Eficacia de la analgesia peridural continua con bupivacaína y fentanilo en la cirugía de colon / Efficacy of continuous peridural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl in colon surgery

Introducción: En la cirugía de colon se persigue lograr una recuperación acelerada y se debate el método analgésico más ventajoso. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia analgésica de la infusión continua peridural con bupivacaína y fentanilo frente a la analgesia parenteral en este tipo de intervención. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio cuasi-experimental, prospectivo y longitudinal, en 30 pacientes operados de colon entre agosto 2018 agosto 2019 en el Hospital Militar Central Dr. Carlos J. Finlay; divididos de forma no aleatoria en grupo analgesia peridural y grupo analgesia multimodal endovenosa. Resultados: La demora en despertar y extubar en el grupo peridural fue inferior (1,6-1,8 min) a los 4,9-5,0 min en el multimodal, igual ocurrió con la estadía en Unidad Cuidados Intensivos Quirúrgicos y hospitalaria aunque con discreta diferencia. El 60 por ciento de los pacientes en el grupo peridural presentaron ruidos hidroaéreos en las primeras 24 h y el 80 por ciento expulsó gases a las 48 h o antes, con marcada diferencia del multimodal. La analgesia fue buena en ambos grupos, valores de escala visual análoga inferiores en el grupo peridural, solo el 13,3 por ciento necesitó dosis rescate frente al 26,7 por ciento en el multimodal. Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron hipotensión (23,3 por ciento) y bradicardia (10 por ciento), sin diferencias entre grupos. La analgesia aceleró la recuperación en el 87,5 por ciento de los casos en el grupo peridural superior al 76 por ciento del grupo multimodal. Conclusiones: La analgesia peridural continua con bupivacaína y fentanilo es más eficaz que la analgesia multimodal endovenosa en la cirugía de colon y acelera la recuperación posoperatoria(AU)

Introduction: In colon surgery, accelerated recovery is pursued and the most advantageous analgesic method is still under debate. Objective: To compare the analgesic efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with bupivacaine and fentanyl versus parenteral analgesia in this type of operation. Methods: A quasiexperimental, prospective and longitudinal study was carried out with thirty patients who underwent colon surgery, between August 2018 and August 2019 at Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Central Military Hospital, nonrandomly divided into an epidural analgesia group and a multimodal intravenous analgesia group. Results: The awakening and extubation time in the epidural group was lower (1.6 -1.8 min) than the 4.9 to 5.0 min for the multimodal group. The same happened with intensive care unit and hospital stay, although with a discrete difference. 60 percent of the patients from the epidural group presented hydroaerial noise within the first 24 hours and 80 percent expelled gasses at 48 hours or earlier, with a marked difference in the multimodal group. Analgesia was good in both groups, with lower visual analog scale values in the peridural group; only 13.3 percent required rescue doses compared to 26.7 percent in the multimodal group. The most frequent complications were hypotension (23.3 percent ) and bradycardia (10 percent ), without differences between groups. Analgesia accelerated recovery for 87.5 percent of cases in the epidural group, compared to 76 percent in the multimodal group. Conclusions: Continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl is more effective than multimodal intravenous analgesia in colon surgery and accelerates postoperative recovery(AU)

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]. / Kritische Ereignisse in der Akutschmerztherapie ­ eine Risikoanalyse von CIRS-Meldungen.

BACKGROUND: Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found. CONCLUSION: Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.

A model for predicting unscheduled caesarean section in nulliparae.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to analyze the predictors of unplanned cesarean section in nulliparae. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Institute for the Care of Mother and Child in Prague. METHODS: This study consisted of nulliparae giving birth between the 37th and 42nd weeks of singleton low-risk pregnancy, with the fetus in vertex position and without primary indication for CS. Selected prenatal and intranatal factors were analyzed in relation to acute CS due to a failure to progress in labor and/or fetal distress. Using logistic regression analysis (LR1-3) and the classification tree method (chi-square automatic interaction detector 1-2), five prediction models were tested. RESULTS: Of 3,728 nulliparae, 908 (24.4%) had an acute CS. All logistic regression models were comparable (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) 0.837-0.0881) and identified the occiput posterior position (OPP) of the fetus, maternal age, and epidural analgesia as the most influential risk factors. Spontaneous onset of labor, oxytocin administration, and maternal body height decreased are likely indicated for acute CS. The ability to predict a vaginal delivery was 95.7-96.3% and CS was 58.5-61.8%. The classification tree method (ROC 0.860-0.861) identified similar risk factors such as the OPP, peridural analgesia, and spontaneous onset of labor. The prediction abilities were similar at 94.5-96.4% for vaginal delivery and 64.6-59.0% for CS. CONCLUSION: OPP of the fetus was the strongest risk factor for the unsuccessful trial of vaginal labor.

Peridural analgesia does not impact survival in patients after colon cancer resection: a retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the putative impact of peridural analgesia on oncological outcome in patients undergoing resection of stages I-IV colon cancer. METHODS: In a single-center study, 876 patients undergoing resection for primary colon cancer (AJCC stages I-IV) between 2001 and 2014 were analyzed. Mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 4.2 ± 3.5 years. Patients who did and did not receive peridural analgesia were compared using Cox regression and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 208 patients (23.7%) received peridural analgesia. Patients' characteristics were biased with regard to the use of peridural analgesia (propensity score 0.296 ± 0.129 vs. 0.219 ± 0.108, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the use of peridural analgesia had no impact on overall (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11, p = 0.175), cancer-specific (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48-1.09, p = 0.111), and disease-free survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.19, p = 0.430). The 5-year overall survival after propensity score matching was 60.9% (95% CI 54.8-67.7%) for patients treated with peridural analgesia compared with 54.1% (95% CI 49.5-59.1%) for patients not treated with peridural analgesia. Cancer-specific and disease-free survival showed similar non-significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Peridural analgesia in patients after colon cancer resection was not associated with a better oncological outcome after risk adjusting in multivariable Cox regression and propensity score analyses. Hence, oncological outcome should not serve as a reason for the use of peridural analgesia in patients with colon cancer.

Analgesia peridural torácica para el alivio del dolor posoperatorio en la cirugía torácica / Thoracic epidural analgesia for the relief of postoperative pain in thoracic surgery

Introducción: El dolor posoperatorio es un fenómeno observado con elevada frecuencia y constituye uno de los retos más importantes en el ámbito quirúrgico. Objetivo: Describir los resultados clínicos y hemodinámicos obtenidos con la utilización de anestesia peridural torácica alta como técnica analgésica durante el período posoperatorio en los pacientes intervenidos de tórax. Método: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo, longitudinal, prospectivo en el Hospital Abel Santamaría Cuadrado, entre enero de 2014 y enero de 2017. La muestra estuvo conformada por 37 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión y exclusión. Resultados: Predominaron los valores normales en los que no presentaron dolor posoperatorio, con 33 ± 5,23 y 33 ± 7,86 respectivamente. Se calculó una media de saturación de oxígeno de 99,48 por ciento y frecuencia respiratoria de 16 res/min. Se evidenció que 31 pacientes (83,78 por ciento) no presentaron complicaciones posoperatorias secundarias a la técnica analgésica. En la mayoría no fue necesaria la analgesia de rescate, elemento que representó el 89,19 por ciento. Resultó significativo que 32 pacientes (86,49 por ciento), manifestaron encontrarse satisfechos con el proceder y los resultados alcanzados. Conclusiones: La aplicación de la peridural con morfina para cirugía de tórax arrojó resultados muy efectivos como método analgésico con adecuada estabilidad, mínimas complicaciones requerimientos de rescate analgésico, lo que propició satisfacción por los pacientes(AU)

Introduction: Postoperative pain is a phenomenon that appears frequently and constitutes one of the most important challenges in the surgical field. Objective: To describe the clinical and hemodynamic results obtained with the use of high thoracic epidural as analgesic technique during the postoperative period in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Method: A descriptive, longitudinal, prospective study was carried out in Abel Santamaría Cuadrado Hospital, during the period between January 2014 and January 2017. The sample consisted of 37 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: In blood pressure and heart rate according to analgesic response, normal values prevailed in those without postoperative pain, with 33 ± 5.23 and 33 ± 7.86 respectively. A mean of oxygen saturation of 99.48 percent and respiratory rate of 16 res/min were calculated. It was evidenced that 31 patients (83.78 percent) did not present postoperative complications after the analgesic technique. In the majority, rescue analgesia was not necessary, an element that represented 89.19 percent. It was significant that 32 patients (86.49 percent) said they were satisfied with the procedure and the results achieved. Conclusions: The application of peridural with morphine for thoracic surgery yielded very effective results as an analgesic method with adequate stability, minimal complications and analgesic rescue requirements, which led to patient satisfaction(AU)