Transesophageal Echocardiography in Patients in Cardiac Arrest: The Heart and Beyond.

Point of care ultrasound involves different ultrasound modalities and is useful to assist management in emergent clinical situations such as cardiac arrest. The use of point of care ultrasound in cardiac arrest has mainly been described using transthoracic echocardiography as a diagnostic and as a prognostic tool. However, cardiac evaluation using transthoracic echocardiography might be challenging because of patient-related or technical factors. Furthermore, its use during pulse check pauses has been associated with delays in chest compression resumption. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) overcomes these limitations by providing reliable and continuous imaging of the heart without interfering with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In this narrative review we describe the role of TEE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 4 different applications: (1) chest compression quality feedback; (2) rhythm characterization; (3) diagnosis of reversible causes; and (4) procedural guidance. Considering its limitations, we propose an algorithm for the integration of TEE in patients with cardiac arrest with a focus on these 4 applications and extend its use to extracardiac applications.

How should dexmedetomidine and clonidine be prescribed in the critical care setting? / Como a dexmedetomidina e a clonidina devem ser prescritas no ambiente de terapia intensiva?

Cardiac, ventilatory and kidney management in the critical care setting has been optimized over the past decades. Cognition and sedation represent one of the last remaning challenges. As conventional sedation is suboptimal and as the sedation evoked by alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ("cooperative" sedation with dexmedetomidine, clonidine or guanfacine) represents a valuable alternative, this manuscript covers three practical topics for which evidence-based medicine is lacking: a) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation ("switching"): the short answer is the abrupt withdrawal of conventional sedation, immediate implementation of alpha-2 agonist infusion and the use of "rescue sedation" (midazolam bolus[es]) or "breakthrough sedation" (haloperidol bolus[es]) to stabilize cooperative sedation. b) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation in unstable patients (e.g., refractory delirium tremens, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, etc.): to avoid hypotension and bradycardia evoked by sympathetic deactivation, the short answer is to maintain the stroke volume through volume loading, vasopressors and inotropes. c) To avoid these switches and associated difficulties, alpha-2 agonists may be considered first-line sedatives. The short answer is to administer alpha-2 agonists slowly from admission or endotracheal intubation up to stabilized cooperative sedation. The "take home" message is as follows: a) alpha-2 agonists are jointly sympathetic deactivators and sedative agents; b) sympathetic deactivation implies maintaining the stroke volume and iterative assessment of volemia. Evidence-based medicine should document our propositions.

O manejo cardíaco, ventilatório e renal no ambiente de terapia intensiva tem melhorado nas últimas décadas. Cognição e sedação representam dois dos últimos desafios a vencer. Como a sedação convencional não é ideal, e a sedação evocada por agonistas adrenérgicos alfa-2 (sedação "cooperativa" com dexmedetomidina, clonidina ou guanfacina) representa uma alternativa valiosa, este artigo abrange três tópicos práticos para os quais há lacunas na medicina baseada em evidência. O primeiro deles é a mudança de sedação convencional para sedação cooperativa ("mudança"): a resposta curta consiste em retirada abrupta de sedação convencional, implantação imediata de infusão de um agonista alfa-2 e uso de "sedação de resgate" (bolos de midazolam) ou "sedação agressiva" (haloperidol em bolos) para estabilizar a sedação cooperativa. O segundo tópico é a mudança de sedação convencional para sedação cooperativa em pacientes instáveis (por exemplo: delirium tremens refratário, choque séptico, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo etc.), pois, para evitar a hipotensão e a bradicardia provocadas por desativadores simpáticos, a resposta curta é manter o volume sistólico por administração de volume, vasopressores e inotrópicos. Por fim, para evitar essas mudanças e dificuldades associadas, os agonistas alfa-2 podem ser sedativos de primeira linha. A resposta curta é administrar agonistas alfa-2 lentamente desde a admissão ou intubação endotraqueal, até estabilização da sedação cooperativa. Dessa forma, conclui-se que os agonistas alfa-2 são, ao mesmo tempo, agentes desativadores simpáticos e sedativos, bem como a desativação simpática implica na manutenção do volume sistólico e na avaliação persistente da volemia. A medicina baseada em evidência deve documentar esta proposta.

Como a dexmedetomidina e a clonidina devem ser prescritas no ambiente de terapia intensiva? / How should dexmedetomidine and clonidine be prescribed in the critical care setting?

RESUMO O manejo cardíaco, ventilatório e renal no ambiente de terapia intensiva tem melhorado nas últimas décadas. Cognição e sedação representam dois dos últimos desafios a vencer. Como a sedação convencional não é ideal, e a sedação evocada por agonistas adrenérgicos alfa-2 (sedação "cooperativa" com dexmedetomidina, clonidina ou guanfacina) representa uma alternativa valiosa, este artigo abrange três tópicos práticos para os quais há lacunas na medicina baseada em evidência. O primeiro deles é a mudança de sedação convencional para sedação cooperativa ("mudança"): a resposta curta consiste em retirada abrupta de sedação convencional, implantação imediata de infusão de um agonista alfa-2 e uso de "sedação de resgate" (bolos de midazolam) ou "sedação agressiva" (haloperidol em bolos) para estabilizar a sedação cooperativa. O segundo tópico é a mudança de sedação convencional para sedação cooperativa em pacientes instáveis (por exemplo: delirium tremens refratário, choque séptico, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo etc.), pois, para evitar a hipotensão e a bradicardia provocadas por desativadores simpáticos, a resposta curta é manter o volume sistólico por administração de volume, vasopressores e inotrópicos. Por fim, para evitar essas mudanças e dificuldades associadas, os agonistas alfa-2 podem ser sedativos de primeira linha. A resposta curta é administrar agonistas alfa-2 lentamente desde a admissão ou intubação endotraqueal, até estabilização da sedação cooperativa. Dessa forma, conclui-se que os agonistas alfa-2 são, ao mesmo tempo, agentes desativadores simpáticos e sedativos, bem como a desativação simpática implica na manutenção do volume sistólico e na avaliação persistente da volemia. A medicina baseada em evidência deve documentar esta proposta.

ABSTRACT Cardiac, ventilatory and kidney management in the critical care setting has been optimized over the past decades. Cognition and sedation represent one of the last remaning challenges. As conventional sedation is suboptimal and as the sedation evoked by alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ("cooperative" sedation with dexmedetomidine, clonidine or guanfacine) represents a valuable alternative, this manuscript covers three practical topics for which evidence-based medicine is lacking: a) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation ("switching"): the short answer is the abrupt withdrawal of conventional sedation, immediate implementation of alpha-2 agonist infusion and the use of "rescue sedation" (midazolam bolus[es]) or "breakthrough sedation" (haloperidol bolus[es]) to stabilize cooperative sedation. b) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation in unstable patients (e.g., refractory delirium tremens, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, etc.): to avoid hypotension and bradycardia evoked by sympathetic deactivation, the short answer is to maintain the stroke volume through volume loading, vasopressors and inotropes. c) To avoid these switches and associated difficulties, alpha-2 agonists may be considered first-line sedatives. The short answer is to administer alpha-2 agonists slowly from admission or endotracheal intubation up to stabilized cooperative sedation. The "take home" message is as follows: a) alpha-2 agonists are jointly sympathetic deactivators and sedative agents; b) sympathetic deactivation implies maintaining the stroke volume and iterative assessment of volemia. Evidence-based medicine should document our propositions.

[PECS I block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study]. / Bloqueio PECS I para analgesia pós­operatória em pacientes submetidos a mamoplastia de aumento: estudo randomizado, duplo­cego, controlado por placebo.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0-10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha<0.05). RESULTS: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23-5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13-4.37), 3.79 (2.93-4.64), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32-5.60), 4.00 (3.50-4.49), 3.93 (3.12-4.73), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

PECS I block for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study / Bloqueio PECS I para analgesia pós-operatória em pacientes submetidos a mamoplastia de aumento: estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, controlado por placebo

Abstract Background and objectives: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0 - 10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha < 0.05). Results: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23 - 5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13 - 4.37), 3.79 (2.93 - 4.64), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32 - 5.60), 4.00 (3.50 - 4.49), 3.93 (3.12 - 4.73), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively. Conclusions: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: O bloqueio PECS I foi descrito pela primeira vez para cirurgia envolvendo os músculos peitorais. Nenhum estudo clínico randomizado foi realizado em procedimentos envolvendo diretamente os músculos peitorais, como a mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Nossa hipótese foi de que o bloqueio PECS I diminuiria a dor pós-operatória nessa população. Método: Realizamos estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, controlado por placebo em mulheres submetidas à mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Realizamos o bloqueio PECS I com 0,4 mL.kg-1 de solução salina a 0,9% de um lado e bupivacaína (0,25%) do outro lado, sendo cada paciente seu próprio controle. Os escores da Escala de Avaliação Numérica (EAN) de dor (0 - 10) foram obtidos em repouso e durante movimento. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor em repouso 30 minutos após a chegada à SRPA. Para detectar uma diferença clinicamente significante de 50% na redução da dor, 14 voluntárias foram incluídas (poder de 90% e alfa < 0,05). Resultados: Na SRPA, três pacientes não apresentaram diferença na dor entre os lados, cinco relataram menos dor no lado do placebo e seis, menos dor no lado da bupivacaína. No grupo bupivacaína, os escores de dor em repouso aos 5, 30 e 60 minutos e 24 horas foram 4,89 (4,23 - 5,56; IC médio 95%), 3,75 (3,13 - 4,37), 3,79 (2,93 - 4,64) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente, enquanto no grupo placebo foram 4,96 (4,32 - 5,60), 4,00 (3,50 - 4,49), 3,93 (3,12 - 4,73) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente. Conclusões: O bloqueio PECS I em pacientes submetidas a mamoplastia de aumento não oferece melhor alívio da dor do que o placebo. Portanto, as indicações para bloqueio de PECS I na cirurgia de aumento de mama devem ser reconsideradas.

Pectoral nerves I block is associated with a significant motor blockade with no dermatomal sensory changes: a prospective volunteer randomized-controlled double-blind study.

PURPOSE: The pectoral nerves (PECS) I block, first described in 2011 for surgery involving the pectoralis muscle, has principally been used for breast cancer surgery. No formal evaluation of its differential motor- and sensory-blocking abilities has been reported. We hypothesize that the PECS I block will produce a motor block of the pectoralis muscles with diminished upper limb adduction strength as measured with a handheld dynamometer. METHODS: We conducted a PECS I block in a randomized placebo-controlled trial in six healthy subjects who received 0.4 mL·kg-1 of 0.9% saline (placebo) on one side and bupivacaine (0.25% with 1:400 000 epinephrine) on the other. We measured both upper limb adduction strength with a dynamometer and sensory skin levels over the thorax. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) adductor strength evaluated before the block was 119.4 (20.7) Newtons (N). After the PECS I block with bupivacaine, the mean (SD) strength of 54.2 (16.3) N was compared with 116.0 (30.4) N in the placebo group (difference in means 61.8 N; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8 to 95.8 N; P = 0.005), showing a 54.6% (95% CI, 43.6 to 65.6%) reduction in adductor strength. There was no difference in dermatomal skin sensory testing between the placebo and bupivacaine sides. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a PECS I block produces motor blockade as shown by reduced upper limb adductor strength without any overlying dermatomal sensory loss. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03040167) 2 February 2017.

Impact of thoracic epidural catheter threading distance on analgesia during the first 24 hours following thoracotomy: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine the impact of thoracic epidural catheter threading distance on analgesia quality after thoracotomy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 120 elective thoracotomy patients to a thoracic epidural catheter threading distance of 3, 5, or 7 cm (groups 3CM, 5CM, and 7CM, respectively). Epidural bupivacaine 0.1% with fentanyl 2 µg·mL(-1) was administered according to a standardized protocol. Epidural analgesia quality was assessed at 60 min and 24 hr postoperatively for four measures: incidence of non-functioning epidurals; numerical rating score (NRS) < 4 at rest, while coughing, and during wound palpation; cold perception at the wound site; and cumulative dose of analgesic medication used. Our primary hypothesis was that, compared to threading distances of 3 and 5 cm, a threading distance of 7 cm was not inferior at providing an NRS < 4 while coughing at 60 min postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of 25% (absolute value) being significant. RESULTS: The incidence of NRS < 4 while coughing at 60 min was 74% (29/39) in group 7CM compared with 68% (54/80) in the combined 3CM and 5CM groups (absolute difference 7%; 95% confidence interval -11 to 23; P = 0.29). At both 60 min and 24 hr, differences between groups were similar regarding the number of non-functioning epidurals, NRS < 4, and suppressed cold sensation. Analgesic doses were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a thoracic epidural catheter threading distance of 7 cm in the epidural space was not inferior to distances of 3 cm and 5 cm with respect to pain scores at 60 min postoperatively. This study was not powered to examine differences that could have clinical significance that were less than our a priori 25% non-inferiority margin.

Bedside ultrasound training using web-based e-learning and simulation early in the curriculum of residents.

BACKGROUND: Focused bedside ultrasound is rapidly becoming a standard of care to decrease the risks of complications related to invasive procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess whether adding to the curriculum of junior residents an educational intervention combining web-based e-learning and hands-on training would improve the residents' proficiency in different clinical applications of bedside ultrasound as compared to using the traditional apprenticeship teaching method alone. METHODS: Junior residents (n = 39) were provided with two educational interventions (vascular and pleural ultrasound). Each intervention consisted of a combination of web-based e-learning and bedside hands-on training. Senior residents (n = 15) were the traditionally trained group and were not provided with the educational interventions. RESULTS: After the educational intervention, performance of the junior residents on the practical tests was superior to that of the senior residents. This was true for the vascular assessment (94% ± 5% vs. 68% ± 15%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 26 (95% CI: 20 to 31)) and even more significant for the pleural assessment (92% ± 9% vs. 57% ± 25%, unpaired student t test: p < 0.0001, mean difference: 35 (95% CI: 23 to 44)). The junior residents also had a significantly higher success rate in performing ultrasound-guided needle insertion compared to the senior residents for both the transverse (95% vs. 60%, Fisher's exact test p = 0.0048) and longitudinal views (100% vs. 73%, Fisher's exact test p = 0.0055). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that a structured curriculum combining web-based education, hands-on training, and simulation integrated early in the training of the junior residents can lead to better proficiency in performing ultrasound-guided techniques compared to the traditional apprenticeship model.

Rapid sequence induction for appendectomies: a retrospective case-review analysis.

PURPOSE: Rapid sequence induction (RSI) with cricoid pressure is suggested to decrease the risk of aspiration of gastric contents. However, the effectiveness of RSI has been questioned, and the technique may lead to airway and hemodynamic complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of RSI use in patients with acute appendicitis, the types of drugs administered, and the occurrence of any complications. METHODS: After approval by the Ethics Committee, the charts of patients undergoing appendectomy in a one-year period were examined retrospectively. Information was retrieved on Mallampati airway evaluation, airway device used, preoxygenation, RSI, and drugs at induction. Reported complications were noted, including airway difficulties, hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 80 mmHg) and hypertension (>160 mmHg) in the 20-min period after induction. RESULTS: General anesthesia with tracheal intubation was used in 248 of 250 cases reviewed. The Mallampati airway evaluation, preoxygenation, and RSI were recorded as performed in 95, 94, and 81% of cases, respectively. Opioids, propofol, and neuromuscular blocking agents were given in 98, 98, and 99% of patients, respectively. Succinylcholine use was common (80%), with 96% of these patients receiving rocuronium precurarization. Difficult intubation with successful alternate technique was encountered in three patients (1.2%). Hypotension and hypertension occurred in 27% and 8% of patients, respectively. There were no documented cases of aspiration. Oxygen desaturation was mentioned in one case at induction and in three cases at emergence. CONCLUSION: An RSI with opioid, induction agent, and succinylcholine is the technique of choice for appendectomies at our institution. The frequency of airway complications is too low to recommend a change in practice.