Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure to prevent anaesthesia-induced atelectasis in infants: A prospective, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric patients have a particularly high incidence of anaesthesia-induced atelectasis. Applying positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with an alveolar recruitment manoeuvre has been substantially studied and adopted in adults; however, few studies have been conducted in children. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effects of three levels of PEEP (3, 6 and 9 cmH2O) on anaesthesia-induced atelectasis measured by ultrasound in infants between 6 and 12 months of age who were undergoing general anaesthesia. DESIGN: A prospective, randomised, double-blind trial. SETTING: Department of Anaesthesia, single centre, South Korea, from May 2019 to March 2020. PATIENTS: Children who were 6 to 12 months of age, whose American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status was 1 or 2, whose height and weight were within two standard deviations of those of their peers, and who were scheduled for elective urological or general surgery were included in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the lung ultrasound score at the end of the procedure. The secondary outcomes included dynamic compliance, peak inspiratory pressure, driving pressure, cardiac index, mean arterial pressure and heart rate before and after applying PEEP. RESULTS: The mean lung ultrasound score at the end of operation was 12.8 at PEEP 6 cmH2O and 12.1 at PEEP 9 cmH2O. Both were significantly lower than 18.4 at PEEP 3 cmH2O (P = 0.0002 and 0.00003, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the scores of PEEP 6 cmH2O and PEEP 9 cmH2O. The Δ cardiac index (the cardiac index after PEEP - the cardiac index at 3 cmH2O of PEEP) was comparable among the three groups. CONCLUSION: To reduce anaesthesia-induced atelectasis measured by ultrasound in healthy infants undergoing low abdominal, genitourinary or superficial regional operations, 6 cmH2O of PEEP was more effective than 3 cmH2O. PEEP of 9 cmH2O was comparable with 6 cmH2O. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03969173.

Comparison of Monotherapy Versus Combination of Intravenous Ibuprofen and Propacetamol (Acetaminophen) for Reduction of Postoperative Opioid Administration in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Hernia Repair: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Extensive efforts have been made toward reducing postoperative opioid use in children. In this study, we assessed whether propacetamol, or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), or their combination could effectively reduce opioid use in children after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial included 159 children aged 6 months to 6 years. Children were allocated into 1 of the following 3 groups: group I was treated with 10 mg·kg-1 ibuprofen, group P was treated with 30 mg·kg-1 propacetamol, and group I + P was treated with both drugs in their respective concentrations. If the face-legs-activity-crying-consolability (FLACC) score was ≥4 during the postanesthesia care unit stay, 1.0 µg·kg-1 fentanyl was administered as a rescue analgesic. The number of patients who received rescue fentanyl in the postanesthesia care unit was defined as the primary outcome; this was analyzed using the χ2 test. The secondary outcomes included the FLACC and the parents' postoperative pain measure (PPPM) scores until the 24-hour postoperative period. RESULTS: Among the 144 enrolled patients, 28.6% in group I, 66.7% in group P, and 12.8% in group I + P received rescue fentanyl in the postanesthesia care unit (P < .001). The highest FLACC score was lower in group I + P than in either group I or P (P = .007 and P < .001, respectively). Group I + P presented significantly lower PPPM scores than group P at 4 and 12 hours postoperative (P = .03 and .01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ibuprofen plus propacetamol immediately following laparoscopic hernia repair surgery in children resulted in the reduced use of an opioid drug compared with the use of propacetamol alone.

Comparison of the effects of patient-controlled epidural and intravenous analgesia on postoperative bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical trauma compared to open surgery, postoperative ileus is a frequent and significant complication after abdominal surgery. Unlike laparoscopic colorectal surgery, the effects of epidural analgesia on postoperative recovery after laparoscopic gastrectomy are not well established. We compared the effects of epidural analgesia to those of conventional intravenous (IV) analgesia on the recovery of bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy. METHOD: Eighty-six patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrectomy randomly received either patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine and fentanyl (Epi PCA group) or patient-controlled IV analgesia with fentanyl (IV PCA group), beginning immediately before incision and continuing for 48 h thereafter. The primary endpoint was recovery of bowel function, evaluated by the time to first flatus. The balance of the autonomic nervous system, pain scores, duration of postoperative hospital stay, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: The time to first flatus was shorter in the epidural PCA group compared with the IV PCA group (61.3 ± 11.1 vs. 70.0 ± 12.3 h, P = 0.001). Low-frequency/high-frequency power ratios during surgery were significantly higher in the IV PCA group, compared with baseline and those in the epidural PCA group. The epidural PCA group had lower pain scores during the first 1 h postoperatively and required less analgesics during the first 6 h postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IV PCA, epidural PCA facilitated postoperative recovery of bowel function after laparoscopic gastrectomy without increasing the length of hospital stay or PCA-related complications. This beneficial effect of epidural analgesia might be attributed to attenuation of sympathetic hyperactivation, improved analgesia, and reduced opioid use.

Effect of perioperative sodium bicarbonate administration on renal function following cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with infective endocarditis (IE) have an elevated risk of renal dysfunction because of extensive systemic inflammation and use of nephrotoxic antibiotics. In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we investigated whether perioperative sodium bicarbonate administration could attenuate postoperative renal dysfunction in patients with IE undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: Seventy patients randomly received sodium chloride (n = 35) or sodium bicarbonate (n = 35). Sodium bicarbonate was administered as a 0.5 mmol/kg loading dose for 1 h commencing with anesthetic induction, followed by a 0.15 mmol/kg/h infusion for 23 h. The primary outcome was peak serum creatinine (SCr) level during the first 48 h postoperatively. The incidence of acute kidney injury, SCr level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and major morbidity endpoints were assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: The peak SCr during the first 48 h postoperatively (bicarbonate vs. CONTROL: 1.01 (0.74, 1.37) mg/dl vs. 0.88 (0.76, 1.27) mg/dl, P = 0.474) and the incidence of acute kidney injury (bicarbonate vs. CONTROL: 29% vs. 23%, P = 0.584) were similar in both groups. The postoperative increase in SCr above baseline was greater in the bicarbonate group than in the control group on postoperative day 2 (0.21 (0.07, 0.33) mg/dl vs. 0.06 (0.00, 0.23) mg/dl, P = 0.028) and postoperative day 5 (0.23 (0.08, 0.36) mg/dl vs. 0.06 (0.00, 0.23) mg/dl, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative sodium bicarbonate administration had no favorable impact on postoperative renal function and outcomes in patients with IE undergoing cardiac surgery. Instead, it was associated with possibly harmful renal effects, illustrated by a greater increase in SCr postoperatively, compared to control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01920126 . Registered on 31 July 2013.