Search

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section. Methods: Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery. Results: No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 μg [interquartile range, 291.3–507.8 μg versus 428.0 μg [interquartile range, 305.0–507.0 μg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have investigated the safety of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, it remains uncertain whether PICC placement can be successfully carried out in settings with limited resources and a challenging environment for procedures, such as communicable-disease isolation units (CDIUs). Methods: This study investigated the safety of PICCs in patients admitted to CDIUs. These researchers used a handheld portable ultrasound device (PUD) to guide venous access and confirmed catheter-tip location with electrocardiography (ECG) or portable chest radiography. Results: Among 74 patients, the basilic vein and the right arm were the most common access site and location, respectively. The incidence of malposition was significantly higher with chest radiography compared to ECG (52.4% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Using a handheld PUD to place PICCs at the bedside and confirming the tip location with ECG is a feasible option for CDIU patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine is reported to prolong analgesia following peripheral nerve blocks. Popliteal sciatic nerve block provides effective postoperative analgesia, but some patients still experience severe pain during the early postoperative period. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative analgesic effects of IV dexmedetomidine versus propofol in patients undergoing foot surgeries under popliteal sciatic nerve block. Forty patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either IV propofol (n = 20) or IV dexmedetomidine (n = 20) for intraoperative sedation. All the patients received continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block. The corresponding drug infusion rate was adjusted to achieve a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 3 or 4. The primary outcome was postoperative cumulative opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery. Thirty-nine patients were analyzed. The median (interquartile ranges) postoperative cumulative opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group (15 (7.5–16.9) mg) than in the propofol group (17.5 (15–25) mg) (p = 0.019). The time to first rescue analgesic request was significantly greater in the dexmedetomidine group than in the propofol group (11.8 ± 2.2 h vs. 10.0 ± 2.7 h, p = 0.030) without the prolonged motor blockade (p = 0.321). Intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative opioid consumption and prolonged analgesic duration after a popliteal sciatic nerve block. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is being increasingly adopted in transplant programs due to its numerous advantages. However, the role of intrathecal morphine (ITM) in laparoscopic donor hepatectomy has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to compare the analgesic effects and safety of ITM between laparoscopic and open donor hepatectomy. This retrospective study included 742 donors who underwent hepatectomy with ITM between April 2007 and June 2019. Among them, 168 and 574 donors underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH), respectively. Propensity score matching yielded two comparable groups of 168 donors each. The primary endpoint was the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain (maximum numerical rating scale [NRS] pain score ≥ 4) within 24 postoperative hours. The LH group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate-to-severe pain within 24 postoperative hours than the OH group (16.1% vs 64.3%, P < .001). Moreover, the cumulative rescue intravenous opioids (in morphine-equivalent dose) on postoperative day (POD) 1 was lower in the LH group than in the OH group (3.3 [0-8.3] mg vs 10 [3.3-17.3] mg; P < .001). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of respiratory depression (2.4% vs 0.6%; P = .371) and prescriptions for pruritus (14.3% vs 15.5%; P = .878). However, the prescriptions for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly higher in the LH group than in the OH group (64.9% vs 41.7%; P < .001). The predictors of antiemetic agent prescription included the use of laparoscopic procedure (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-3.79; P = .021) and female sex (adjusted OR, 5.63; 95% CI, 3.19-9.92; P < .001). Preoperative ITM administration resulted in a significantly lower incidence of moderate-to-severe pain within 24 postoperative hours after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy than after open donor hepatectomy., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Since the implementation of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scoring system in 2002, the liver transplantation (LT) society has observed a substantial increase in the number of recipients with renal dysfunction. Intraoperative renal replacement therapy (ioRRT) has emerged as one of the solutions available to manage high-MELD score recipients; however, its usefulness has not yet been proven. To date, we have experienced five cases of simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation (SLKT). Recipients of SLKT tend to have a lower pre-transplant kidney function and the longer operation time mandates a larger amount of fluid than LT alone. Hence, anesthetic care is more prone to be challenged by hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, and volume overload, making ioRRT a theoretically valuable intervention. However, in all five cases, recipients were managed without ioRRT, resulting in excellent graft and patient survival. As such, in this case series, we discuss current issues about ioRRT and SLKT.