Search

Background: Misidentification of the cricothyroid membrane in a "cannot intubate-cannot oxygenate" situation can lead to failures and serious complications. The authors hypothesized that preprocedure ultrasound-guided identification of the cricothyroid membrane would reduce complications associated with cricothyrotomy.Methods: A group of 47 trainees were randomized to digital palpation (n = 23) and ultrasound (n = 24) groups. Cricothyrotomy was performed on human cadavers by using the Portex device (Smiths Medical, USA). Anatomical landmarks of cadavers were graded as follows: grade 1-easy = visual landmarks; 2-moderate = requires light palpation of landmarks; 3-difficult = requires deep palpation of landmarks; and 4-impossible = landmarks not palpable. Primary outcome was the complication rate as measured by the severity of injuries. Secondary outcomes were correct device placement, failure to cannulate, and insertion time.Results: Ultrasound guidance significantly decreased the incidence of injuries to the larynx and trachea (digital palpation: 17 of 23 = 74% vs. ultrasound: 6 of 24 = 25%; relative risk, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.39 to 5.94; P = 0.001) and increased the probability of correct insertion by 5.6 times (P = 0.043) in cadavers with difficult and impossible landmark palpation (digital palpation 8.3% vs. ultrasound 46.7%). Injuries were found in 100% of the grades 3 to 4 (difficult-impossible landmark palpation) cadavers by digital palpation compared with only 33% by ultrasound (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) insertion time was significantly longer with ultrasound than with digital palpation (196.1 s [60.6 s] vs. 110.5 s [46.9 s]; P < 0.001).Conclusion: Preprocedure ultrasound guidance in cadavers with poorly defined neck anatomy significantly reduces complications and improves correct insertion of the airway device in the cricothyroid membrane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Postoperative pain management for patients with inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD) can be challenging. These patients have a high tolerance to pain medication, and relative contraindications to the use of epidural analgesia, limiting the pain management options. We evaluated the effect of a single preoperative gabapentin dose on opioid consumption for patients with IBD undergoing abdominal surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain scores, opioid-related side effects, and patient's length of hospital stay. Methods Following Research Ethics Board approval and informed written consent, patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups receiving either 600 mg of oral gabapentin or placebo 1 hour before the surgery. A blinded anesthesiologist recorded pain scores at rest and movement twice daily for 2 postoperative days. Also recorded were opioid consumption, time of return of bowel function, time to discharge, and opioid-related side effects on the opioid-related symptom distress scale ( ORSDS). Results Seventy-two patients completed the study. The difference in opioid consumption ( P = 0.4169) and pain scores measured at rest and movement on all 4 postoperative visits was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference between gabapentin and placebo on all the 11 symptoms reported on the ORSDS. There was a slight increase in length of hospital stay in the placebo group, but the return of bowel function was similar between the groups. Conclusions This study examined the effect of a single preoperative administration of gabapentin in patients with IBD undergoing major bowel surgery. Our results suggest a single preoperative oral dose of gabapentin 600 mg does not reduce postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, or opioid-related side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with neurocognitive impairment – a known risk factor for postoperative delirium. However, it is unclear whether OSA increases the risk of postoperative delirium and whether treatment is protective. The objectives of this study were to identify OSA with a home sleep apnea test (HSAT) and to determine whether auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) reduces postoperative delirium in older adults with newly diagnosed OSA undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial at three academic hospitals in Canada. Research ethics board approval was obtained from the participating sites and informed consent was obtained from participants. Inclusion criteria were patients who were ≥ 6 0 years and scheduled for elective hip or knee replacement. Patients with a STOP-Bang score of ≥ 3 had a HSAT. Patients were defined as having OSA if the apnea–hypopnea index was ≥ 10/h. These patients were randomized 1:1 to either: 1) APAP for 72 h postoperatively or until discharge, or 2) routine care after surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative delirium, assessed twice daily with the Confusion Assessment Method for 72 h or until discharge or by chart review. The secondary outcome measures included length of stay, and perioperative complications occurring within 30 days after surgery. Results: Of 549 recruited patients, 474 completed a HSAT. A total of 234 patients with newly diagnosed OSA were randomized. The mean age was 68.2 (6.2) years and 58.6% were male. Analysis was performed on 220 patients. In total, 2.7% (6/220) patients developed delirium after surgery: 4.4% (5/114) patients in the routine care group, and 0.9% (1/106) patients in the treatment group (P = 0.21). The mean length of stay for the APAP vs. the routine care group was 2.9 (2.9) days vs. 3.5 (4.5) days (P = 0.24). On postoperative night 1, 53.5% of patients used APAP for 4 h/night or more, this decreased to 43.5% on night 2, and 24.6% on night 3. There was no difference in intraoperative and postoperative complications between the two groups. Conclusions: We had an unexpectedly low rate of postoperative delirium thus we were unable to determine if postoperative delirium was reduced in older adults with newly diagnosed OSA receiving APAP vs. those who did not receive APAP after elective knee or hip arthroplasty. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered in clinicaltrials.gov NCT02954224 on 03/11/2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the effects of intravenously administered meperidine, fentanyl and tramadol in reducing the incidence, onset time and severity of the shivering response in parturients during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction and sedation scores. Methods: After Ethics board approval and informed written consent, 350 parturients (ASA physical status I or II), between 20 and 40 years of age, undergoing emergency or elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were recruited. Parturients were then randomly allocated to seven study groups: normal saline (control), low‐dose meperidine (0.5 mg/kg), high‐dose meperidine (0.75 mg/kg), low‐dose fentanyl (0.5 mcg/kg), high‐dose fentanyl (0.75 mcg/kg), low‐dose tramadol (0.5 mg/kg) and high‐dose tramadol (0.75 mg/kg). The incidence, onset time and severity of shivering, along with patient satisfaction and sedation scores were measured. Results: All study drugs showed significant reduction in incidence, onset time and severity of shivering and greater satisfaction scores compared to the control group (P < 0.01). Within each drug class, no significant differences in shivering were found between the high‐dose and low‐dose groups. Among study drugs, low‐dose tramadol was superior due to shivering prevention and significantly reduced sedation. Conclusion: Intravenously administered meperidine, fentanyl and tramadol reduce shivering incidence, onset time and severity in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery following spinal anesthesia. Importantly, low‐dose intravenous tramadol (0.5 mg/kg) allowed shivering prevention and low sedation scores, thereby offering greater parturient satisfaction and better maternal–newborn bonding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although antiemetics are commonly used to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting, the failure rate is appreciable and there is currently no generally accepted standard for rescue treatment of postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was designed to test the hypothesis that intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3-antagonist, is superior to placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis.Methods: A total of 2,285 adult patients undergoing surgery under general inhalational anesthesia and receiving standard antiemetic prophylaxis were enrolled at 23 sites in Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. Of these, 702 patients experienced postoperative nausea or vomiting in the 24-h period after surgery and were randomized to receive a single dose of 5 or 10 mg intravenous amisulpride or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue antiemetic use for 24 h after study drug administration, excluding emesis in the first 30 min. Secondary endpoints included incidence of emesis and rescue medication use, nausea burden, time to treatment failure, and length of stay in postanesthesia care unit and hospital.Results: Complete response occurred in significantly more patients receiving 10 mg amisulpride (96 of 230, 41.7%) than placebo (67 of 235, 28.5%), a 13.2% difference (95% CI, 4.6 to 21.8; odds ratio, 1.80; P = 0.006). A 5-mg dose of amisulpride did not show a significant benefit (80 of 237, 33.8%); the difference from placebo was 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.6; odds ratio, 1.24; P = 0.109). The total number of adverse events recorded and proportion of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable between the placebo and amisulpride groups. No clinically relevant toxicities were observed.Conclusions: A single 10-mg dose of intravenous amisulpride was safe and more effective than placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients failing postoperative nausea or vomiting prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]