A randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of ultrasound guidance versus nerve stimulation for lateral popliteal-sciatic nerve blocks in obese patients.

OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound guidance may decrease the procedural time for many peripheral nerve blocks compared to nerve stimulation, but these studies have generally excluded obese patients. This single-blinded randomized clinical trial was designed to compare procedural times and related outcomes for ultrasound- versus nerve stimulation-guided lateral popliteal-sciatic nerve blockade specifically in obese patients. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, patients with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m(2) who were scheduled for foot/ankle surgery and desiring a peripheral nerve block were offered enrollment. Study patients were randomly assigned to receive a lateral popliteal-sciatic nerve block under either ultrasound or nerve stimulation guidance. The patient and assessor were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was procedural time in seconds. Secondary outcomes included number of needle redirections, procedure-related pain, patient satisfaction with the block, success rate, sensory and motor onset times, block duration, and complication rates. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled and completed the study. All patients had successful nerve blocks. The mean procedural times (SD) were 577 (57) seconds under nerve stimulation and 206 (40) seconds with ultrasound guidance (P< .001; 95% confidence interval for difference, 329-412 seconds). Patients in the ultrasound group had fewer needle redirections and less procedure-related pain, required less opioids, and were more satisfied with their block procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that, for obese patients undergoing lateral popliteal-sciatic nerve blocks, ultrasound guidance reduces the procedural time and procedure-related pain and increases patient satisfaction compared to nerve stimulation while providing similar block characteristics.

A direct comparison of presenting characteristics of depressed outpatients from primary vs. specialty care settings: preliminary findings from the STAR*D clinical trial.

PURPOSE: No study has directly compared the clinical features of depression for patients entering clinical trials using identical enrollment criteria at primary care (PC) and specialty care (SC) settings. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (http://www.star-d.org) provides a unique opportunity to provide this comparison for patients with a major depressive disorder (MDD) requiring treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We report baseline data for the first 1500 patients enrolled in this trial involving 41 clinic sites (18 PC, 23 SC). Broadly inclusive eligibility criteria required that patients have a DSM-IV diagnosis of nonpsychotic MDD, have not failed an adequate medication trial during their current episode and score>or=14 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17). Primary outcomes included the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30) and the HAM-D17. RESULTS: Specialty care and PC patients had equivalent degrees of depressive severity (IDS-C30=35.8; HAM-D17=20.4). Specialty care patients were almost twice as likely to report a prior suicide attempt than PC patients (21% vs. 12%, P<.0001) and slightly less likely to endorse suicidal ideation in the past week (45.0% vs. 50.8%, P=.006). The only other distinguishing core symptoms were a slightly lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing depressed mood (95.2% vs. 97.7%, P=.032) or anhedonia (66.3% vs. 70.7%, P=.042, IDS-C30) and a lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing weight loss (IDS-C30). HAM-D17 results were identical. CONCLUSION: Depressive severity was not different, and symptomatic presentations did not differ substantially. Major depressive disorder is more similar than different among patients at SC and PC settings. Thus, similar clinical and research methods for screening, detecting and measuring treatment outcomes can be applied in both settings.