Search

Summary: The aim of neuraxial analgesia is to achieve excellent pain relief with the fewest adverse effects. The most recently introduced technique for epidural analgesia maintenance is the programmed intermittent epidural bolus. In a recent study, we compared this with patient‐controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion and found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus was associated with less breakthrough pain, lower pain scores, higher local anaesthetic consumption and comparable motor block. However, we had compared 10 ml programmed intermittent epidural boluses with 5 ml patient‐controlled epidural analgesia boluses. To overcome this potential limitation, we designed a randomised, multicentre non‐inferiority trial using 10 ml boluses in each group. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain and total analgesic intake. Secondary outcomes included motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. The trial was considered positive if two endpoints were met: non‐inferiority of patient‐controlled epidural analgesia with respect to breakthrough pain; and superiority of patient‐controlled epidural analgesia with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. A total of 360 nulliparous women were allocated randomly to patient‐controlled epidural analgesia‐only or programmed intermittent epidural bolus groups. The patient‐controlled group received 10 ml boluses of ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 μg.ml‐1; the programmed intermittent group received 10 ml boluses supplemented by 5 ml patient‐controlled boluses. The lockout period was 30 min in each group and the maximum allowed hourly local anaesthetic/opioid consumption was identical between the groups. Breakthrough pain was similar between groups (11.2% patient controlled vs. 10.8% programmed intermittent, p = 0.003 for non‐inferiority). Total ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCEA–group (mean difference 15.3 mg, p < 0.001). Motor block, patient satisfaction scores and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar across both groups. In conclusion, patient‐controlled epidural analgesia is non‐inferior to programmed intermittent epidural bolus if equal volumes of patient‐controlled epidural analgesia are used to maintain labour analgesia and superior with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with increased perioperative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS) and healthcare expenditure in gynecologic surgery. We tested the hypothesis that the adoption of a machine learning-based warning algorithm (hypotension prediction index-HPI) might yield an economic advantage, with a reduction in adverse outcomes that outweighs the costs for its implementation as a medical device., Methods: A retrospective-matched cohort cost-benefit Italian study in gynecologic surgery was conducted. Sixty-six female patients treated with standard goal-directed therapy (GDT) were matched in a 2:1 ratio with thirty-three patients treated with HPI based on ASA status, diagnosis, procedure, surgical duration and age., Results: The most relevant contributor to medical costs was operating room occupation (46%), followed by hospital stay (30%) and medical devices (15%). Patients in the HPI group had EURO 300 greater outlay for medical devices without major differences in total costs (GDT 5425 (3505, 8127), HPI 5227 (4201, 7023) p = 0.697). A pre-specified subgroup analysis of 50% of patients undergoing laparotomic surgery showed similar medical device costs and total costs, with a non-significant saving of EUR 1000 in the HPI group (GDT 8005 (5961, 9679), HPI 7023 (5227, 11,438), p = 0.945). The hospital LOS and intensive care unit stay were similar in the cohorts and subgroups., Conclusions: Implementation of HPI is associated with a scenario of cost neutrality, with possible economic advantage in high-risk settings.

Malignant hyperthermia is a rare but life-threatening pharmacogenetic disorder triggered by exposure to specific anesthetic agents. Although this occurrence could affect virtually any patient during the perioperative time, the pediatric population is particularly vulnerable, and it has a five-fold higher incidence in children compared to adults. In the last few decades, synergistic efforts among leading anesthesiology, pediatrics, and neurology associations have produced new evidence concerning the diagnostic pathway, avoiding unnecessary testing and limiting false diagnoses. However, a personalized approach and an effective prevention policy focused on clearly recognizing the high-risk population, defining perioperative trigger-free hospitalization, and rapid activation of supportive therapy should be improved. Based on epidemiological data, many national scientific societies have produced consistent guidelines, but many misconceptions are common among physicians and healthcare workers. This review shall consider all these aspects and summarize the most recent updates.

Maternal sepsis is a life-threatening condition defined as organ dysfunction resulting from infection that can arise during pregnancy, childbirth, postabortion, or in the postpartum period. Validated diagnostic criteria of maternal sepsis and septic shock may reduce the impact of this condition on maternal health worldwide, but the lack of consensus on adequate tools due to the overlap between physiological adaptations that occur during pregnancy and signs and symptoms of infection and sepsis can delay both diagnosis and treatment. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines for obstetric populations, the WHO recommends the use of the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign" sepsis protocols for maternal care adapted to the local obstetric population. Interventions within the first hour from diagnosis have been proposed in 2021 to emphasize the state of emergency of a maternal sepsis. This review will highlight the utility of standardized diagnostic criteria, the implemented approaches for the prevention and treatment of maternal infections, and the strategies for early management of critically ill parturients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Professor Van de Velde is a consultant for Smiths Medical and MSD and has received lecture fees for AstraZeneca, Baxter, Smiths Medical, BBraun, Abbvie, Kimberley Clarck, and Fresenius, and a research grant from Air Liquide. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)