Perioperative Management and In-Hospital Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum: A Multicenter Registry Report From the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia Improvement Network.

BACKGROUND: There are few comparative data on the analgesic options used to manage patients undergoing minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE). The Society for Pediatric Anesthesia Improvement Network was established to investigate outcomes for procedures where there is significant management variability. For our first study, we established a multicenter observational database to characterize the analgesic strategies used to manage pediatric patients undergoing MIRPE. Outcome data from the participating centers were used to assess the association between analgesic strategy and pain outcomes. METHODS: Fourteen institutions enrolled patients from June 2014 through August 2015. Network members agreed to an observational methodology where each institution managed patients based on their institutional standards and protocols. There was no requirement to standardize care. Patients were categorized based on analgesic strategy: epidural catheter (EC), paravertebral catheter (PVC), wound catheter (WC), no regional (NR) analgesia, and intrathecal morphine techniques. Primary outcomes, pain score and opioid consumption by postoperative day (POD), for each technique were compared while adjusting for confounders using multivariable modeling that included 5 covariates: age, sex, number of bars, Haller index, and use of preoperative pain medication. Pain scores were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. Opioid consumption was analyzed using a multivariable quantile regression. RESULTS: Data were collected on 348 patients and categorized based on primary analgesic strategy: EC (122), PVC (57), WC (41), NR (120), and intrathecal morphine (8). Compared to EC, daily median pain scores were higher in patients managed with PVC (POD 0), WC (POD 0, 1, 2, 3), and NR (POD 0, 1, 2), respectively (P < .001-.024 depending on group). Daily opioid requirements were higher in patients managed with PVC (POD 0, 1), WC (POD 0, 1, 2), and NR (POD 0, 1, 2) when compared to patients managed with EC (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate variation in pain management strategies for patients undergoing MIRPE within our network. The results indicate that most patients have mild-to-moderate pain postoperatively regardless of analgesic management. Patients managed with EC had lower pain scores and opioid consumption in the early recovery period compared to other treatment strategies.

A comparison of sensory and motor loss after a femoral nerve block conducted with ultrasound versus ultrasound and nerve stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the need for nerve stimulation when performing an ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral nerve block. We tested the hypothesis that the quality of a femoral nerve block (FNB) performed with US is equivalent to an FNB performed with US and nerve stimulation. METHODS: One hundred seven patients undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty were randomized to receive either a US-guided FNB (group US) or a US-guided FNB with nerve stimulation (group USNS). Thirty milliliters of bupivacaine 0.5% was injected in both groups. At 10, 20, 30, and 40 mins after block placement, blinded motor and sensory examinations were conducted. Secondary outcomes included time to perform the block, the number of needle redirections, and 24-hrs intravenously administered morphine equivalent consumption. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with either a partial or complete block. At 40 mins, 95.7% of the USNS subjects had a partial or complete sensory block of the femoral nerve (complete in 71.7% and partial in 24%) compared with 88.1% of US subjects (complete in 69% and partial in 19.1%; odds ratio, 2.97; P = 0.19). There were more needle redirections in group USNS (4.1 vs 1.1, P < 0.001), with a higher percentage of patients requiring 2 or more needle attempts (44.2% vs 18.9%, P < 0.01). The time to perform the block in group USNS was longer (188 vs 148 secs, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The addition of nerve stimulation to a US-guided FNB did not change preoperative block efficacy.

Ultrasound improves the success rate of a tibial nerve block at the ankle.

BACKGROUND: The tibial nerve provides the majority of sensation to the foot. Although multiple techniques have been described, there exists little evidence-based medicine evaluating different techniques for blocking the tibial nerve at the ankle. We hypothesized that an ultrasound (US)-guided tibial nerve block at the ankle would prove more successful than a conventional approach based on surface landmarks. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers were prospectively randomized into this controlled and blinded study. Each subject was placed prone, and one ankle was randomly assigned to receive either an US-guided tibial nerve block (group US) or a traditional landmark-based tibial nerve block (group LM). The subject's other ankle then received the alternate approach. All blocks were performed with 5 mL of 3% chloroprocaine. We evaluated sensory and motor blocks. A successful block was defined as complete loss of sensation to both ice and pinprick at 5 cutaneous sites. Secondary outcome variables included performance times, number of needle passes, participant satisfaction, and presence of any complications. RESULTS: At 30 mins, the block was complete in 72% of participants in group US as compared with 22% in group LM. At all times, the proportion of complete blocks was higher in group US. Ultrasound-guided blocks took longer on average to perform than traditional blocks (159 vs 79 secs; P < 0.001). There were more needle redirects in group US, with 8 subjects requiring 3 or more redirects versus none in group LM. Subjects preferred the US block 78% of the time (95% confidence interval, 52%-95%). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, US guidance results in a more successful tibial nerve block at the ankle than does a traditional approach using surface landmarks.

Ultrasound improves the success rate of a sural nerve block at the ankle.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: : During ankle block performance, anesthetizing the sural nerve is important for generating complete anesthesia of the lateral aspect of the foot. We hypothesized that an ultrasound-guided perivascular approach, utilizing the lesser saphenous vein as a reference, would prove more successful than a conventional approach based on surface landmarks. METHODS: : Eighteen healthy volunteers were prospectively randomized into this controlled and blinded study. Each subject was placed prone and the right ankle was randomized to receive either an ultrasound-guided perivascular sural nerve block (group US) or a traditional landmark-based sural nerve block (group TRAD). The subject's left ankle then received the alternate approach. The ultrasound technique relied on injecting local anesthetic circumferentially around the lesser saphenous vein. All blocks were performed with 5 mL of 3% chloroprocaine. We evaluated sensory block to ice and pinprick. Secondary outcome variables included performance times, number of needle passes, participant satisfaction, and presence of any complications. RESULTS: : At the midfoot position, testing at 10 minutes after block placement revealed a loss of sensation to ice in 94% (complete in 78% and partial in 16%) in the US group versus 56% in the TRAD group (complete in 28%, partial in 28%) (P <.01). Complete loss of sensation to ice persisted in 33% of the US group as compared with 6% in the TRAD group at 60 minutes (P <.05). A similar pattern was observed when the blocks were tested with pinprick. Ultrasound-guided blocks took longer to perform on average than the traditional blocks (mean difference of 102 seconds, P <.001). The ultrasound block was subjectively felt to be denser by 88% of the subjects (P =.001). CONCLUSIONS: : Ultrasound guidance using the lesser saphenous vein as a reference point results in a more complete and longer lasting sural nerve block than does a traditional approach using surface landmarks.

[Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha [activated] in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de drotrecogina alfa (activada) en el tratamiento de la sepsis grave en España.

INTRODUCTION: The PROWESS clinical trial has shown that treatment with drotrecogin alpha (activated) in patients with severe sepsis is associated with a reduction in the absolute risk of death compared with standard treatment. The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha (activated) versus that of standard care in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was drawn up to compare costs to hospital discharge and the long-term efficacy of drotrecogin alpha (activated) versus those of standard care in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain from the perspective of the health care payer. Most of the information for creating the model was obtained from the PROWESS clinical trial. A two-fold baseline analysis was performed: a) for all patients included in the PROWESS clinical trial and b) for the patients with two or more organ failures. The major variables for clinical assessment were the reduction in mortality and years of life gained (YLG). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per YLG. A sensitivity analysis was applied using 3% and 5% discount rates for YLG and by modifying the patterns of health care, intensive care unit costs, and life expectancy by initial co-morbidity and therapeutic efficacy of drotrecogin alpha (activated). RESULTS: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) was associated with a 6.0% drop in the absolute risk of death (p = 0.005) when all of the patients from the PROWESS trial were included and with a 7.3% reduction (p = 0.005) when the analysis was restricted to patients with two or more organ failures. The cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) was 13,550 euros per YLG with respect to standard care after analysing all of the patients and 9,800 euros per YLG in the group of patients with two or more organ failures. In the sensitivity analysis, the results ranged from 7,322 to 16,493 euros per YLG. The factors with the greatest impact on the results were the change in the efficacy of drotrecogin alfa (activated), adjustment of survival by initial co-morbidity and the application of discount rates to YLG. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) presents a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio compared with other health care interventions commonly used in Spain.

Coste-efectividad de drotrecogina alfa (activada) en el tratamiento de la sepsis grave en España / Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha [activated] in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain

Introducción: El ensayo clínico PROWESS ha demostrado que el tratamiento con drotrecogina alfa (activada) en pacientes con sepsis grave se asocia a una reducción del riesgo absoluto de muerte en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el coste-efectividad de drotrecogina alfa (activada), frente a tratamiento estándar, en el tratamiento de la sepsis grave en España. Pacientes y métodos: Se elaboró un modelo de análisis de decisión en el que se compararon los costes hasta el alta hospitalaria y la eficacia a largo plazo de drotrecogina alfa (activada) frente a tratamiento estándar de pacientes con sepsis grave en España, desde la perspectiva del financiador de los servicios sanitarios. La mayoría de la información para realizar el modelo se obtuvo del ensayo clínico PROWESS. El análisis basal fue doble: a) para todos los pacientes incluidos en el ensayo clínico PROWESS, y b) para los pacientes con 2 o más fallos orgánicos. Las variables principales de valoración clínica fueron la reducción de la mortalidad hospitalaria y los años de vida ganados (AVG). El coste-efectividad se expresó como coste por AVG. Se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad utilizando tasas de descuento del 3 y el 5 por ciento para los AVG y modificando los patrones de atención sanitaria, los costes de la unidad de cuidados intensivos, la esperanza de vida según la comorbilidad inicial y la eficacia terapéutica de drotrecogina alfa (activada).Resultados: El tratamiento con drotrecogina alfa (activada) se asoció a un descenso del riesgo absoluto de mortalidad hospitalaria del 6,0 por ciento (p = 0,005) cuando se incluyeron todos los pacientes del estudio PROWESS, y una reducción del 7,3 por ciento (p = 0,005) cuando sólo se incluyeron los pacientes con 2 o más fracasos orgánicos. El coste-efectividad de drotrecogina alfa (activada) fue de 13.550 euros por AVG respecto a placebo cuando se analizó el total de pacientes, y de 9.800 euros por AVG en el grupo de pacientes con 2 o más fallos orgánicos. En el análisis de sensibilidad, los resultados oscilaron desde 7.322 a 16.493 euros por AVG. Los factores que más influyeron en los resultados fueron la modificación de la eficacia de drotrecogina alfa (activada), el ajuste de la supervivencia según la comorbilidad inicial y la aplicación de descuento a los AVG. Conclusiones: El tratamiento con drotrecogina alfa (activada) presenta una relación coste-efectividad favorable en comparación con otras intervenciones sanitarias comúnmente utilizadas en España (AU)

The obesity epidemic in the United States.

We describe the epidemic of obesity in the United States: escalating rates of obesity in both adults and children, and why these qualify as an epidemic; disparities in overweight and obesity by race/ethnicity and sex, and the staggering health and economic consequences of obesity. Physical activity contributes to the epidemic as explained by new patterns of physical activity in adults and children. Changing patterns of food consumption, such as rising carbohydrate intake--particularly in the form of soda and other foods containing high fructose corn syrup--also contribute to obesity. We present as a central concept, the food environment--the contexts within which food choices are made--and its contribution to food consumption: the abundance and ubiquity of certain types of foods over others; limited food choices available in certain settings, such as schools; the market economy of the United States that exposes individuals to many marketing/advertising strategies. Advertising tailored to children plays an important role.