Comparison of the effects of transversus thoracic muscle plane block and pecto-intercostal fascial block on postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: There is an association exists between cardiac surgery, performed through median sternotomy, and a considerable postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study is to compare the effects of transversus thoracic muscle plane block (TTMPB) and pecto-intercostal fascial plane block (PIFB) upon postoperative opioid consumption among the patients who underwent open cardiac surgery. METHODS: The present prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted among 80 patients who underwent elective on-pump cardiac surgery with sternotomy. The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups with each group containing 40 individuals. For the TTMPB group, bilateral ultrasound-guided TTMPB was adopted in which 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was used on each side. In case of PIFB group, bilateral ultrasound-guided PIFB was adopted with the application of 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine on each side. The researchers recorded the first time for rescue analgesia, the overall dosage of rescue analgesia administered in the first 24 h after the operation and the postoperative complications. RESULTS: The PIFB group took significantly longer time to raise the first request for rescue analgesia (7.8 ± 1.7 h) than the TTMPB group (6.7 ± 1.4 h). Likewise, the PIFB group subjects had a remarkably lower 'overall morphine usage' in the first 24 h after the operation (4.8 ± 1.0 mg) than TTMPB group (7.8 ± 2.0 mg). CONCLUSION: Bilateral ultrasound-guided PIFB provided a longer time for the first analgesic demand than bilateral ultrasound-guided TTMPB in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. In addition to this, the PIFB reported less postoperative morphine usage than the TTMPB and increases satisfaction in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at Clinical Trials.gov on 28/11/2022 (registration number: NCT05627869).

Comparative study of dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl as adjuvants to bupivacaine in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a prospective randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is beneficial for pain management after conducting abdominal surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl, as adjuvants to bupivacaine, for ultrasound-guided TAP block analgesia among patients undergoing radical cystectomy for postoperative pain management. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, comparative study included a total of 60 patients, who underwent radical cystectomy. Participants were randomly divided into three categories with 20 subjects each; group B had patients who received a single shot US-guided TAP block on each side with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine + 2 ml normal saline; group BF had patients who received a single shot US-guided TAP block on each side with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine + 1 µg/kg fentanyl dissolved in 2 ml normal saline and group BD had patients who received a single shot US-guided TAP block on each side with 20 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine + 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine dissolved in 2 ml normal saline.The researchers recorded the time taken for first rescue analgesia, total analgesic dose in the first 24 h after surgery, patient satisfaction, sedation score, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The time taken for first rescue analgesia was significantly lengthier in group (BD) (8.90 ± 2.47) than (BF) (6.50 ± 1.43) and (B) (4.40 ± 1.05) groups. The total nalbuphine consumption, during the first 24 h, was significantly lower in (BD) (0.15 ± 0.00) group compared to (BF) (0.20 ± 0.07) and (B) (0.24 ± 0.08) groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison with fentanyl, as an adjuvant to bupivacaine, dexmedetomidine was found to be associated with prolonged postoperative analgesia, less postoperative pain scores and low opioid consumption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at Clinical Trials.gov on 23 March 2020 (registration number: NCT04318158).

Streptokinase Versus Unfractionated Heparin Nebulization in Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): A Randomized Controlled Trial With Observational Controls.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare nebulizing heparin versus streptokinase for reversing alveolar collapse nonresponsive to recruitment. DESIGN: A clinical trial at a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU). Sixty patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (PaO2/FIO2 <100) nonresponsive to recruitment maneuver (RM), prone position, and neuromuscular block (NMB) were randomized into intervention arms or the standard-of-care arm. SETTING: The ICU at Beni-Suef University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients with severe ARDS (PaO2/FIO2 <100) nonresponsive to RM, PP, and NMB. INTERVENTIONS: Nebulized heparin (10,000 IU/4 h), nebulized streptokinase (250,000 IU/4 h), and conservative management. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the change in PaO2/FIO2; the secondary outcomes included the change in compliance, plateau pressure, coagulation, and ICU mortality. The PaO2/FIO2 was significantly higher in the streptokinase group from day 1 to day 8 compared to the heparin and standard-of-care groups. Streptokinase produced PaO2/FIO2>100 at day 1, >200 at day 5, and >300 at day 7. The heparin group achieved a PaO2/FIO2 >100 at day 5 but remained <200 until day 8. The standard-of-care group did not achieve a PaO2/FIO2>100 after 8 days. Streptokinase significantly reduced plateau pressure and improved compliance at day 8. Only streptokinase decreased PaCO2 (p < 0.0001). Moreover, ICU mortality was significantly lower in streptokinase patients compared to other groups. Additionally, no heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was observed in all groups. CONCLUSION: Inhaled streptokinase serves as rescue therapy in patients with severe ARDS with improving oxygenation and lung mechanics more quickly than heparin or conventional management.

Addition of Neostigmine and Atropine to Conventional Management of Postdural Puncture Headache: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) lacks a standard evidence-based treatment. A patient treated with neostigmine for severe PDPH prompted this study. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, double-blind study compared neostigmine and atropine (n = 41) versus a saline placebo (n = 44) for treating PDPH in addition to conservative management of 85 patients with hydration and analgesics. The primary outcome was a visual analog scale score of ≤3 at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours after intervention. Secondary outcomes were the need for an epidural blood patch, neck stiffness, nausea, and vomiting. Patients received either neostigmine 20 µg/kg and atropine 10 µg/kg or an equal volume of saline. RESULTS: Visual analog scale scores were significantly better (P< .001) with neostigmine/atropine than with saline treatment at all time intervals after intervention. No patients in the neostigmine/atropine group needed epidural blood patch compared with 7 (15.9%) in the placebo group (P< .001). Patients required no >2 doses of neostigmine/atropine. There were no between-group differences in neck stiffness, nausea, or vomiting. Complications including abdominal cramps, muscle twitches, and urinary bladder hyperactivity occurred only in the neostigmine/atropine group (P< .001). CONCLUSIONS: Neostigmine/atropine was effective in treating PDPH after only 2 doses. Neostigmine can pass the choroid plexus but not the blood-brain barrier. The central effects of both drugs influence both cerebrospinal fluid secretion and cerebral vascular tone, which are the primary pathophysiological changes in PDPH. The results are consistent with previous studies and clinical reports of neostigmine activity.