The safety of thoracic paravertebral block and erector spinae plane block in patients treated with anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. A narrative review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: The management of thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and erector spine plane block (ESPB) in patients treated with anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy is based on limited clinical data, mostly from single case reports. Scientific societies and organizations do not provide strong detailed indications about the limitations of these regional anesthesia techniques in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. This review summarizes evidence regarding TPVB and ESPB in patients under antithrombotic therapy. EVIDENCE ACQUSITION: A literature review from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases was conducted from 1999 to 2022 to identify articles concerning TPVB and ESPB for cardio-thoracic surgery or thoracic procedures in patients under anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 1704 articles were identified from the initial search. After removing duplicates and not-pertinent articles, 15 articles were analyzed. The results demonstrated a low risk of bleeding for TPVB and minimal or absent risk for ESPB. Ultrasound guidance was extensively used to perform ESPB, but not for TPVB. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low level of evidence available, TPVB and ESPB are reasonably safe options in patients ineligible for epidural anesthesia due to antithrombotic therapy. The few published studies suggest that ESPB offers a risk profile safer than TPVB and the use of ultrasound guidance minimizes any complication. Since the literature available does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions, future adequately-powered trials are warranted to determine the indications and the safety of TPVB and ESPB in patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.

Efficacy of bi-level erector spinae plane block versus bi-level thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia in modified radical mastectomy: a prospective randomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative analgesia in breast surgery is difficult due to the extensive nature of the surgery and the complex innervation of the breast; general anesthesia can be associated with regional anesthesia techniques to control intra- and post-postoperative pain. This randomized comparative study aimed to compare the efficacy of the erector spinae plane block and the thoracic paravertebral block in radical mastectomy procedures with or without axillary emptying. METHODS: This prospective randomized comparative study included 82 adult females who were randomly divided into two groups using a computer-generated random number. Both groups, Thoracic Paraverterbal block group and Erector Spinae Plane Block group (41 patients each), received general anesthesia associated with a multilevel single-shot thoracic paravertebral block and a multilevel single-shot erector spinae plane block, respectively. Postoperative pain intensity (expressed as Numeric Rating Scale), patients who needed rescue analgesic, intra- and post-operative opioid consumption, post-operative nausea and vomiting, length of stay, adverse events, chronic pain at 6 months, and the patient's satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: At 2 h (p < 0.001) and 6 h (p = 0.012) the Numeric Rating Scale was significantly lower in Thoracic Paraverterbal block group. The Numeric Rating Scale at 12, 24, and 36 postoperative hours did not show significant differences. There were no significant differences also in the number of patients requiring rescue doses of NSAIDs, in intra- and post-operative opioid consumption, in post-operative nausea and vomiting episodes and in the length of stay. No failures or complications occurred in the execution of techniques and none of the patients reported any chronic pain at six months from the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both thoracic paravertebral block and erector spinae plane block can be effectively used in controlling post-mastectomy pain with no significant differences between the two blocks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (trial identifier NCT04457115) (first registration 27/04/2020).

Erector spinae plane block for perioperative pain management in neurosurgical lower-thoracic and lumbar spinal fusion: a single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Erector spinae plane block is a locoregional anaesthetic technique widely used in several different surgeries due to its safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to assess its utility in spinal degenerative and traumatic surgery in western countries and for patients of Caucasian ethnicity. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective lower-thoracic and lumbar spinal fusion were randomised into two groups: the case group (n = 15) who received erector spinae plane block (ropivacaine 0.4% + dexamethasone 4 mg, 20 mL per side at the level of surgery) plus postoperative opioid analgesia, and the control group (n = 15) who received opioid-based analgesia. RESULTS: The erector spinae plane block group showed significantly lower morphine consumption at 48 h postoperatively, lower need for intraoperative fentanyl (203.3 ± 121.7 micrograms vs. 322.0 ± 148.2 micrograms, p-value = 0.021), lower NRS score at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 36 h, and higher satisfaction rates of patients (8.4 ± 1.2 vs. 6.0 ± 1.05, p-value < 0.0001). No differences in the duration of the hospitalisation were observed. No erector spinae plane block-related complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Erector spinae plane block is a safe and efficient opioid-sparing technique for postoperative pain control after spinal fusion surgery. This study recommends its implementation in everyday practice and incorporation as a part of multimodal analgesia protocols. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the local ethical committee of Romagna (CEROM) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04729049). It also adheres to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the CONSORT 2010 guidelines.

Infection-Related Ventilator-Associated Complications in Critically Ill Patients with Trauma: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. Patients with trauma undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are at risk for ventilator-associated events (VAEs) potentially associated with a longer duration of IMV and increased stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the incidence of infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVACs), possible ventilator-associated pneumonia (PVAP), and their characteristics among patients experiencing severe trauma that required ICU admission and IMV for at least four days. We also determined pathogens implicated in PVAP episodes and characterized the use of antimicrobial therapy. RESULTS: In total, 88 adult patients were included in the main analysis. In this study, we observed that 29.5% of patients developed a respiratory infection during ICU stay. Among them, five patients (19.2%) suffered from respiratory infections due to multi-drug resistant bacteria. Patients who developed IVAC/PVAP presented lower total GCS (median value, 7; (IQR, 9) vs. 12.5, (IQR, 8); p = 0.068) than those who did not develop IVAC/PVAP. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that less than one-third of trauma patients fulfilling criteria for ventilator associated events developed a respiratory infection during the ICU stay.

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. CONCLUSION: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Description of an Integrated and Dynamic System to Efficiently Deal With a Raging COVID-19 Pandemic Peak.

Background: This study aimed to describe an innovative and functional method to deal with the increased COVID-19 pandemic-related intensive care unit bed requirements. Methods: We described the emergency creation of an integrated system of internistic ward, step-down unit, and intensive care unit, physically located in reciprocal vicinity on the same floor. The run was carried out under the control of single intensive care staff, through sharing clinical protocols and informatics systems, and following single director supervision. The intention was to create a dynamic and flexible system, allowing for rapid and fluid patient admission/discharge, depending on the requirements due to the third Italian peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021. Results: This study involved 142 COVID-19 patients and 66 non-COVID-19 patients who were admitted; no critical patient was left unadmitted and no COVID-19 severe patients referring to our center had to be redirected to other hospitals due to bed saturation. This system allowed shorter hospital length-of-stay in general wards (5.9 ± 4 days) than in other internistic COVID-19 wards and overall mortality in line with those reported in literature despite the peak raging. Conclusion: This case report showed the feasibility and the efficiency of this dynamic model of hospital rearrangement to deal with COVID-19 pandemic peaks.

Massive aspiration syndrome: a possible indication for "emergent" veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation?: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is usually performed in cases of severe respiratory failure in which conventional and advanced mechanical ventilation strategies are ineffective in achieving true lung-protective ventilation, thus triggering ventilatory-induced lung injury. If circulatory failure coexists, veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) may be preferred over VV-ECMO because of its potential for circulatory support. In VA-ECMO, the respiratory contribution is less effective and the complication rate is higher than in the VV configuration. CASE PRESENTATION: The authors present a case in which VV-ECMO was performed in an emergency setting to treat a 68-year-old White male patient who experienced acute respiratory failure after massive aspiration. Despite intubation and intensive care unit admission, multiple organ failure occurred suddenly, thus prompting referral to a level-1 trauma center with an ECMO facility. The patient's condition slowly improved with VV-ECMO support along with standard treatment for hemodynamic impairment. VV-ECMO was discontinued on day 8. The patient was extubated on day 14 and discharged home fully recovered 34 days after the event. CONCLUSIONS: Attention was focused on the decision to initiate VV-ECMO support even in the presence of severe hemodynamic derangement, although VA-ECMO could have provided better hemodynamic support but less effective respiratory support.