Search

Although the choice of anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) does not seem to increase the risk of perioperative stroke, it might affect the outcomes of shunting during CEA. This study aims to evaluate whether the choice of anesthesia modifies the association between shunting and in-hospital stroke/death after CEA.We retrospective reviewed all CEA cases performed between 2003 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) no shunting during CEA (n = 29,227 [48.4%]), (2) routine shunting (n = 28,673 [47.5%]), and (3) selective shunting based on an intraoperative indication (n = 2499 [4.1%]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to study the interaction between anesthesia (local anesthesia [LA]/regional anesthesia [RA] vs general anesthesia [GA]) and intraoperative shunting (no shunting vs routine and selective shunting) during CEA in predicting the risk of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA.The final cohort included 60,399 patients. The majority of CEA cases (90.2%) were performed under GA. Of the study cohort, 29,227 (48.4%) underwent CEA without shunting, 28,673 patients (47.5%) had routine shunting, and the remaining (n = 2499 [4.1%]) were selectively shunted. The interaction between intraoperative shunting and anesthesia in predicting in-hospital stroke/death was statistically significant (P .05). When CEA is performed under LA/GA, routine shunting was associated with 3.5 times the adjusted odds of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; P .001) compared with no shunting, whereas selective shunting was associated with 7.1 the odds (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 3.5-14.7; P .001). In contrast, under GA, there was no significant association between routine shunting and in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P = .12), whereas selective shunting was associated with 1.7 times the odds (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P .01) compared with not performing shunting during CEA.The use of LA/RA is associated with increased odds of stroke/death compared with GA when intraoperative shunting is performed. The effect of anesthesia is more pronounced in patients who develop clamp-related ischemia and undergo selective shunting. More controlled studies are needed to explain these findings and validate them.

Introduction The annual mortality and national expense of the opioid crisis continue to rise in the USA (130 deaths/day, $50 billion/year). Opioid use disorder usually starts with the prescription of opioids for a medical condition. Its risk is associated with greater pain intensity and coping strategies characterised by pain catastrophising. Non-pharmacological analgesics in the hospital setting are critical to abate the opioid epidemic. One promising intervention is virtual reality (VR) therapy. It has performed well as a distraction tool and pain modifier during medical procedures; however, little is known about VR in the acute pain setting following traumatic injury. Furthermore, no studies have investigated VR in the setting of traumatic brain injury (TBI). This study aims to establish the safety and effect of VR therapy in the inpatient setting for acute traumatic injuries, including TBI. Methods and analysis In this randomised within-subjects clinical study, immersive VR therapy will be compared with two controls in patients with traumatic injury, including TBI. Affective measures including pain catastrophising, trait anxiety and depression will be captured prior to beginning sessions. Before and after each session, we will capture pain intensity and unpleasantness, additional affective measures and physiological measures associated with pain response, such as heart rate and variability, pupillometry and respiratory rate. The primary outcome is the change in pain intensity of the VR session compared with controls. Ethics and dissemination Dissemination of this protocol will allow researchers and funding bodies to stay abreast in their fields through exposure to research not otherwise widely publicised. Study protocols are compliant with federal regulation and University of Maryland Baltimore’s Human Research Protections and Institutional Review Board (protocol number HP-00090603). Study results will be published on completion of enrolment and analysis, and deidentified data can be shared by request to the corresponding author. Trial registration number NCT04356963; Pre-results.

Background: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is routinely used for intraoperative guidance for TAVR procedures. TAVR is also done with minimal imaging or no TEE guidance (minimal imaging approach). The clinical benefits of intraprocedure TEE during TAVR compared to minimal imaging approach has not been well established. Aim: To perform a meta-analysis of available trials comparing effectiveness of intraprocedural TEE versus minimal imaging approach during TAVR procedure. Hypothesis: TAVR with intraprocedural TEE is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with minimalist imaging approach. Methods: 8 retrospective observational studies were identified via a comprehensive literature search that incorporated Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL. Each selected study reported on the comparison between TAVR performed with TEE guidance or with no TEE (minimalist strategy) during the procedure. Studies were screened for risk of bias using a quality assessment tool. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, paravalvular leak as defined by the original trial, readmission within 30 days, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) , and acute kidney injury (AKI). For each outcome, estimates were pooled and reported as a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 2057 patients were divided into TEE (n=1115) vs. non-TEE (n=942) cohorts. No significant difference was seen between TEE vs non-TEE groups in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR=2.06 [95%CI: 0.91- 4.67], p=0.08 ), all cause mortality (RR= 0.63 [95% CI: 0.21- 1.90], p=0.41), readmission within 30 days (RR=0.49 [95% CI: 0.06-4.41], p=0.53), stroke (RR=0.97 [95% CI: 0.27- 3.47], p=0.96), MI (RR=0.92 [95%CI: 0.26- 3.29], p=0.90), and AKI (RR=1.24 [95% CI: 0.16-9.35], p=0.83). A significant increase in paravalvular leak was observed within the non-TEE group (RR=1.19 [95% CI: 1.01-1.39], p=0.04) in comparison to the TEE group. Conclusion: TEE guidance during TAVR is associated with reduced paravalvular leak when compared with minimal imaging approach. No other clinical difference was observed between the two approaches. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.