Trans-nasal sphenopalatine ganglion block for post-dural puncture headache management: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trans-nasal Sphenopalatine Ganglion (SPG) block over other treatments for Post-Dural Puncture Headache (PDPH) management. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on databases for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing trans-nasal SPG blockade for the management of PDPH over other treatment modalities. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model. Analyses of all outcomes were performed as a subgroup based on the type of control interventions (conservative, intranasal lignocaine puffs, sham, and Greater Occipital Nerve [GON] block). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: After screening 1748 relevant articles, 9 RCTs comparing SPG block with other interventions (6 conservative treatments, 1 sham, 1 GON and 1 intranasal lidocaine puff) were included in this meta-analysis. SPG block demonstrated superiority over conservative treatment in pain reduction at 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h after interventions and treatment failures with "very low" to "moderate" quality of evidence. The SPG block failed to demonstrate superiority over conservative treatment in pain reduction beyond 6 h, need for rescue treatment, and adverse events. SPG block demonstrated superiority over intranasal lignocaine puff in pain reduction at 30 min, 1 h, 6 h, and 24 h after interventions. SPG block did not show superiority or equivalence in all efficacy and safety outcomes as compared to sham and GON block. Conclusion: Very Low to moderate quality evidence suggests the superiority of SPG block over conservative treatment and lignocaine puff for short-term pain relief from PDPH. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021291707.

Dexmedetomidine versus clonidine as an adjuvant to local anaesthetic in brachial plexus blocks: a metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials

Abstract Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and Clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in BPBs. Methods: Two investigators independently searched databases to identify all RCTs comparing the efficacy and/or safety of dexmedetomidine and Clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in BPBs. All outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance method with a random-effect model. An I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. The source of heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Out of 123 full texts assessed, 24 studies (1448 patients) were included in the analysis. As compared to Clonidine, dexmedetomidine groups showed significantly longer sensory block duration (MD = 173.31; 95% CI 138.02-208.59; I2 = 99%; GRADE approach evidence: high); motor block duration (MD = 158.35; 95% CI 131.55-185.16; I2 = 98%; GRADE approach evidence: high), duration of analgesia (MD = 203.92; 95% CI 169.25-238.58; I2 = 99%; GRADE approach evidence-high), and provided higher grade quality of block (RR = 1.97; 95% CI 1.60-2.41 ; I2 = 0%; GRADE approach evidence: moderate). The block positioning technique (regression coefficient: 51.45, p = 0.005) was observed as a significant predictor of the heterogeneity in the case of sensory block duration. No significant difference was observed for the risk of hypotension (RR = 2.59; 95% CI 0.63-10.66; I2 = %). Conclusion: Moderate to high-quality evidence suggests dexmedetomidine is a more efficacious adjuvant to local anesthetic in BPBs than Clonidine.

The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelve-month clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled

Aims: The safety and performance of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) system(Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been previously established in 131 patients from cohort A andcohort B of the first-in-man ABSORB trial. Following this trial, ABSORB EXTEND was initiated as a globalcontinued access study (outside of the USA) to expand experience with the Absorb BVS system to differentgeographies with broader inclusion criteria to include the treatment of longer lesions and multiple vessels.We report in this manuscript the twelve-month clinical outcomes of the first 512 patients in this population.Methods and results: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study whichwill enrol up to 800 patients at up to 100 sites. Included are patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and referencevessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA or IVUS). Treatment of a maximum oftwo de novo native coronary artery lesions is permitted when each lesion is located in a different epicardialvessel. An independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. At one year, for thefirst 512 patients enrolled in the study, the composite endpoints of ischaemia-driven MACE and ischaemiadriventarget vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC defined definiteand probable scaffold thrombosis for this population was 0.8% at one year.Conclusions: This interim analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND study shows low rates of MACE and scaffoldthrombosis. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).

The ABSORB EXTEND study: preliminary report of the twelvemonth clinical outcomes in the first 512 patients enrolled

Aims: The safety and performance of the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (Absorb BVS) system(Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) has been previously established in 131 patients from cohort A andcohort B of the first-in-man ABSORB trial. Following this trial, ABSORB EXTEND was initiated as a globalcontinued access study (outside of the USA) to expand experience with the Absorb BVS system to differentgeographies with broader inclusion criteria to include the treatment of longer lesions and multiple vessels. Wereport in this manuscript the twelve-month clinical outcomes of the first 512 patients in this population.Methods and results: ABSORB EXTEND is a prospective, single-arm, open-label clinical study whichwill enrol up to 800 patients at up to 100 sites. Included are patients with lesions ≤28 mm in length and referencevessel diameter of 2.0-3.8 mm (as assessed by on-line QCA or IVUS). Treatment of a maximum of twode novo native coronary artery lesions is permitted when each lesion is located in a different epicardial vessel.An independent clinical events committee adjudicates all endpoint-related events. At one year, for the first512 patients enrolled in the study, the composite endpoints of ischaemia-driven MACE and ischaemia-driventarget vessel failure were 4.3% and 4.9%, respectively. The cumulative rate of ARC defined definite andprobable scaffold thrombosis for this population was 0.8% at one year.Conclusions: This interim analysis of the ABSORB EXTEND study shows low rates of MACE and scaffoldthrombosis. The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier NCT01023789).

Twelve-month outcomes with a paclitaxel-eluting stent transitioning from controlled trials to clinical practice (the WISDOM Registry)

The WISDOM Registry tracked clinical outcomes in patients receiving a slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent during the transition from randomized trials to commercial use in everyday interventional cardiology practice. Although randomized trialsof drug-eluting stents have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of these devices in less complicated, de novo lesions, observation of long-term clinical outcomes is required to monitor safety as use of this revolutionary technology expands to broader patient populations. In total, 778 patients were enrolled at 22 sites in 9 countries where the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent first received market approval. Patients with de novo or restenotic coronary lesions eligible for stenting were enrolled. Clinical follow-up was conducted bytelephone at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the procedure to capture reported stent thrombosis and major cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, and reintervention on the target lesion). Clinical follow-up at 12 months was completed for 92% of patients. The 12-monthrate of physician-reported major cardiac events was 5.2%, with a target lesion reintervention rate of 2.0%. The low overall stent thrombosis rate of 0.6% included no stent thromboses >30 days after the index procedure. Low target lesion reintervention rates were also observed in the high-risk subgroups: patients with diabetes (4.0%), vessels 20 mm (3.6%), and multiple stents in a lesion (1.4%). In conclusion, the paclitaxeleluting TAXUS slow-release stent exhibits long-term safety and efficacy in uncomplicated and higher risk patients and lesions seen in everyday clinical practice.