Procedural sedation and analgesia versus nerve blocks for reduction of fractures and dislocations in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Methods: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random-effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups (P = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.78 to 1.69; I2 = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%-3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%-20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low.

Differential Effects of One Meal per Day in the Evening on Metabolic Health and Physical Performance in Lean Individuals.

Background: Generally, food intake occurs in a three-meal per 24 h fashion with in-between meal snacking. As such, most humans spend more than ∼ 12-16 h per day in the postprandial state. It may be reasoned from an evolutionary point of view, that the human body is physiologically habituated to less frequent meals. Metabolic flexibility (i.e., reciprocal changes in carbohydrate and fatty acid oxidation) is a characteristic of metabolic health and is reduced by semi-continuous feeding. The effects of time-restricted feeding (TRF) on metabolic parameters and physical performance in humans are equivocal. Methods: To investigate the effect of TRF on metabolism and physical performance in free-living healthy lean individuals, we compared the effects of eucaloric feeding provided by a single meal (22/2) vs. three meals per day in a randomized crossover study. We included 13 participants of which 11 (5 males/6 females) completed the study: age 31.0 ± 1.7 years, BMI 24.0 ± 0.6 kg/m2 and fat mass (%) 24.0 ± 0.6 (mean ± SEM). Participants consumed all the calories needed for a stable weight in either three meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner) or one meal per day between 17:00 and 19:00 for 11 days per study period. Results: Eucaloric meal reduction to a single meal per day lowered total body mass (3 meals/day -0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 1 meal/day -1.4 ± 0.3 kg, p = 0.03), fat mass (3 meals/day -0.1 ± 0.2 vs. 1 meal/day -0.7 ± 0.2, p = 0.049) and increased exercise fatty acid oxidation (p < 0.001) without impairment of aerobic capacity or strength (p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found lower plasma glucose concentrations during the second half of the day during the one meal per day intervention (p < 0.05). Conclusion: A single meal per day in the evening lowers body weight and adapts metabolic flexibility during exercise via increased fat oxidation whereas physical performance was not affected.

Preserving fertility in young women undergoing chemotherapy for early breast cancer; the Maastricht experience.

PURPOSE: We assessed the uptake of fertility preservation (FP), recovery of ovarian function (OFR) after chemotherapy, live birth after breast cancer, and breast cancer outcomes in women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Women aged below 41 years and referred to our center for FP counseling between 2008 and 2015 were included. Data on patient and tumor characteristics, ovarian function, cryopreservation (embryo/oocyte) and transfer, live birth, and disease-free survival were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for time-to-event analyses including competing risk analyses, and patients with versus without FP were compared using the logrank test. RESULTS: Of 118 counseled women with a median age of 31 years (range 19-40), 34 (29%) chose FP. Women who chose FP had less often children, more often a male partner and more often favorable tumor characteristics. The 5-year OFR rate was 92% for the total group of counseled patients. In total, 26 women gave birth. The 5-year live birth rate was 27% for the total group of counseled patients. Only three women applied for transfer of their cryopreserved embryo(s), in two combined with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) because of BRCA1-mutation carrier ship. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 91% versus 88%, for patients with versus without FP (P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Remarkably, most women achieved OFR, probably related to the young age at diagnosis. Most pregnancies occurred spontaneously, two of three women applied for embryo transfer because of the opportunity to apply for PGD.