the study. AUC of pain at rest and during mobilization were not significantly different: 50 [22.5–80] in TAP versus 50 [27.5–130] in CWI (P = 0.4) and 190 [130–240] versus 160 [112.5–247.5] (P = 0.5), respectively. Morphine consumption (0 [0–20] mg in the TAP group and 10 [0–32.5] mg in the CWI group (P = 0.09)) and persistent pain at one month were similar in both groups (respectively 29.6% and 26.6% (P = 0.73)).

Conclusion

In cases of morphine-free spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery, no difference between TAP block and CWI for postoperative analgesia was suggested. TAP block may induce seizures in this specific context. Consequently, such a technique after a caesarean section cannot be recommended.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01151943","term_id":"NCT01151943"}}NCT01151943     

超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞与静脉镇痛在腹股沟疝气手术中的应用价值

摘要 目的：分析超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞与静脉镇痛在腹股沟疝气手术中的应用价值。方法：选择2019年1月～2020年12月我院的120例腹股沟疝气手术患者为研究对象,按照麻醉镇痛方法的差异分为两组,对照组采用静脉镇痛,观察组采用腹横肌平面阻滞。记录两组患者术中丙泊酚、麻黄碱以及芬太尼的使用剂量以及手术后不同时间的VAS评分和芬太尼追加次数;比较两组术后恶心呕吐的发生率,并比较进食时间、肠道功能恢复时间以及下床活动时间。结果：观察组患者丙泊酚、麻黄碱以及芬太尼的使用剂量均显著少于对照组(P<0.05);观察组疝气手术后1 h(T0)、5 h(T1)、10 h(T2)、1d (T3)、2 d(T4)的VAS评分均明显低于对照组(P<0.05);观察组的芬太尼追加次数为4次/人,明显低于对照组的11次(P<0.05);观察组疝气手术后恶心呕吐的发生率（6.67%）、进食时间、肠道功能恢复时间以及下床活动时间均明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论：腹横肌平面阻滞对腹股沟疝气手术后患者的镇痛效果明显优于静脉镇痛,且更有助于促进术后恢复。     

患者静脉自控镇痛与患者硬膜外自控镇痛的比较

术后自控镇痛方法有：患者静脉自控镇痛（Patient-controlled Intravenous Analgesia, PCIA）、患者硬膜外自控镇痛 (Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia, PCEA）、患者区域自控镇痛（Patient-controlled Regional Analgesia, PCRA)、患者皮下自控镇痛 (Patient-controlled Subcutaneous Analgesia, PCSA)、患者自控鼻内镇痛（Patient-controlled intranasal analgesia, PCINA)、芬太尼HCI 电离子渗入疗法经皮系统（Fentanyl Iontophoretic Transdermal System, ITS)和连续椎旁阻滞（Continuous Paravertebral block, CPVB） 等。目前在临床工作中较常使用的主要是PCIA 和PCEA。有研究报道,与PCIA 比较,PCEA 镇痛效果更确切,恶心、呕吐及嗜睡发 生率低;但也有报道认为,与PCEA 相比,PCIA 实施相对方便,同时也可以提供令患者满意的镇痛效果,适用范围更广。目前对于 这两种镇痛方法的效果优劣尚无确切的定论,在此就PCIA 和PCEA的镇痛药物特点、镇痛效果、副反应及对免疫功能和肿瘤患 者远期生存率的影响作一综述。     

Intravenous Remifentanil versus Epidural Ropivacaine with Sufentanil for Labour Analgesia: A Retrospective Study

Remifentanil with appropriate pharmacological properties seems to be an ideal alternative to epidural analgesia during labour. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) compared with epidural analgesia. Medical records of 370 primiparas who received remifentanil IVPCA or epidural analgesia were reviewed. Pain and sedation scores, overall satisfaction, the extent of pain control, maternal side effects and neonatal outcome as primary observational indicators were collected. There was a significant decline of pain scores in both groups. Pain reduction was greater in the epidural group throughout the whole study period (0∼180 min) (P<0.0001), and pain scores in the remifentanil group showed an increasing trend one hour later. The remifentanil group had a lower SpO₂ (P<0.0001) and a higher sedation score (P<0.0001) within 30 min after treatment. The epidural group had a higher overall satisfaction score (3.8±0.4 vs. 3.7±0.6, P = 0.007) and pain relief score (2.9±0.3 vs. 2.8±0.4, P<0.0001) compared with the remifentanil group. There was no significant difference on side effects between the two groups, except that a higher rate of dizziness (1% vs. 21.8%, P<0.0001) was observed during remifentanil analgesia. And logistic regression analysis demonstrated that nausea, vomiting were associated with oxytocin usage and instrumental delivery, and dizziness was associated to the type and duration of analgesia. Neonatal outcomes such as Apgar scores and umbilical-cord blood gas analysis were within the normal range, but umbilical pH and base excess of neonatus in the remifentanil group were significantly lower. Remifentanil IVPCA provides poorer efficacy on labor analgesia than epidural analgesia, with more sedation on parturients and a trend of newborn acidosis. Despite these adverse effects, remifentanil IVPCA can still be an alternative option for labor analgesia under the condition of one-to-one bedside care, continuous monitoring, oxygen supply and preparation for neonatal resuscitation.     

Continuous Epidural Analgesia for Labour and Delivery: Review of 1000 Cases

In six years in London, Ontario, the use of continuous lumbar epidural analgesia in deliveries increased from 5% to over 50%. Its effect was assessed in 1000 consecutive cases, all vertex presentations. In established labour, epidural analgesia was started for pain relief and was maintained with intermittent injections until delivery; in 34% the duration exceeded four hours. Labour was not retarded, but there was an inadvertent selection of patients with slow and painful progress. Forceps delivery was used in 89%, mid-forceps in 11.8% and forceps rotation in 17.7%; 2.4% required Cesarean section. Fetal condition was excellent (Apgar rating of 7 or greater in 96.7%). Postpartum complications could not be directly related to the technique. Continuous epidural analgesia gives superior relief of pain but calls for experienced anesthetists and adjustments in obstetrical management and nursing care.     

静脉与硬膜外注射地塞米松对吗啡硬膜外术后镇痛的影响

目的:比较两种不同途径注射地塞米松磷酸钠对吗啡硬膜外术后镇痛的影响。方法:选择200例(ASAⅠ-Ⅱ)在腰硬联合麻醉下行腹式子宫切除术的患者,随机分为A、B、C、D四组(n=50),各组均给以硬膜外注射2.5 mg吗啡作为术后镇痛治疗的同时,A组静脉注射安慰剂(生理盐水),B组静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠10 mg,C组静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠5 mg,D组硬膜外注射地塞米松磷酸钠5 mg及静脉注射安慰剂(生理盐水),以上均以5 mL作为注射容积。观察和比较术后24 h内各组恶心和呕吐(PONV)、皮肤瘙痒、补救镇痛、呼吸抑制的发生率、排气时间和补救镇痛时间。结果:B、C、D三组的PONV总发生率显著低于A组(P0.0083),而B、C、D三组之间比较无显著差异(P0.0083);A、B、C、D四组间恶心的发生率无显著差异(P0.05),而D组呕吐的发生率明显低于A组(P0.0083);B组皮肤瘙痒的发生率明显低于A组(P0.0083);四组患者的VAS评分比较无显著差异,均达到满意的镇痛效果(P0.05)。四组患者补救镇痛的发生率、补救镇痛药量和排气时间比较无明显差异(P0.05),而C、D组的补救镇痛时间明显比A组延长(P0.0083),四组患者均未出现呼吸抑制。结论:地塞米松磷酸钠可降低吗啡硬膜外术后恶心和呕吐的发生率,延长补救镇痛时间;硬膜外注射地塞米松磷酸钠对降低呕吐的发生率更有效;静脉注射地塞米松磷酸钠10 mg可降低瘙痒的发生率,且无明显的不良反应。     

Short and Long-Term Outcomes of Epidural or Intravenous Analgesia after Esophagectomy: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

MethodsFrom January 2010 to December 2012, 587 consecutive cases undergoing McKeown-type esohpageactomy were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database.ResultsAfter propensity-matching, incorporating baseline characteristics, 178 cases were included in each group, and patients characteristics distributions were well-balanced between two groups. Compared with intravenous analgesia, the use of EDA significantly decreased the incidence of pneumonia from 32% to 19.7% (P = 0.008), and anastomotic leakage from 23.0% to 14.0% (P = 0.029). The change in CRP level of EDA group was significantly decreased (preoperative, 6.2 vs. 6.2; POD 1, 108.1 vs. 121.3; POD 3, 131.5 vs. 137.8; POD 7, 69.3 vs. 82.1 mg/L; P = 0.044). EDA patients had a significantly longer duration of indwelling urinary catheter (P<0.001), and lower levels in both systolic (P = 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (P<0.001). There weren''t significant differences in overall survival (log-rank P = 0.47) and recurrence (Gray-test P = 0.46) between two groups.ConclusionsThese findings revealed that EDA could attenuate inflammatory response and reduce the incidence of pneumonia and anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, at the price of delayed urinary catheter removal and lower blood pressure. EDA remains an important component of multimodal perioperative management after esophagectomy.     

罗哌卡因切口浸润联合静脉自控镇痛对肝癌肝切除术患者术后镇痛镇静效果及肝功能的影响

摘要 目的：探讨静脉自控镇痛（PCIA）联合罗哌卡因切口浸润对肝癌肝切除术患者术后的镇痛镇静效果及肝功能的影响。方法：选取2017年2月~2019年4月期间我院收治的119例行肝切除术的肝癌患者,根据随机数字表法分为对照组（n=59）和研究组（n=60）,对照组患者术后给予生理盐水联合 PCIA,研究组患者术后给予罗哌卡因切口浸润联合PCIA。比较两组患者术后指标、镇痛镇静效果、肝功能及不良反应。结果：研究组腹腔引流管拔出时间、术后首次下床活动时间、术后住院时间较对照组更短（P<0.05）,术后 PCIA 药物使用量少于对照组（P<0.05）。两组患者术后4 h~术后48 h视觉模拟疼痛评分量表（VAS）评分均呈先升高后降低趋势,且术后12 h、术后24 h、术后48 h研究组VAS评分均低于对照组（P<0.05）;研究组术后12 h、术后24 h、术后48 h Ramsay镇静评分均高于对照组（P<0.05）。两组患者术后3 d丙氨酸转氨酶(ALT)、天冬氨酸转氨酶(AST)、总胆红素(TBIL)水平均升高（P<0.05）。两组患者不良反应发生率比较无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论：罗哌卡因切口浸润联合PCIA应用于肝癌肝切除术患者术后镇痛,镇静镇痛效果确切,可有效改善术后指标,且不增加肝功能损害,不良反应发生率较低。     

A Comparison of the Analgesia Efficacy and Side Effects of Paravertebral Compared with Epidural Blockade for Thoracotomy: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Objective

The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the analgesic efficacy and side effects of paravertebral and epidural blockade for thoracotomy was published in 2006. Nine well-designed randomized trials with controversial results have been published since then. The present report constitutes an updated meta-analysis of this issue.

Summary of Background

Thoracotomy is a major surgical procedure and is associated with severe postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia is the gold standard for post-thoracotomy pain management, but has its limitations and contraindications, and paravertebral blockade is increasingly popular. However, it has not been decided whether the analgesic effect of the two methods is comparable, or whether paravertebral blockade leads to a lower incidence of adverse side effects after thoracotomy.

Methods

Two reviewers independently searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (last performed on 1 February, 2013) for reports of studies comparing post-thoracotomy epidural analgesia and paravertebral blockade. The same individuals independently extracted data from the appropriate studies.

Result

Eighteen trials involving 777 patients were included in the current analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between paravertebral blockade and epidural analgesia at 4–8, 24, 48 hours, and the rates of pulmonary complications and morphine usage during the first 24 hours were also similar. However, paravertebral blockade was better than epidural analgesia in reducing the incidence of urinary retention (p<0.0001), nausea and vomiting (p = 0.01), hypotension (p<0.00001), and rates of failed block were lower in the paravertebral blockade group (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that PVB can provide comparable pain relief to traditional EPI, and may have a better side-effect profile for pain relief after thoracic surgery. Further high-powered randomized trials are to need to determine whether PVB truly offers any advantages over EPI.     

硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡联合地佐辛静脉用于剖宫产术后镇痛的疗效及对患者血清5-羟色胺、泌乳素水平的影响

目的:探讨硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡联合地佐辛静脉用于剖宫产术后镇痛的疗效及对患者血清5-羟色胺、泌乳素水平的影响。方法:选择2016年1月至2018年11月择期进行剖宫产的产妇80例,按照随机数字法将其分为观察组和对照组,每组各40例。对照组采用硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡自控镇痛,观察组采用硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡联合地佐辛静脉自控镇痛。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估两组产妇术后镇痛效果,酶联免疫法及化学发光法分别测定产妇术前、术后6 h、12 h、24 h和48 h血清5-羟色胺水平及泌乳素水平,并观察两组产妇术后不良反应的发生情况。结果:两组产妇患者术后VAS评分随着时间延长逐渐降低,观察组术后第6 h、12 h、24 h以及48 h的VAS评分均显著低于对照组(P0.05);两组产妇术后血清5-羟色胺水平均较术前明显降低(P0.05),而血清泌乳素均较术前显著升高(P0.05),且观察组术后第6 h、12 h、24 h以及48 h血清5-羟色胺水平均显著低于对照组(P0.05),而血清泌乳素浓度均明显高于对照组(P0.05)。两组产妇患者术后均未出现呼吸抑制,对照组恶心(Nausea)、呕吐、头晕、皮肤瘙痒的发生率明显低于对照组(P0.05)。结论:硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡联合地佐辛静脉用于剖宫产术后镇痛疗效及安全性均较硬膜外腔单次注射吗啡自控镇痛更好,产妇术后血清泌乳素及5-羟色胺浓度显著提高,对于产后抑郁的发病可能有一定的抑制作用,也有利于产妇术后恢复,尽早哺乳。     

Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Abciximab in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Abciximab is a widely used adjunctive therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the effect of intracoronary (IC) administration of abciximab on cardiovascular events remains unclear when compared with intravenous (IV) therapy.

Methodology and Principal Findings

We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings for obtaining relevant literature. All eligible trials included ACS patients who received either IC administration of abciximab or IV therapy. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events, and secondary outcomes included total mortality, reinfarction, and any possible adverse events. Of 660 identified studies, we included 9 trials reporting data on 3916 ACS patients. Overall, IC administration of abciximab resulted in 45% reduction in relative risk for major cardiovascular events (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24−60%), 41% reduction in RR for reinfarction (95% CI, 7−63%), and 44% reduction in RR for congestive heart failure relative to IV therapy (95% CI, 8−66%); however, compared to IV therapy, IC administration of abciximab had no effect on total mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45−1.07). No other significant differences were identified between the effect of IC abciximab administration and IV therapy.

Conclusions/Significance

IC administration of abciximab can reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events, reinfarction, and congestive heart failure when compared with IV therapy.     

Continuous versus interrupted schedules of thermal biofeedback: An exploratory analysis with clinical subjects

Researchers administer thermal biofeedback in several different formats, although the most common are continuous administration and a series of brief trials separated by frequent rest breaks. The present study directly compared these two administration schedules with individuals suffering from migraine headache. Optimal training effects occurred for the continuous schedule of administration. Surprisingly, the interrupted schedule actually led to decreases in hand temperature over eight sessions. Possible reasons for this finding and its implications are discussed.This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NS-15235; NS-16891; NS-00818) and the Research Foundation of the State University of New York.     

Efficacy and Safety of Amphotericin B Emulsion versus Liposomal Formulation in Indian Patients with Visceral Leishmaniasis: A Randomized,Open-Label Study

Background

India is home to 60% of the total global visceral leishmaniasis (VL) population. Use of long-term oral (e.g. miltefosine) and parenteral drugs, considered the mainstay for treatment of VL, is now faced with increased resistance, decreased efficacy, low compliance and safety issues. The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of an alternate treatment option, i.e. single infusion of preformed amphotericin B (AmB) lipid emulsion (ABLE) in comparison with that of liposomal formulation (LAmB).

Methods

In this multicentric, open-label study, 500 patients with VL were randomly assigned in a 3∶1 ratio to receive 15 mg/kg single infusion of either ABLE (N = 376) or LAmB (N = 124). Initial cure (Day 30/45), clinical improvement (Day 30) and long term definitive cure (Day 180) were assessed.

Findings

A total of 326 (86.7%) patients in the ABLE group and 122 (98.4%) patients in the LAmB group completed the study. Initial cure was achieved by 95.9% of patients in the ABLE group compared to 100% in the LAmB group (p = 0.028; 95% CI: −0.0663, −0.0150). Clinical improvement was comparable between treatments (ABLE: 98.9% vs. LAmB: 98.4%). Definitive cure was achieved in 85.9% with ABLE compared to 98.4% with LAmB. Infusion-related pyrexia (37.2% vs. 32.3%) and chills (18.4% vs. 18.5%) were comparable between ABLE and LAmB, respectively. Treatment-related serious adverse events were fewer in ABLE (0.3%) compared to LAmB (1.6%). Two deaths occurred in the ABLE group, of which one was probably related to the study drug. Nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity was not observed in either group.

Conclusions

ABLE 15 mg/kg single infusion had favorable efficacy and was well tolerated. Considering the demographic profile of the population in this region, a single dose treatment offers advantages in terms of compliance, cost and applicability.

Trial Registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00876824","term_id":"NCT00876824"}}NCT00876824     

连续股神经阻滞联合关节周围注射用于全膝关节置换术后镇痛及早期功能康复的研究

目的:比较连续股神经阻滞(continuous femoral nerve block,CFNB)联合关节周围注射和单纯连续股神经阻滞对全膝关节置换(TKA)术后疼痛及早期功能康复的影响.方法:将2012年1月～2012年9月于我院初次行单侧全膝关节置换的40例患者随机分为CFNB联合关节周围注射组(n=20例)和CFNB治疗组(n=20例).观察和比较两组患者术后疼痛评分、CPM度数、被动屈伸活动度、围术期CRP水平及术后下肢深静脉血栓形成情况.结果:术后8h、12h,CFNB联合关节周围注射组的疼痛评分分别为2.45±0.2562和2.40±0.3026,明显低于CFNB组(5.25±0.3470和4.90±0.3692),差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);术后第2、3天,CFNB联合关节周围注射组的CPM锻炼度数(72.75± 2.750、89.00±2.283)分别明显高于CFNB组(57.95±1.724、79.00± 2.194),差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);两组患者术后膝关节被动活动度比较无统计学差异;CFNB联合关节周围注射组术后患者血清CRP水平低于CFNB组,均在术后第3天达到峰值,但组间比较均无统计学差异(P＞0.05);两组患者术后双下肢深静脉血栓形成情况比较无统计学差异.结论:连续股神经阻滞联合关节周围注射较单纯连续股神经阻滞可更加有效降低全膝关节置换术患者术后的疼痛评分,并促进早期功能康复.