Intubation with vivasight double-lumen tube versus conventional double-lumen tube in adult patients undergoing lung resection: A retrospective analysis.

Objectives: The present study was designed to compare outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic surgery using the VivaSight double-lumen tube (VDLT) or the conventional double-lumen tube (cDLT). Design: A retrospective analysis of 100 patients scheduled for lung resection recruited over 21 consecutive months (January 2018-September 2019). Setting: Single-center university teaching hospital investigation. Participants: A randomized sample of 100 patients who underwent lung resection during this period were selected for the purpose to compare 50 patients in the VDLT group and 50 in the cDLT group. Interventions: After institutional review board approval, patients were chosen according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and we created a general database. The 100 patients have been chosen through a random process with the Microsoft Excel program (Microsoft 2018, Version 16.16.16). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint of the study was to analyze the need to use fiberoptic bronchoscopy to confirm the correct positioning of VDLT or the cDLT used for lung isolation. Secondary endpoints were respiratory parameters, admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalization, postoperative complications, readmission, and 30-day mortality rate. The use of fiberoptic bronchoscopy was lower in the VDLT group, and the size of the tube was smaller. The intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamics parameters were optimal. There were no other preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative differences between both groups. Conclusions: The VDLT reduces the need for fiberoptic bronchoscopy, and it seems that a smaller size is needed. Finally, VDLT is cost-effective using disposable fiberscopes.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Guidance for Improving Safety and Mitigating Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy is an important part of the pain treatment algorithm for chronic disease states. The use of this option is a viable treatment strategy, but it is inherent for pain physicians to understand risk assessment and mitigation. In this manuscript, we explore evidence and mitigating strategies to improve safety with intrathecal therapy. METHODS: A robust literature search was performed covering January 2011 to October 9, 2016, in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Biomed Central, Google Scholar, Current Contents Connect, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The information was cross-referenced and compiled for evidence, analysis, and consensus review, with the intent to offer weighted recommendations and consensus statements on safety for targeted intrathecal therapy delivery. RESULTS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference has made several best practice recommendations to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy through all phases of management. The United States Prevention Service Task Force evidence level and consensus strength assessments are offered for each recommendation. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal therapy is a viable and relatively safe option for the treatment of cancer- and noncancer-related pain. Continued research and expert opinion are required to improve our current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of intrathecal drug delivery, as this will undoubtedly improve safety and efficacy.