Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester abortions: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate if buffered lidocaine decreases injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine for paracervical blocks during first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among women undergoing outpatient uterine aspiration of a first-trimester pregnancy or an early pregnancy loss. Subjects received a paracervical block with either lidocaine 1% 20 mL or lidocaine 1% 18 mL plus sodium bicarbonate 8.4% 2 mL. The primary outcome was pain from injection of the paracervical block measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included pain after cervical dilation, uterine aspiration and overall satisfaction with pain control. Scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. We aimed to detect a 15-mm difference in pain from injection of the paracervical block. RESULTS: From May 2017 to October 2018, 48 women received plain lidocaine and 50 women received buffered lidocaine. Groups were similar in demographics. We found no clinically or statistically meaningful difference in pain when evaluating median VAS scores for paracervical block injection between the buffered and plain lidocaine [30.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 15.3-64.5); 44.5 (IQR 18.3-65), respectively, p = .32]. We found no difference in secondary outcomes between buffered and plain lidocaine. CONCLUSION: Buffered lidocaine for paracervical blocks in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine. IMPLICATIONS STATEMENT: Buffering the paracervical block in first-trimester outpatient surgical abortions does not decrease injection pain as compared to plain lidocaine, nor does it increase patient satisfaction. Eliminating sodium bicarbonate allows for a more cost-effective and readily available solution for paracervical blocks.

Academic clinical learning environment in obstetrics and gynecology during the COVID-19 pandemic: responses and lessons learned.

COVID-19 pandemic is changing profoundly the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) academic clinical learning environment in many different ways. Rapid developments affecting our learners, patients, faculty and staff require unprecedented collaboration and quick, deeply consequential readjustments, almost on a daily basis. We summarized here our experiences, opportunities, challenges and lessons learned and outline how to move forward. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us there is a clear need for collaboration in implementing the most current evidence-based medicine, rapidly assess and improve the everchanging healthcare environment by problem solving and "how to" instead of "should we" approach. In addition, as a community with very limited resources we have to rely heavily on internal expertise, ingenuity and innovation. The key points to succeed are efficient and timely communication, transparency in decision making and reengagement. As time continues to pass, it is certain that more lessons will emerge.

Multi-Specialty Boot Camp: Enhancing Student Confidence in Residency Preparation.

BACKGROUND: A "boot camp" or senior preparatory course can help to bridge the gap between knowledge and skills attained in required clerkships and residency expectations. An under-researched area is in interventions across specialties and with student confidence as the outcome. OBJECTIVE: A multi-specialty school-wide boot camp for 4th year medical students was evaluated with a curriculum that focused on specialty milestones and entrustable professional activities and the importance of student confidence as an outcome. METHODS: A school-wide "boot camp" was developed to help 4th year students become ready for their matched specialty. Faculty resources were pooled to teach students from multiple specialties' common milestone topics. Surveys were collected from 3 academic years (2014-2015 to 2016-2017): pre-boot camp (Pre), immediately post-boot camp (Post 1), and 3 months after starting residency (Post 2). Dependent t-tests were employed to determine pre-post differences. RESULTS: Over the 3-year study period, 185 students participated in boot camp, 162 (87.6%) completed the first 2 surveys, and 75 (40.5%) students provided data at all 3 points in time. With more robust findings between Pre and Post 1, students improved their confidence level in communicating with families and most specialty skills, and students felt more prepared to be an intern as a result of the boot camp. CONCLUSIONS: The robust increase in student confidence suggested that a multi-specialty, school-wide approach to a capstone curriculum should be considered by medical schools, which will not only benefit students but faculty as well. Future research should examine student competence in achieving specialty skills.

Effects of Prophylactic Oxytocin on Bleeding Outcomes in Women Undergoing Dilation and Evacuation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether routine use of intravenous oxytocin decreases the frequency of interventions to control excess blood loss during dilation and evacuation (D&E). METHODS: In this multisite, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women undergoing D&E at 18-24 weeks of gestation received 30 units of oxytocin in 500 mL of intravenous fluid or 500 mL of intravenous fluid alone initiated on speculum placement. The primary outcome was the frequency of interventions to control excess bleeding. A sample size of 75 patients per group was needed to detect a 15% decrease in intervention from 20% to 5% with 80% power and two-sided alpha 0.05. Secondary outcomes included measured blood loss, complications, procedure duration, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: From November 2014 to February 2018, we screened 337 women and randomized 160 to receive prophylactic oxytocin (n=82) or placebo (n=78). Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. The frequency of interventions for bleeding, our primary outcome, was 7.3% in the oxytocin group vs 16.7% in the placebo group, difference of 9.4% (95% CI -21.0% to 1.9%). Interventions primarily included uterine massage and uterotonic administration. Among our secondary outcomes, median measured blood loss was lower in the oxytocin group at 152 (interquartile range 98-235) mL vs 317 (interquartile range 168-464) mL (95% CI 71.6-181.5). Frequency of hemorrhage, defined as blood loss of 500 mL or more and 1,000 mL or more, was lower in the oxytocin group at 3.7% vs 21.8%, difference of 18% (95% CI -29 to -6.9%) and 1.2% vs 10.3%, difference of 9.0% (95% CI -17 to -0.7%), respectively. Procedures were shorter in the oxytocin group at a median of 11.0 (interquartile range 8.0-14.0) vs 13.5 (interquartile range 10.0-19.0) minutes in the placebo group (95% CI 1.0-4.0). We found no differences in the frequency of nonhemorrhage complications, pain scores, or satisfaction scores between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of oxytocin during D&E at 18-24 weeks of gestation did not decrease the frequency of interventions to control bleeding. However, oxytocin did decrease blood loss and frequency of hemorrhage. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02083809.