Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Dexamethasone as Adjuvants to Ultra-Sound Guided Interscalene Block in Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Interscalene block is one of the popular methods for decreasing pain and analgesic consumption after shoulder arthroscopic surgeries. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to compare the analgesic duration of effects of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to 0.5% ropivacaine in ultrasound-guided interscalene blocks for arthroscopic shoulder surgery in an ambulatory setting. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 117 adult patients candidate for ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia were divided into three groups to perform an ultra-sound guided interscalene block before the surgery. The ropivacaine (control) group received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL, group Dexamethasone received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL plus 4mg dexamethasone, and group dexmedetomidine received ropivacaine 0.5% 20 mL plus 75 mcg of dexmedetomidine. Time to return of sensory function, of motor function, of first pain sensation, amount of opioid medication consumed at 24 hours and 48 hours post-operatively were measured. RESULTS: The 24-hour median (25th- 75th percentile) opioid consumption in morphine equivalents was similar between groups 22.5 mg (10 - 30), 15 mg (0 - 30), and 15 mg (0 - 20.6) in the ropivacaine, dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone groups, respectively (P = 0.130). The median (25th- 75th percentile) 48 hours post-operatively, the median opioid consumption in morphine equivalents was 40 mg (25 - 67.5) in the ropivacaine group, 30 mg (22 - 50.6) in the dexamethasone group, and 52.5 mg (30 - 75) in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.278). The median 24-hour pain scores were 6 (5 - 8) in the ropivacaine control group, 7 (5.5 - 8) in the dexamethasone group, and 7 (4 - 9) in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.573). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in opioid consumption at 24 and 48 hours post-operatively when comparing dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, and no adjuvant. However, intraoperative opioid use was significantly lower with dexmedetomidine compared to dexamethasone and plain 0.5% ropivacaine. The safe side effect profile of dexmedetomidine makes it a reasonable alternative as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve blockade when dexamethasone use may be contraindicated.

Considerations for Epidural Blood Patch and Other Postdural Puncture Headache Treatments in Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: A primary concern in the use of EBP in these patients is the possibility of seeding the virus in the CNS. Another important concern is related to the known hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 positive patients and associated organ dysfunction that may alter the metabolism of anticoagulants. The safety of the providers performing the EBP, the position of the patient and choices for image guidance (blind, fluoroscopic) are also key considerations to review. It is also important to explore the current state of knowledge about using allogenic instead of autologous blood as well as emerging techniques to eliminate the coronavirus from the blood. OBJECTIVES: In this article we pose the questions of how to manage PDPH in the COVID-19 positive patient and more specifically, the use of epidural blood patch (EBP). METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: EBP is usually considered after the failure of conservative and pharmacological treatments. Because of the additional risks of EBP in COVID-19 patients it is important to also consider less traditional pharmacological treatments such as theophylinnes and cosyntropin that may offer some additional benefit for COVID-19 patient. Finally, other interventions other than EBP should also be considered including occipital nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks (infratemporal or transnasal). LIMITATIONS: A narrative review with paucity of literature. CONCLUSION: Going forward, an effective treatment for COVID-19 or a safe vaccine and a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of the virus will certainly change the risk calculus involved in performing an EBP in a COVID-19 patient.

Evaluation of the safety of arteriovenous fistula creation surgery in ambulatory versus inpatient hospital setting.

Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation surgeries necessary for dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease have traditionally been performed in inpatient settings under general anesthesia. Although more recent studies have demonstrated that these surgeries can be safely performed in outpatient centers with low postoperative complication rates, a direct comparison to surgeries performed in inpatient settings has not been investigated. This study sought to directly compare the rate of complications and postoperative mortality in AVF creation surgeries performed in outpatient and inpatient surgical centers. This multicenter retrospective study recorded emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient admissions, and mortality following 179 outpatient and 146 inpatient AVF surgeries in 2015 and 2016. Rates of mortality at 30 days and ED visits and inpatient admissions at 24-h and seven-day time points were compared in inpatient and outpatient groups. Following outpatient and inpatient surgeries, the rates of inpatient admissions in seven days were 0.685% and 4.47%, respectively, and the rates of ED visits in seven days were 1.37% and 3.91%. There were no mortalities in either group in 30 days. There was no difference between groups in the rate of ED visits within seven days or hospital visits within 24 h. There was a significantly lower rate of admissions (P = 0.0386) and total hospital visits (P = 0.0131) within seven days for outpatient surgeries. This study provides a direct comparison of postoperative complications in inpatient and outpatient AVF surgeries, further suggesting that providers can safely perform AVF surgeries in ambulatory centers.

Comparison of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with stress nuclear perfusion for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance (stress CMR) vs stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain. BACKGROUND: SPECT imaging is the most utilized outpatient procedure in the United States. The diagnostic accuracy of SPECT can be limited by soft tissue attenuation and low spatial resolution. Stress CMR has much higher spatial resolution and without the susceptibility to soft tissue attenuation. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients without a history of CAD presenting to the ED with chest pain were prospectively enrolled. Patients underwent both stress CMR and stress SPECT imaging within 12 hours of presentation. Both the stress imaging tests were interpreted immediately for clinical purposes and coronary angiography was performed if either was abnormal. Patients were considered to have significant CAD if identified by angiography (≥50%) or if a cardiac event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction or revascularization) occurred during follow-up (mean 2.6 ± 1.1 years). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were referred for coronary angiography; 29 due to a positive stress test and eight patients for persistent chest pain despite two negative stress tests. There were 22 patients who had significant CAD (≥50%). The remaining patients were followed for 2.6 ± 1.1 years. At the conclusion of the follow-up period, there were four clinical events. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CMR are 85%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of stress SPECT are 84%, 91%, and 88%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Stress CMR has similar diagnostic accuracy as stress SPECT in diagnosis of CAD.