Role of cosyntropin in the management of postpartum post-dural puncture headache: a two-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that postpartum post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) might be prevented or treated by administering intravenous cosyntropin. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we questioned whether prophylactic (1 mg) and therapeutic (7 µg/kg) intravenous cosyntropin following unintentional dural puncture (UDP) was effective in decreasing the incidence of PDPH and therapeutic epidural blood patch (EBP) after birth. Two tertiary-care American university hospitals collected data from November 1999 to May 2017. Two hundred and fifty-three postpartum patients who experienced an UDP were analyzed. In one institution 32 patients were exposed to and 32 patients were not given prophylactic cosyntropin; in the other institution, once PDPH developed, 36 patients were given and 153 patients were not given therapeutic cosyntropin. The primary outcome for the prophylactic cosyntropin analysis was the incidence of PDPH and for the therapeutic cosyntropin analysis in exposed vs. unexposed patients, the receipt of an EBP. The secondary outcome for the prophylactic cosyntropin groups was the receipt of an EBP. RESULTS: In the prophylactic cosyntropin analysis no significant difference was found in the risk of PDPH between those exposed to cosyntropin (19/32, 59%) and unexposed patients (17/32, 53%; odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.98, P = 0.56), or in the incidence of EBP between exposed (12/32, 38%) and unexposed patients (6/32, 19%; OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.13, P = 0.095). In the therapeutic cosyntropin analysis, in patients exposed to cosyntropin the incidence of EBP was significantly higher (20/36, 56% vs. 43/153, 28%; OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.52 to 6.74, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show no benefits from the use of cosyntropin for preventing or treating postpartum PDPH.

Negative-pressure pulmonary edema with a patent airway.

Negative pressure is a rarely occurring cause of pulmonary edema. It has previously been reported only in the presence of a closed glottis or obstructed airway. A 64-year-old man with 74% body surface burn without any inhalation injury experienced acute pulmonary edema on hospital day 11 associated with high-minute volume and negative inspiratory pressures at the ventilator. The edema cleared after sedation and paralysis. Workup disclosed pulmonary emboli and normal cardiac-filling pressures. A mechanical model, simulating his breathing, measured intrathoracic pressure of -37 +/- 12 mm Hg, which is sufficiently negative to cause pulmonary edema despite a patent airway. Pulmonary emboli increased his respiratory drive to amounts greater than what the ventilator could deliver, thus leading to the large negative intrathoracic pressure and pulmonary edema.

Propofol-based versus fentanyl-isoflurane-based anesthesia for cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate drug costs, time of mechanical ventilation, complications, and hospital length of stay comparing propofol-based with fentanyl-isoflurane-based anesthesia. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized study. SETTING: A university-affiliated, tertiary care community hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy patients undergoing primary coronary artery bypass surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either a low-dose fentanyl-isoflurane or a lower-dose fentanyl-isoflurane anesthetic supplemented with a continuous infusion of propofol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fentanyl-isoflurane anesthesia was significantly less expensive ($50.03+/-$27.26 v $121.69+/-$31.40) for anesthesia drugs and ($58.08+/-$27.39 v $129.91+/-$31.52) for total drug costs. There was also a trend for patients in the fentanyl-isoflurane group to be extubated slightly sooner (388+/-202 v 449+/-252 min) and go home sooner (5.1+/-1.8 v 6.0+/-3.0 days). CONCLUSION: Fentanyl-isoflurane provides an inexpensive anesthetic that permits as prompt an extubation as propofol, thus conserving resources for other patients.