Search

Dexmedetomidine is an alternative agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department thanks to its ability to maintain hemodynamic and respiratory stability. Dexmedetomidine must, however, be combined with a powerful analgesic. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and safety of procedural sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine for patients undergoing painful procedures in the emergency department. This prospective interventional single-center study was conducted in an academic emergency department of an urban hospital in Brussels, Belgium. Patients received a bolus injection of 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 min and then a continuous infusion of 0.6 µg/kg/h followed by a bolus of 1 mg/kg ketamine. The painful procedure was carried out 1 min later. The level of pain was evaluated with a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal pain). The level of patient comfort for the procedure was measured using a comfort scale. Thirty patients were included. Overall, 90% of patients felt little or no pain (n = 29 of 30) or discomfort (n = 28 of 30) during the procedure. One patient experienced apnea with desaturation, which was resolved by a jaw-thrust maneuver. Although 23% of patients had significant arterial hypertension, none required drug treatment. The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine provides conscious sedation, bringing comfort and pain relief to patients in optimal conditions for respiratory and hemodynamic safety. However, sedation and recovery times are longer than with conventional drug combinations. The dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination should therefore be recommended for nonurgent procedures and fragile patients.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-sparing strategies are recommended, and Opioid-Free Anaesthesia (OFA) is proposed in the literature. But few data exist about the feasibility of OFA in the routine practice. From a larger series of 21,463 patients receiving OFA, this work investigates the postoperative pain and related outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This matched retrospective study concerned 521 patients scheduled for a laparoscopic hysterectomy between 2010 and 2015 (118 receiving OFA and 403 receiving anaesthesia with opioids, AO). Primary outcome was pain in the Post-Anaesthetic Care Unit (PACU). RESULTS: Among the 521 included patients, 403 received sufentanil (mean±SD: 0.1±0.05 mcg/kg), the only synthetic opioid used to balance anaesthesia. Concerning the 118 patients receiving OFA, most of them received an association of clonidine (97%) and ketamine (95%). Most of the patients in both groups received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No difference in pain scores was observed between AO and OFA (median [IQR], respectively: 4 [0-5] vs. 4.5 [0-6], P=0.74). A difference in the perioperative morphine equivalent use was observed (mean±SD: 0.18±0.06 mg/kg vs. 0.09±0.06 mg/kg, P<0.001). No difference was observed regarding the nausea/vomiting incidences, use of anti-emetics, sedation scores, or time spent at the PACU. CONCLUSION: Coming from an extensive daily practice, these data show that OFA is feasible and not associated with higher pain scores or longer PACU stay, suggesting the absence of specific immediate complications.

Pain after breast cancer surgery remains largely unexplained and inconsistently quantified. This study aims to describe the perioperative pain patterns in patients with breast cancer, up to two years after surgery. This is a pre-planned sub-study of the Ketorolac in Breast Cancer (KBC) trial. The KBC trial was a multicentre, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of a single dose of 30 mg of ketorolac just before breast cancer surgery, aiming to test its effect on recurrences. This sub-study focuses only on pain outcomes. From 2013 to 2015, 203 patients were randomised to ketorolac ( = 96) or placebo ( = 107). Structured questionnaires were delivered by telephone after one and two years, exploring the presence, location, permanence, and frequency of pain. Patients' perceptions of pain were captured by an open-ended question, the responses to which were coded and classified using hierarchical clustering. There was no difference in pain between the ketorolac and the placebo group. The reported incidence of permanent pain was 67% and 45% at one and two years, respectively. The largest category was musculoskeletal pain. Permanent pain was mainly described in patients with musculoskeletal pain. The description of pain changed in most patients during the second postoperative year, i.e., moved from one category to another (no pain, permanent, or non-permanent pain, but also, the localisation). This phenomenon includes patients without pain at one year. Pain is a complex phenomenon, but also a fragile and unstable endpoint. Pain after breast cancer surgery does not necessarily mean breast pain but also musculoskeletal and other pains. The permanence of pain and the pain phenotype can change over time.

Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) has important consequences in terms of acute and chronic pain. We proposed an anesthetic protocol based on the best currently available evidence. We report the results of this protocol's application. We performed a retrospective descriptive study of 100 consecutive donors undergoing LDH. The protocol included standardized information provided by the anesthetist, pharmacological anxiolysis and preventive analgesia. Specifically, pregabalin premedication (opioid-free) intravenous anesthesia (with clonidine, ketamine, magnesium sulphate and ketorolac) and epidural analgesia were proposed. Postoperative follow-up was conducted by the Postoperative Pain Service. This analysis included 100 patients (53 women, 47 men, median age 32.7 years old [28.4-37.3]), operated by xypho-umbilical laparotomy. All elements of our anesthetic protocol were applied in over 75% of patients, except for the preoperative consultation with a senior anesthesiologist (55%). The median number of applied item was 7 [interquartile range, IQR 5-7]. Median postoperative pain scores were, at rest and at mobilization respectively 3 [IQR 2-4] and 6 [IQR 4.5-7] on day 1; 2 [IQR 1-3] and 5 [IQR 3-6] on day 2; and 2 [IQR 0-3] and 4 [IQR 3-5] on day 3. In conclusion, LDH leads to severe acute pain. Despite the proposal of a multimodal evidence-based protocol, its applicancy was not uniform and the pain scores remained relatively high.

© Acta Anæsthesiologica Belgica, 2018, 69, n° 2Abstract : These last decades, Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols have grown in popularity; they recommend multimodal analgesia in order to decrease opioid requirements during and after surgery, which leads to less opioid side effects. As consequences, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay are reduced. Opioid free anesthesia seeks after the same goal as ERAS protocols. There exist several studies reporting its benefits, and sometimes its superiority to conventional opioid anesthesia, including less postoperative analgesic requirements, and decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Working daily with opioids as anesthesiologists, we are curious to know if ERAS protocols should integrate opioid free anesthesia. The present review summarizes the available data concerning positive impacts of opioid free anesthesia on 5 opioids side effects using Pubmed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library. The paucity of the literature prevented us from any conclusion, but a liberal opioid use during the perioperative period should be avoided.

Objective: To compare the effects of He/O2 and external PEEP (PEEPe) on intrinsic PEEP (PEEPi), respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and ventilation/perfusion (V̇A/Q̇) in mechanically ventilated COPD patients. Design and setting: Prospective, interventional study in the intensive care unit of a university hospital. Interventions: Ten intubated, sedated, paralyzed, mechanically ventilated COPD patients studied in the following conditions: (a) baseline settings made by clinician in charge, air/O2, ZEEP; (b) He/O2, ZEEP; (c) air/O2, ZEEP; (d) air/O2, PEEPe 80% of PEEPi. Measurements at each condition included V̇A/Q̇ by the multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET). Results: PEEPi and trapped gas volume were comparably reduced by He/O2 (4.2±4 vs. 7.7±4cmH2O and 98±82 vs. 217±124ml, respectively) and PEEPe (4.4±1.3 vs. 7.8±3.6cmH2O and 120±107 vs. 216±115ml, respectively). He/O2 reduced inspiratory and expiratory respiratory system resistance (15.5±4.4 vs. 20.7±6.9 and 19±9 vs. 28.8±15cmH2Ol−1s−1, respectively) and plateau pressure (13±4 vs. 17±6cmH2O). PEEPe increased airway pressures, including total PEEP, and elastance. PaO2/FIO2 was slightly reduced by He/O2 (225±83 vs. 245±82) without significant V̇A/Q̇ change. Conclusions: He/O2 and PEEPe comparably reduced PEEPi and trapped gas volume. However, He/O2 decreased airway resistance and intrathoracic pressures, at a small cost in arterial oxygenation. He/O2 could offer an attractive option in COPD patients with PEEPi/dynamic hyperinflation

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has proven its prognostic value in cardiovascular diseases, infections, inflammatory diseases and in several types of cancers. However, no cut-off has been proposed on the basis of reference values coming from healthy population. Routine blood samples were obtained (n = 413) from workers (age: median 38, range: 21-66 years) involved in a health care prevention program, to determine means, standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), percentiles P2.5 and P97.5. A second independent sample of healthy volunteers is compared (n = 29). The mean NLR is 1.65 [±1.96 SD: 0.78-3.53] (95% CI [0.75-0.81] and [3.40-3.66]). In the second cohort (healthy control), the NLR values are in the same range, whichever the used analyzer. No NLR assessed in the validation series is out of the proposed limits. We have identified that the normal NLR values in an adult, non-geriatric, population in good health are between 0.78 and 3.53. These data will help to define the normal values of the NLR.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: A place for clonidine has been suggested for many indications in perioperative medicine. The aim of this systematic review and these meta-analyses is to systematically, and quantitatively, evaluate these potential indications of clonidine. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We selected and analyzed (qualitatively and, when possible, quantitatively) the available literature published on PubMed/Medline and on the Cochrane database. Inclusion criteria included: human randomized controlled trials involving adults who received perioperative systemic (oral, intramuscular, transdermal and intravenous) clonidine for every type of surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 775 trials and thereafter excluded 718 and analyzed 57 trials concerning, in total, 14,790 patients of whom 7408 received clonidine and 6836 received placebo. Most important results shows that, in qualitative and quantitative analyses, clonidine vs placebo reduces analgesics consumption in, respectively, (159 vs 154 patients: 24%, 95%CI[16%-32%]; p<0.001), reduces nausea and vomiting (risk ratio, in 180 vs 181 patients: 0.35, 95%CI[0.25-0.51]; p<0.001), improves hemodynamic stability (reduction of HR: 14.9bpm, 95%CI[10.4-19.5]; p<0.001; reduction of the MAP: 12.5mmHg, 95%CI[7.14-17.86]; p<0.001); 1min after tracheal intubation, in 67 vs 68 patients), prevents postoperative shivering (risk ratio, in 140 vs 140 patients: 0.17, 95%CI[0.10-0.29]; p<0.001). On the other hand, clonidine does not have any influence on renal and cardiac outcomes (adverse events rates, in 5873 vs 5533 patients: 0.00, 95%CI[-0.10-0.11]; p=0.96) and does not prolong awakening time. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, these systematic review and meta-analyses of 57 trials confirm that clonidine improves pain control, reduces PONV, improves hemodynamic and sympathetic stability, with no adverse consequences on renal function or awakening time, but does not influence cardiac outcome in the general populatio