Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Ambulatory Shoulder Surgery: A Population-based Cohort Study of Outcomes and Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Nerve blocks improve early pain after ambulatory shoulder surgery; impact on postdischarge outcomes is poorly described. Our objective was to measure the association between nerve blocks and health system outcomes after ambulatory shoulder surgery. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from 118 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Adults having elective ambulatory shoulder surgery (open or arthroscopic) from April 1, 2009, to December 31, 2016, were included. After validation of physician billing codes to identify nerve blocks, we used multilevel, multivariable regression to estimate the association of nerve blocks with a composite of unplanned admissions, emergency department visits, readmissions or death within 7 days of surgery (primary outcome) and healthcare costs (secondary outcome). Neurology consultations and nerve conduction studies were measured as safety indicators. RESULTS: We included 59,644 patients; blocks were placed in 31,073 (52.1%). Billing codes accurately identified blocks (positive likelihood ratio 16.83, negative likelihood ratio 0.03). The composite outcome was not significantly different in patients with a block compared with those without (2,808 [9.0%] vs. 3,424 [12.0%]; adjusted odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; P = 0.243). Healthcare costs were greater with a block (adjusted ratio of means 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10; absolute increase $325; 95% CI $316 to $333; P = 0.005). Prespecified sensitivity analyses supported these results. Safety indicators were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory shoulder surgery, nerve blocks were not associated with a significant difference in adverse postoperative outcomes. Costs were statistically higher with a block, but this increase is not likely clinically relevant.

An Effective Treatment for Heart Failure Caused by Valvular Heart Diseases: Thoracic Sympathetic Block.

BACKGROUND: The pilot study is designed to investigate the effect of continuous thoracic sympathetic block (TSB) on cardiac function, reconstruction, and hemodynamic parameters in patients with heart failure resulting from valvular heart disease. METHOD: The cardiac function parameters, including left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricle end-diastole diameter (LVEDD), fractional shortening (FS), and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), were measured in 19 patients before and after TSB treatment. The patients were also classified on the basis of NYHA classification system. RESULTS: 4 weeks of TSB administration improved cardiac function in 18 of 19 patients (94.74%). The patients' LVEF, LVEDD, and NT-proBNP were all improved significantly after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable clinical outcome of TSB administration suggests an alternative treatment for the patients with heart failure caused by valvular dysfunctions.

Predicting orthopedic surgeons' preferences for peripheral nerve blocks for their patients.

BACKGROUND: A 2002 survey of 468 Canadian orthopedic surgeons found that the "two principal reasons regional anesthesia is not favored" are "delays in operating rooms" and "unpredictable success." We reanalyzed the data from the study to evaluate whether these concerns were the best predictors of an individual surgeon's willingness to use peripheral nerve blocks for their patients. METHODS: Of the five procedures included in the survey, three had relevant questions for our reanalysis of the results: arthroscopic shoulder surgery, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and total knee replacement. RESULTS: A surgeon's preference for peripheral nerve block for him or herself strongly predicted his or her anesthetic preference for patients (all P < 0.001). Concordance rates were 89% for arthroscopic shoulder surgery, 87% for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and 93% for total knee replacement. There was almost no incremental predictive value for the surgeon's preference for patients from the surgeon's perception of the times to perform a block (P > or = 0.27) or perception of block success rate (P > or = 0.30). There was also almost no direct predictive value for the surgeon's preference for patients from the surgeon's perception of the times to perform a block (Kendall's tau < or = 0.04, P > or = 0.28) or perception of block success rate (Kendall's tau < or = 0.02, P > or = 0.24). An economically important percentage of surgeons (37%, 95% confidence interval: 32%-41%) would choose a peripheral nerve block for their own surgery for some, but not all, of the procedures (i.e., for 1 or 2 versus 0 or 3). CONCLUSIONS: A surgeon's preference for peripheral nerve blocks for his or her own surgery predicted a surgeon's preference for his or her patients. Perceptions of delays and success rate did not add sufficient incremental information to the surgeon's preferences to be of economic importance. These results are important to better forecast the net economic impact on an anesthesia group of a regional block team.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience.

OBJECTIVE: In our previous randomized trial, we suggested a possible role for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided celiac plexus block in the treatment of abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our prospective experience with EUS-guided celiac plexus block for controlling pain attributed to chronic pancreatitis, including follow-up on response rates and complications. METHODS: All subjects enrolled had documented chronic pancreatitis by ERCP and EUS criteria and presented with chronic abdominal pain unresponsive to current treatment options. All were treated with EUS-guided celiac plexus block under the guidance of linear array endosonography using a 22-gauge FNA needle (GIP, Mediglobe Inc., Tempe, AZ) inserted on each side of the celiac area, followed by injection of 10 cc bupivacaine (0.25%) and 3 cc (40 mg) triamcinolone on each side of the celiac plexus. Individual pain scores, based on a visual analog scale (0-10), were determined preblock and postblock by a nurse at 2, 7, 14 days and monthly thereafter. Subjects also rated their overall comfort level during the EUS procedure. RESULTS: EUS-guided celiac plexus block was performed in 90 subjects (40 males, 50 females) having a mean age of 45 yr (range 17-76 yr) between July 1, 1995 and December 30, 1996. A significant improvement in overall pain scores occurred in 55% (50/90) of patients. The mean pain score decreased from 8 to 2 post EUS celiac block at both 4 and 8 wk follow-up (p < 0.05). In 26% of patients there was persistent benefit beyond 12 wk, and 10% still had persistent benefit at 24 wk, including three patients who were pain-free between 35 and 48 wk. Younger patients (<45 yr of age) and those having previous pancreatic surgery for chronic pancreatitis were unlikely to respond to the EUS-guided celiac block. Three patients experienced diarrhea post EUS celiac block, which resolved in 7-10 days; however, it is unclear whether this diarrhea was due to the block or to refractory disease. A cost comparison between the EUS ($1200) and CT ($1400) techniques shows the EUS celiac block to be less costly and perhaps more cost efficient in a subset of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided celiac plexus block appears to be safe, effective, and economical for controlling pain in some patients with chronic pancreatitis. Younger patients (<45 yr) and those having prior pancreatic surgery for chronic pancreatitis do not appear to benefit from this technique. Prophylactic antibiotics should be considered if acid suppressing agents are being taken.