Loss-of-Resistance Versus Dynamic Pressure-Sensing Technology for Successful Placement of Thoracic Epidural Catheters: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The traditional loss-of-resistance (LOR) technique for thoracic epidural catheter placement can be associated with a high primary failure rate. In this study, we compared the traditional LOR technique and dynamic pressure-sensing (DPS) technology for primary success rate and secondary outcomes pertinent to identifying the thoracic epidural space. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded superiority trial enrolled patients ages 18 to 75 years, scheduled for major thoracic or abdominal surgeries at a tertiary care teaching hospital. Anesthesiology trainees (residents and fellows) placed thoracic epidural catheters under faculty supervision and rescue. The primary outcome was the success rate of thoracic epidural catheter placement, evaluated by the loss of cold sensation in the thoracic dermatomes 20 minutes after injecting the epidural test dose. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, ease of catheter placement, the presence of a positive falling meniscus sign, early hemodynamic changes, and unintended dural punctures. Additionally, we explored outcomes that included number of attempts, needle depth to epidural space, need for faculty to rescue the procedure from the trainee, patient-rated procedural discomfort, pain at the epidural insertion site, postoperative pain scores, and opioid consumption over 48 hours. RESULTS: Between March 2019 and June 2020, 133 patients were enrolled; 117 were included in the final analysis (n = 57 for the LOR group; n = 60 for the DPS group). The primary success rate of epidural catheter placement was 91.2% (52 of 57) in the LOR group and 96.7% (58 of 60) in the DPS group (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference in proportions: -0.054 [-0.14 to 0.03]; P = .264). No difference was observed in procedural time between the 2 groups (median interquartile range [IQR] in minutes: LOR 5.0 [7.0], DPS 5.5 [7.0]; P = .982). The number of patients with epidural analgesia onset at 10 minutes was 49.1% (28 of 57) in the LOR group compared to 31.7% (19 of 60) in the DPS group ( P = .062). There were 2 cases of unintended dural punctures in each group. Other secondary or exploratory outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial did not establish the superiority of the DPS technique over the traditional LOR method for identifying the thoracic epidural space ( Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03826186).

A randomized comparison of loss of resistance versus loss of resistance plus electrical stimulation: effect on success of thoracic epidural placement.

BACKGROUND: Loss of resistance (LOR) for epidural catheter placement has been utilized for almost a century. LOR is a subjective endpoint associated with a high failure rate. Nerve stimulation (NS) has been described as an objective method for confirming placement of an epidural catheter. We hypothesized that the addition of NS to LOR would improve the success of epidural catheter placement. METHODS: One-hundred patients were randomized to thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) utilizing LOR-alone or loss of resistance plus nerve stimulation (LOR + NS). The primary endpoint was rate of success, defined as loss of sensation following test dose. Secondary endpoints included performance time. An intention-to-treat analysis was planned, but a per-protocol analysis was performed to investigate the success rate when stimulation was achieved. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis there was no difference in success rates (90% vs 82% [LOR + NS vs LOR-alone]; P = 0.39). The procedural time increased in the LOR + NS group (33.9 ± 12.8 vs 24.0 ± 8.0 min; P < 0.001). The per-protocol analysis found a statistically higher success rate for the LOR + NS group compared to the LOR-alone group (98% vs. 82%; P = 0.017) when only patients in whom stimulation was achieved were included. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of NS technique did not statistically improve the success rate for epidural placement when analyzed in an intention-to-treat format and was associated with a longer procedural time. In a per-protocol analysis a statistically higher success rate for patients in whom stimulation was obtained highlights the potential benefit of adding NS to LOR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03087604 on 3/22/2017; Institutional Review Board Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00039522, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption: G160273.

Epidural Versus Transabdominal Wall Catheters: A Comparative Study of Outcomes After Pancreatic Resection.

BACKGROUND: This study compared epidural analgesia with local anesthetic administration via transabdominal wall catheters (TAWC), to determine the effect on perioperative outcomes in pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open pancreatic surgery at Auckland City Hospital from 2015 to 2018 was undertaken. Data collected included patient demographics, type of perioperative analgesia, intravenous fluid and vasopressor use, length of high dependency unit stay, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent pancreatic surgery, of which 47 had epidural analgesia and 25 TAWC. The median age was 64 y (range 29-85). Failure of analgesia method occurred in 45% of epidural patients and 28% of TAWC patients (P = 0.209). There was no significant difference in volume of intravenous fluid given or need for vasopressors in the first 3 postoperative days, length of high dependency unit stay (median 1 d, P = 0.2836), rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula (32% versus 40%, P = 0.6046), postoperative complications (38% versus 20%, P = 0.183), or mortality (0.04% versus 0.04%, P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia and TAWC may have comparable perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Further randomized studies with a larger cohort of patients are warranted to identify the best postoperative analgesic method in patients undergoing pancreatic resection.

Difficulty in Advancing Flexible Epidural Catheters When Establishing Labor Analgesia: An Observational Open-Label Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While flexible epidural catheters reduce the risk of paresthesia and intravascular cannulation, they may be more challenging to advance beyond the tip of a Tuohy needle. This may increase placement time, number of attempts, and possibly complications when establishing labor analgesia. This study investigated the ability to advance flexible epidural catheters through different epidural needles from 2 commonly used, commercially available, epidural kits. METHODS: We hypothesized that the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheters will have a higher rate of successful first attempt insertion than the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheters for the establishment of labor analgesia. The primary outcome was a difference in proportions of failure to advance the epidural catheter between the 2 epidural kits and was tested by a χ2 test. Two-hundred forty epidural kits were collected (n = 120/group) for 240 laboring patients requesting epidural analgesia in this open-label clinical trial from November 2018 to September 2019. Two-week time intervals were randomized for the exclusive use of 1 of the 2 kits in this study, where all patients received labor analgesia through either the flexible epidural catheter "A" or the flexible epidural catheter "B." Engineering properties of the equipment used were then determined. RESULTS: Flexible epidural catheter "A," the single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter, did not advance at the first attempt in 15% (n = 18 of 120) of the parturients compared to 0.8% (n = 1 of 120) of the catheter "B," the multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter (P < .0001). Twenty-five additional epidural needle manipulations were recorded in the laboring patients who received catheter "A," while 1 epidural needle manipulation was recorded in the parturients who received catheter "B" (P < .0001). Bending stiffness of the epidural catheters used from kit "B" was twice the bending stiffness of the catheters used from kit "A" (bending stiffness catheters "A" 0.64 ± 0.04 N·mm2 versus bending stiffness catheters "B" 1.28 ± 0.20 N·mm2, P = .0038), and the angle formed by the needle and the epidural catheter from kit "A" was less acute than the angle formed from kit "B" (kit "A" 14.17 ± 1.72° versus kit "B" 21.83 ± 1.33°, P = .0036), with a mean difference of 7.66° between the 2 kits' angles. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of an inability to advance single-end hole wire-reinforced polyurethane catheter was higher compared to the use of multiorifice wire-reinforced polyamide nylon blend epidural catheter. Variation of morphological features of epidural needles and catheters may play a critical role in determining the successful establishment of labor epidural analgesia.

Intrathecal catheter use after accidental dural puncture in obstetric patients: literature review and clinical management recommendations.

If an accidental dural puncture occurs, one option is to insert a catheter and use it as an intrathecal catheter. This avoids the need for a further injection and can rapidly provide labour analgesia and anaesthesia for caesarean section. However, there are no recommendations for managing intrathecal catheters and, therefore, significant variation in clinical practice exists. Mismanagement of the intrathecal catheter can lead to increased motor block, high spinal anaesthesia, drug error, hypotension and fetal bradycardia. Care must be taken with an intrathecal catheter to adhere to strict aseptic technique, meticulous labelling, cautious administration of medications and good communication with the patient and other staff. Every institution considering the use of intrathecal catheters should establish a protocol. For labour analgesia, we recommend the use of dilute local anaesthetic agents and opioids. For caesarean section anaesthesia, gradual titration to the level of the fourth thoracic dermatome, with full monitoring, in a facility equipped to manage complications, should be performed using local anaesthetics combined with lipophilic opioids and morphine or diamorphine. Although evidence of the presence and duration of intrathecal catheters on the development of post-dural puncture headache and need for epidural blood patch is limited, we suggest considering leaving the intrathecal catheter in for 24 hours to reduce the chance of developing a post-dural puncture headache while maintaining precautions to avoid drug error and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Injection of sterile normal saline into the intrathecal catheter may reduce post-dural puncture headache. The level of evidence for these recommendations was low.

Rupture of an epidural filter connector during bolus administration of local anesthetic: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Epidural catheters are routinely placed for many surgical procedures and to treat various pain conditions. Known complications arising from epidural catheter equipment malfunction include epidural pump failure, epidural catheter shearing, epidural catheter connector failure, epidural filter connector cracking, and loss-of-resistance syringe malfunction. Practitioners need to be aware of these potentially dangerous complications and take measures to mitigate the chances of causing significant patient harm. We report on the complete breakage of an epidural filter connector during epidural bolus administration of local anesthetic by hand with a syringe. CASE PRESENTATION: A B. Braun Perifix® epidural catheter was placed in a 73-year-old male scheduled for radical prostatectomy. During the operation, a continuous infusion of local anesthetic was administered through the epidural catheter in addition to general endotracheal anesthesia. At the conclusion of surgery and after extubation, the patient endorsed incisional pain. The epidural filter connector broke in half as a bolus of local anesthetic was administered by hand with a syringe. The local anesthetic sprayed widely throughout the room as the fragmented epidural filter connector became a projectile object that recoiled and struck the patient. CONCLUSIONS: This incident placed the patient and surrounding healthcare providers at substantial risk for injury and infection from the fractured epidural filter connector becoming a projectile object and from the local anesthetic spray. The most plausible cause of this event was from a large amount of pressure being applied to the filter connector. This may have occurred by excessive force being applied by hand to the syringe, by the presence of a clogged filter, or by the catheter being kinked or blocked proximal to the filter. Being aware of this deleterious complication and potentially modifying existing epidural bolus techniques, such as using smaller syringes with less applied force and checking all epidural components vigilantly prior to and during bolus administration, can help anesthesia providers deliver the safest possible care to patients with epidural catheters.

Comparison of Programmed Intermittent Epidural Boluses With Continuous Epidural Infusion for the Maintenance of Labor Analgesia: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Programmed intermittent epidural boluses may improve the spread of local anesthetics compared to continuous epidural infusion, improving labor analgesia and obstetric outcomes. However, there are limited data from studies using commercially available pumps capable of coadministering programmed intermittent epidural boluses or continuous epidural infusion with patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Therefore, we performed this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the impact of programmed intermittent epidural boluses versus continuous epidural infusion on labor analgesia and maternal/neonatal outcomes. We hypothesized that programmed intermittent epidural boluses will result in lower patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption compared to that with continuous epidural infusion. METHODS: Following standardized initiation of epidural labor analgesia, women were randomized to receive 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 µg/mL fentanyl as 6-mL programmed intermittent epidural boluses every 45 minutes or continuous epidural infusion at 8 mL/h in a double-blind fashion with similar patient-controlled epidural analgesia settings in both groups. The primary outcome was patient-controlled epidural analgesia consumption per hour. Secondary outcomes included a need for physician interventions, patterns of patient-controlled epidural analgesia use, motor blockade, number of patients who developed hypotension, pain scores, duration of second stage of labor, mode of delivery, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: We included 120 patients (61 in programmed intermittent epidural boluses group and 59 in continuous epidural infusion group) in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia volume consumed per hour was not significantly different between the groups: 4.5 mL/h (3.0-8.6 mL/h) for the continuous epidural infusion group and 4.0 mL/h (2.2-7.1 mL/h) for the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group (P = .17). The Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate of the difference (95% CI) from the continuous epidural infusion to the programmed intermittent epidural boluses group is 0.9 mL/h (-0.4 to 2.2 mL/h). There were also no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes except for higher median (interquartile range) patient-controlled epidural analgesia attempts per given ratio per hour in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group (0.17 [0.10-0.30] vs 0.12 [0.08-0.18]; P = .03) and more motor block in the continuous epidural infusion group (those with Bromage score <5, 27.5% vs 50.0%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of our study, we did not find improved outcomes with programmed intermittent epidural boluses compared to continuous epidural infusion except for less motor block with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Future studies should assess whether smaller but clinically important differences exist and evaluate different parameters of programmed intermittent epidural boluses to optimize analgesia and outcomes with this mode of analgesia.

Use of a novel non-invasive respiratory monitor to study changes in pulmonary ventilation during labor epidural analgesia.

Measuring continuous changes in maternal ventilation during labor neuraxial analgesia is technically difficult. Consequently, the magnitude of pulmonary minute ventilation (MV) alterations following labor analgesia remains unknown. We hypothesized that a novel, bio-impedance based non-invasive respiratory monitor would provide this information. Furthermore, we sought to determine if an association between changes in MV and maternal temperature existed. Following calibration with a Haloscale Standard Wright Respirometer, the ExSpiron respiratory volume monitor (RVM) measured MV, respiratory rate (RR), and tidal volume (TV) in 41 term parturients receiving epidural analgesia. Simultaneously, maternal oral temperatures were recorded at pre-specified hourly intervals after epidural analgesia initiation until delivery. Cumulative MV changes were calculated as the integral of MV change over time: MV [Formula: see text], where T represents the time between epidural placement and variable measurement. The association between changes in MV and cumulative MV versus maternal temperature was determined by comparing patients whose temperature did or did not increase by ≥ 0.5 °C. After initiation of epidural analgesia, MV decreased by 11.1 ± 27.6% [mean ± SD] at 30 min, p = 0.006, and 19.8 ± 26.1% at 2 h compared to baseline (12.6 ± 7.3 L/min at baseline vs. 15.3 ± 6.3 L/min at 2 h, p < 0.001), Minute ventilation remained decreased at 4 h by 14.3 ± 31.4% (p = 0.013). The cumulative MV also decreased by 437 ± 852 L [mean ± SD], p = 0.009) at 2 h and by 795 ± 1431 L, p < 0.001) at 4 h following epidural analgesia initiation, compared to baseline. The association between changes in cumulative MV and maternal temperature following epidural placement was weak (R < 0.3); however, a decrease in MV at 30 min (p = 0.002) and cumulative MV at 2 h (p = 0.012) was observed in women whose temperature increased by at least 0.5 °C during labor. Our findings suggest that RVM can be a useful noninvasive technology to investigate pulmonary physiology during labor. The association between maternal MV and temperature change during labor analgesia deserves further investigation.Trial Registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02339389).

Do Epidural Catheter Size and Flow Rate Affect Bolus Injection Pressure in Different Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Regimens? An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen for labor analgesia remains unknown. Some studies indicate that better drug spread in the epidural space results from greater injection pressure; however, there is a lack of data regarding the maximum pressure generated by epidural bolus injection using different catheters and flow rates. METHODS: We evaluated the flow and pressure characteristics of 11 commonly used epidural catheters combined with 3 different infusion pumps that deliver epidural infusions according to the programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen. Pressure changes were measured over time at flow rates of 100, 250, and 400 mL·hour and with a bolus volume of 10 mL. To account for repeated measures, linear mixed models were used. Features were selected with a backward stepwise procedure continued until only statistically significant variables were left in the model. RESULTS: We performed 660 measurements. The mean maximal pressure generated during bolus injection ranged from 86 to 863 mm Hg for different flow rates and catheter designs. The interaction between flow rate and catheter gauge resulted in 1.31, 1.65, and 2.00 mm Hg of pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). Analyses including wire-reinforced catheters revealed a 1.16, 1.76, and 2.36 mm Hg pressure increase for 18G, 19G, and 20G catheters, respectively, per 1 mL·hour of increased flow rate (P< .001). In some cases, it triggered the occlusion pump alarm. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed in the in vitro maximum pressure value among the various catheter and flow rate combinations with a higher pressure value for wire-reinforced catheters used in the study. The optimal flow rate and epidural catheter combination may allow for delivery of the bolus with high flow rate without triggering the occlusion alarm.

The Migration of Caudally Threaded Thoracic Epidural Catheters in Neonates and Infants.

BACKGROUND: The migration of pediatric thoracic epidural catheters via a thoracic insertion site has been described. We assessed the migration of caudally threaded thoracic epidural catheters in neonates and infants at our institution. METHODS: The anesthesia records and diagnostic imaging studies of neonates and infants who had caudal epidural catheters placed during a 26-month period at our hospital were analyzed. Imaging studies were reviewed for changes in epidural catheter tip position. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients 1-325 days of age (median, 51 days; interquartile range, 39-78 days) and weights of 2.5-9.5 kg (median, 5 kg; interquartile range, 4.3-5.8 kg) met the study criteria. Fifty-four (64%) of the patients (95% CI, 52%-73%) experienced catheter migration of 1 or more vertebral levels (range, 3 levels caudad [outward] to 3 levels cephalad [inward]), and 23 (27%) of the patients (95% CI, 18%-38%) experienced catheter migration to the T4 level or higher. Migration of 2 or more vertebral levels occurred only in children who weighed <6 kg and were under 73 days of age. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural catheter migration occurs commonly in neonates and infants. Postoperative imaging is crucial to confirm catheter tip location after epidural catheter placement, as failure to assess catheter migration might result in suboptimal analgesia or other undesirable outcomes.

Optimal Timing of Removal of Epidural and Urethral Catheters to Avoid Postoperative Urinary Retention Undergoing Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is one of the most frequent complications of epidural anesthesia. This study aims to clarify risk factors of POUR and to estimate the appropriate timing of urethral catheter removal. METHODS: Between September and December 2014, a retrospective cohort study was conducted on 120 patients who underwent epidural anesthesia and major abdominal surgery. To observe trends in incidence of POUR, we analyzed the order and interval of removal of epidural and urethral catheters using Cochran-Armitage trend test. RESULTS: In this study, 40 patients were diagnosed with POUR (33.3%). Median removal of epidural catheters was 4 postoperative days in the POUR group and 3.5 postoperative days in the non-POUR group (p = 0.04). When the urethral catheter was removed before epidural catheter, incidence of POUR was comparatively greater (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences in surgical fields, operation approach, epidural catheter levels, or epidural opioid use. No patients had urinary tract infections. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that removal of urethral catheter before epidural catheter contributed to increasing trends in incidence of POUR. The optimal order and interval of removal of epidural and urethral catheters should be considered to avoid POUR after abdominal surgery.

Reducing breakthrough pain during labour epidural analgesia: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuraxial techniques are the current gold standard for labour analgesia, but are associated with up to 25% incidence of breakthrough pain. In this review, we aim to update clinicians on the latest research pertaining to the optimization of neuraxial labour analgesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Attempts to improve the efficacy and reliability of epidural analgesia while minimizing adverse effects have resulted in the rising popularity of combined spinal epidural and the dural puncture epidural (DPE). Recent studies have focused on determining the safety, efficacy, and optimization of the DPE technique.Another research focus is on the development of individualized therapy in which patients may titrate their own labour analgesia according to their varying requirements, possibly augmented with computer-aided feedback systems and automated mandatory bolus techniques that automatically adjust drug delivery to the patients' analgesic requirements. The addition of a risk-stratification model based on maternal, anaesthetic, and obstetric factors will facilitate early institution of individualized therapy to forestall breakthrough pain in higher risk patients. SUMMARY: Recent advances in combined spinal epidural, DPE, automated mandatory bolus, and individualized therapies have advanced our goal of providing effective labour analgesia that is titrated to changing analgesic requirements during labour and delivery and reducing breakthrough pain.

Epidural test dose in obstetric patients: should we still use it?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the application of a test dose after epidural catheter insertion in obstetrics has recurrently been associated with serious adverse events affecting both maternal and foetal outcomes, the question whether to test or not remains a controversial issue. RECENT FINDINGS: Present guidelines do not provide clear recommendations in this regard and several recent surveys indicate a heterogeneity in clinical routine. SUMMARY: Physiological alterations during pregnancy and labour restrict the use and also the validity of traditional test agents. Epinephrine is not appropriate to detect a vascular insertion in labour and the application of a local anaesthetic test dose may lead to dose-dependent fatal consequences should the catheter be intrathecal, due to an increased sensitivity in parturients. Given the current practice of opioid-amended-low-concentration epidurals, the waiving of a test dose results at worst in a failed epidural, a stark contrast to the potentially severe to fatal complications of a 'traditional' test dose. Hence, an originally preventive measure providing potentially more harm than the consequences of the situation aimed to prevent, should not be recommended. A simple fractionated administration of the initial analgesic dose seems reasonable though.

Thoracic epidural analgesia in donor hepatectomy: An analysis.

The purpose of this study is to analyze whether supplementation of general anesthesia (GA) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) for right lobe donor hepatectomy is a safe modality of pain relief in terms of changes in postoperative coagulation profile, incidence of epidural catheter-related complications, and timing of removal of epidural catheter. Retrospective analysis of the record of 104 patients who received TEA for right lobe donor hepatectomy was done. Platelet count, international normalized ratio, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase were recorded postoperatively until the removal of the epidural catheter. The day of removal of the epidural catheter and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also recorded. Any complication encountered was documented. Intraoperatively, central venous pressure (CVP), hemodynamic variables, and volume of intravenous fluids infused were also noted. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS statistical package, version 17.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL). Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation. A total of 90% of patients had mean VAS scores between 1 and 4 in the postoperative period between days 1 and 5. None of the patients had a VAS score above 5. Although changes in coagulation status were encountered in all patients in the postoperative period, these changes were transient and did not persist beyond postoperative day (POD) 5. There was no delay in removal of the epidural catheter, and the majority of patients had the catheter removed by POD 4. There was no incidence of epidural hematoma. Aside from good intraoperative and postoperative analgesia, TEA in combination with balanced GA and fluid restriction enabled maintenance of low CVP and prevention of hepatic congestion. In conclusion, vigilant use of TEA appears to be safe during donor hepatectomy. Living liver donors should not be denied efficient analgesia for the fear of complications. Liver Transplantation 24 214-221 2018 AASLD.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Clinical Efficacy of Multiport Versus Uniport Wire-Reinforced Flexible Catheters for Labor Epidural Analgesia.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled trial was to determine whether multiple ports improve the analgesic efficacy of wire-reinforced flexible catheters used for labor epidural analgesia (LEA). METHODS: Six hundred fifty laboring patients were randomized to receive epidural analgesia using either a multiport or uniport wire-reinforced flexible catheter. The primary outcome was analgesic success, defined as the incidence of adequate analgesia following the initial bolus given to initiate LEA. Secondary outcomes included the number of patients requiring clinician interventions during maintenance of LEA; anesthetic success, defined as the incidence of adequate anesthesia following the initial bolus given to establish surgical anesthesia for cesarean delivery; and maternal satisfaction with the overall quality of LEA. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in analgesic success at initiation of LEA between the uniport and the multiport wire-reinforced flexible catheter (93.6% vs 89.5%, respectively; difference of 4.1% [95% confidence interval, -0.4% to 8.5%]; P = .077). There was also no difference in the number of patients requiring clinician interventions during maintenance of LEA and in anesthetic success at the establishment of surgical anesthesia for cesarean delivery between the 2 catheter types. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple ports do not appear to improve the analgesic efficacy of wire-reinforced flexible catheters used for LEA.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Coagulation Profile Derangement After Liver Surgery: Implications for the Use of Epidural Analgesia-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic surgery is a major abdominal surgery. Epidural analgesia may decrease the incidence of postoperative morbidities. Hemostatic disorders frequently occur after hepatic resection. Insertion or withdrawal (whether accidental or not) of an epidural catheter during coagulopathic state may cause an epidural hematoma. The aim of the study is to determine the incidence of coagulopathy after hepatectomy, interfering with epidural catheter removal, and to identify the risk factors related to coagulopathy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter, observational database including patients over 18 years old with a history of liver resection. Main collected data were the following: age, preexisting cirrhosis, Child-Pugh class, preoperative and postoperative coagulation profiles, extent of liver resection, blood loss, blood products transfused during surgery. International normalized ratio (INR) ≥1.5 and/or platelet count <80,000/mm defined coagulopathy according to the neuraxial anesthesia guidelines. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between selected factors and a coagulopathic state after hepatic resection. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventy-one patients were assessed. Seven hundred fifty-nine patients had data available about postoperative coagulopathy, which was observed in 53.5% [95% confidence interval, 50.0-57.1]. Maximum derangement in INR occurred on the first postoperative day, and platelet count reached a trough peak on postoperative days 2 and 3. In the multivariable analysis, preexisting hepatic cirrhosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49 [1.38-4.51]; P = .003), preoperative INR ≥1.3 (OR = 2.39 [1.10-5.17]; P = .027), preoperative platelet count <150 G/L (OR = 3.03 [1.77-5.20]; P = .004), major hepatectomy (OR = 2.96 [2.07-4.23]; P < .001), and estimated intraoperative blood loss ≥1000 mL (OR = 1.85 [1.08-3.18]; P = .025) were associated with postoperative coagulopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Coagulopathy is frequent (53.5% [95% confidence interval, 50.0-57.1]) after liver resection. Epidural analgesia seems safe in patients undergoing minor hepatic resection without preexisting hepatic cirrhosis, showing a normal preoperative INR and platelet count.

Development and validation of a predictive risk factor model for epidural re-siting in women undergoing labour epidural analgesia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Epidural catheter re-siting in parturients receiving labour epidural analgesia is distressing to the parturient and places them at increased complications from a repeat procedure. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical risk factor model to predict the incidence of epidural catheter re-siting in labour analgesia. METHODS: The data from parturients that received labour epidural analgesia in our centre during 2014-2015 was used to develop a predictive model for epidural catheter re-siting during labour analgesia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors that were predictive of epidural catheter re-siting. The forward, backward and stepwise variable selection methods were applied to build a predictive model, which was internally validated. The final multivariate model was externally validated with the data collected from 10,170 parturients during 2012-2013 in our centre. RESULTS: Ninety-three (0.88%) parturients in 2014-2015 required re-siting of their epidural catheter. The training data set included 7439 paturients in 2014-2015. A higher incidence of breakthrough pain (OR = 4.42), increasing age (OR = 1.07), an increased pain score post-epidural catheter insertion (OR = 1.35) and problems such as inability to obtain cerebrospinal fluid in combined spinal epidural technique (OR = 2.06) and venous puncture (OR = 1.70) were found to be significantly predictive of epidural catheter re-siting, while spontaneous onset of labour (OR = 0.31) was found to be protective. The predictive model was validated internally on a further 3189 paturients from the data of 2014-2015 and externally on 10,170 paturients from the data of 2012-2013. Predictive accuracy of the model based on C-statistic were 0.89 (0.86, 0.93) and 0.92 (0.88, 0.97) for training and internal validation data respectively. Similarly, predictive accuracy in terms of C-statistic was 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) based on 2012-2013 data. CONCLUSION: Our predictive model of epidural re-siting in parturients receiving labour epidural analgesia could provide timely identification of high-risk paturients required epidural re-siting.

The retroneural approach: an alternative technique for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

BACKGROUND: Compared with other available injection techniques for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (LTFESIs), the traditionally performed subpedicular approach is associated with a higher risk of spinal cord infarction, a rare but catastrophic complication. PURPOSE: To assess the short-term efficacy of the retroneural approach for computed tomography (CT)-guided LTFESIs with respect to different needle-tip positions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 238 patients receiving 286 CT-guided LTFESIs from January 2013 to January 2016. Short-term outcomes in terms of pain relief were assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 min after. The needle-tip location was categorized as extraforaminal, junctional, or foraminal relative to the neural foramen. Additionally, the distance from the needle tip to the nerve root was measured. RESULTS: A mean pain reduction of 3.22 points (±2.17 points) on the VAS was achieved. The needle-tip location was extraforaminal in 48% (136/286), junctional in 42% (120/286), and foraminal in 10% (28/286) of the cases. The mean distance from the needle tip to the nerve root was 3.83 mm (±3.37 mm). There was no significant correlation between pain relief and needle-tip position in relation to the neural foramen. Therapy success was not dependent on the distance between the needle tip and the nerve root. No major complications were observed. CONCLUSION: In our population treated with LTFESIs, the retroneural approach was shown to be an effective technique, with no significant differences in pain relief following different needle-tip positions.

Observational Study Using Ultrasound to Assess Midline Labor Epidural Analgesia Placement and Analgesic Efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Labor epidural analgesia failure may relate to nonmidline placement of epidural catheters. We hypothesized that greater deviations of the epidural catheter insertion point from the ultrasound (US)-determined midline would be associated with less effective labor analgesia. METHODS: A prospective ethically approved cohort study was conducted. Fifty-two healthy average-sized women receiving labor epidural analgesia, inserted by the landmark technique, were approached after delivery. Immediately after removing the epidural catheter, we determined the epidural space midline using US and compared it to the epidural catheter insertion point and to the patient-identified midline (assessed by a pinprick in 1-mm increments). Correlations between the US midline-to-catheter insertion point distance and additional epidural local anesthetic requirements (primary outcome), pain verbal numeric rating scale scores (0-10) 1 hour after epidural insertion, and maternal satisfaction with analgesia were determined. The differences in distances were assessed by a Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant correlations between the US midline-to-epidural catheter insertion point distance and additional epidural local anesthetic requirements (R2 = 0.138; P = .33), pain verbal numeric rating scale scores 1 hour after the epidural (R2 = 0.121; P = .40) or maternal satisfaction (R2 = 0.085; P = .57). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean ± SD US midline-to-epidural catheter insertion point distance and patient-identified midline distances were 0.38 ± 0.31 and 0.35 ± 0.46 cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our laboring population, the hypothesis that nonmidline epidural insertion is associated with less-effective labor analgesia was not confirmed in this study cohort. We found minimal differences in distances between the US midline to epidural catheter insertion point and US midline to patient-identified midline.