Unexpected Term Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Admissions and a Potential Role for Centralized Remote Fetal Monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Centralized remote fetal monitoring (CRFM) has been proposed as a method to improve the performance of intrapartum fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring and perinatal outcomes. The purpose of this study is to determine whether CRFM was associated with a reduction in unexpected term neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. STUDY DESIGN: A pre-post design was used to examine the effectiveness of CRFM which was implemented in stages across five hospitals. The exposure group was all women who underwent intrapartum monitoring via CRFM. The unexposed group was of women who delivered at the same hospitals prior to implementation of CRFM. Pregnancies with expected NICU admissions, gestational age <37 weeks, birth weight <2,500 g, or major fetal anomalies detected prenatally were excluded. The primary outcome was unexpected term NICU admission; secondary outcomes were cesarean and operative vaginal delivery (OVD), and 5-minute Apgar's score of <7 rates. Maternal and delivery characteristics were examined with Student's t, Wilcoxon's, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: There were 19,392 live births included in this analysis. In the univariable analysis, the odds of unexpected term NICU admission was lower among the CRFM exposed group compared with the unexposed group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.99; p = 0.038). In multivariable analysis, this did not reach statistical significance (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79-1.06; p = 0.24). Cesarean and OVD were less likely in the exposed group (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.97; p = 0.008) and (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59-0.83, p < 0.001), respectively, in univariable analysis. When adjusted for potential confounders, the effect remained statistically significant for cesarean delivery (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.98; p = 0.012). When adjusted for hospital, OVD rate was lower at the highest volume and highest acuity site (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.36-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In some practice settings, utilization of a CRFM system may decrease the risk of unexpected term NICU admission, cesarean, and OVD rate. KEY POINTS: · CRFM may decrease unexpected term NICU admissions in some clinical settings.. · CRFM may decrease cesarean delivery rates in some clinical settings.. · CRFM may decrease OVD rates in some clinical settings..

Liposomal Bupivacaine Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks in Laparoscopic Colorectal Resections: A Single-Institution Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane blocks improve postoperative pain after colon and rectal resections, but the benefits of liposomal bupivacaine use for these blocks have not been clearly demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether using liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks improves postoperative pain and reduces opioid use after colorectal surgery compared to standard bupivacaine. DESIGN: This study was a single-blinded, single-institution, prospective randomized controlled trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks in patients undergoing elective colon and rectal resections. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a single-institution academic medical center with 6 staff colorectal surgeons and 2 colorectal surgery fellows. PATIENTS: Ninety-six patients aged 18 to 85 years were assessed for eligibility; 76 were included and randomly assigned to 2 groups of 38 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the experimental group received liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane blocks, whereas the control group received standard bupivacaine blocks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was maximum pain score on postoperative day 2. Secondary outcomes included daily maximum and average pain scores in the 3 days after surgery, as well as daily morphine milligram equivalent use and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine blocks had lower maximum pain scores on the day of surgery (mean, 6.5 vs 7.7; p = 0.008). No other difference was found between groups with respect to maximum or average pain scores at any time point postoperatively, nor was there any difference in morphine milligram equivalents used or length of stay (median, 3.1 d). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution study with only patients blinded to group assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine use in transversus abdominis plane blocks for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resections does not seem to improve postoperative pain, nor does it reduce narcotic use or decrease length of stay. Given its cost, use of liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks is not justified for colon and rectal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B979 . CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT04781075. BLOQUEOS TAP DE BUPIVACANA LIPOSOMAL EN RESECCIONES COLORRECTALES LAPAROSCPICAS UN ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIO DE UNA SOLA INSTITUCIN: ANTECEDENTES:Los bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, mejoran el dolor posoperatorio después de las resecciones de colon y recto, pero los beneficios del uso de bupivacaína liposomal para estos bloqueos, no se han demostrado claramente.OBJETIVO:Investigar la eficacia de la inyección con tejido adiposo autólogo recién recolectado en fístulas anales criptoglandulares complejas.DISEÑO:Ensayo controlado, aleatorio, prospectivo, simple ciego, de una sola institución, que compara la bupivacaína liposomal con la bupivacaína estándar en bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, en pacientes sometidos a resecciones electivas de colon y recto. Identificador de ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04781075.ENTORNO CLINICO:Centro médico académico de una sola institución con seis cirujanos de plantilla y becarios de cirugía colorrectal.PACIENTES:Se evaluó la elegibilidad de 96 pacientes de 18 a 85 años; 76 fueron incluidos y aleatorizados en dos grupos de 38 pacientes.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes del grupo experimental recibieron bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen con bupivacaína liposomal, mientras que el grupo de control recibió bloqueos de bupivacaína estándar.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:El resultado primario fue la puntuación máxima de dolor en el segundo día posoperatorio. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron las puntuaciones máximas y medias diarias de dolor en los 3 días posteriores a la cirugía, así como el uso diario equivalente en miligramos de morfina y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes que recibieron bloqueos de bupivacaína liposomal, tuvieron puntuaciones máximas de dolor más bajas, el día de la cirugía (media 6,5 frente a 7,7, p = 0,008). No hubo ninguna otra diferencia entre los grupos con respecto a las puntuaciones de dolor máximas o promedio en cualquier momento después de la operación, ni hubo ninguna diferencia en los equivalentes de miligramos de morfina utilizados o la duración de la estancia (mediana de 3,1 días).LIMITACIONES:Estudio de una sola institución con cegamiento de un solo paciente.CONCLUSIONES:El uso de bupivacaína liposomal en bloqueos del plano transverso del abdomen, para pacientes sometidos a resecciones colorrectales laparoscópicas, no parece mejorar el dolor posoperatorio, ni reduce el uso de narcóticos ni la duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Dado su costo, el uso de bupivacaína liposomal en bloqueos TAP no está justificado para resecciones de colon y recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B797 . Traducción Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy.

Correlates of improved influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel: a survey of hospitals in Louisiana.

OBJECTIVE: To describe practices for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) with emphasis on correlates of increased vaccination rates. DESIGN: Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of hospitals in Louisiana. METHODS: All hospitals in Louisiana were invited to participate. A 17-item questionnaire inquired about the hospital type, patients served, characteristics of the vaccination campaign, and the resulting vaccination rate. RESULTS: Of 254 hospitals, 153 (60%) participated and were included in the 124 responses that were received. Most programs (64%) required that HCP either receive the vaccine or sign a declination form, and the rest were exclusively voluntary (36%); no program made vaccination a condition of employment. The median vaccination rate was 67%, and the vaccination rate was higher among hospitals that were accredited by the Joint Commission; provided acute care; served children, pregnant women, oncology patients, or intensive care unit patients; required a signed declination form; or imposed consequences for unvaccinated HCP (the most common of which was to require that a mask be worn on patient contact). Hospitals that provided free vaccine, made vaccine widely available, advertised the program extensively, required a declination form, and imposed consequences had the highest vaccination rates (median, 86%; range, 81%-91%). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of influenza vaccination of HCP remains low among the hospitals surveyed. Recommended practices may not be enough to reach 90% vaccination rates unless a signed declination requirement and consequences are implemented. Wearing a mask is a strong consequence. Demanding influenza vaccination as a condition of employment was not reported as a practice by the participating hospitals.