Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 2022 Aug 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001904

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic hip surgery is associated with significant postoperative pain. Femoral nerve blocks have been shown to improve postoperative analgesia at the expense of quadriceps weakness. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block could be an alternative that may improve postoperative analgesia while preserving quadriceps strength. Our hypothesis was that a PENG block would provide superior postoperative analgesia compared with a sham block following arthroscopic hip surgery. METHODS: Subjects presenting for arthroscopic hip surgery were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either an ultrasound-guided unilateral, single-injection PENG block (PENG group) with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine or a sham injection with 5 mL of 0.9% normal saline (Sham group) prior to receiving general anesthesia. The primary outcome of this study was worst pain score within 30 min of emergence from anesthesia. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, patient satisfaction with analgesia, opioid-related adverse events, and persistent opioid use at 1 week. RESULTS: Sixty-eight subjects, 34 from the PENG group and 34 from the Sham group, completed the study per protocol. Analysis of the primary outcome demonstrated a mean difference in pain scores of -0.79 (95% CI -1.96 to 0.37; p=0.17) between the PENG and Sham groups immediately following surgery. No secondary outcomes showed statistically significant differences between groups. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that a preoperative PENG block does not improve analgesia following arthroscopic hip surgery. TRIAL REIGSTRATION NUMBER: NCT04508504.

2.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 20, 2021 Jan 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067232

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and depletes the lungs of surfactant, leading to prolonged mechanical ventilation and death. The feasibility and safety of surfactant delivery in COVID-19 ARDS patients have not been established. METHODS: We performed retrospective analyses of data from patients receiving off-label use of exogenous natural surfactant during the COVID-19 pandemic. Seven COVID-19 PCR positive ARDS patients received liquid Curosurf (720 mg) in 150 ml normal saline, divided into five 30 ml aliquots) and delivered via a bronchoscope into second-generation bronchi. Patients were matched with 14 comparable subjects receiving supportive care for ARDS during the same time period. Feasibility and safety were examined as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. RESULTS: Patients showed no evidence of acute decompensation following surfactant installation into minor bronchi. Cox regression showed a reduction of 28-days mortality within the surfactant group, though not significant. The surfactant did not increase the duration of ventilation, and health care providers did not convert to COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSIONS: Surfactant delivery through bronchoscopy at a dose of 720 mg in 150 ml normal saline is feasible and safe for COVID-19 ARDS patients and health care providers during the pandemic. Surfactant administration did not cause acute decompensation, may reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation duration in COVID-19 ARDS patients. This study supports the future performance of randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of meticulous sub-bronchial lavage with surfactant as treatment for patients with COVID-19 ARDS.


Subject(s)
Biological Products/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Lung/drug effects , Phospholipids/administration & dosage , Pulmonary Surfactants/administration & dosage , Aged , Biological Products/adverse effects , Bronchoscopy , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Phospholipids/adverse effects , Pilot Projects , Pulmonary Surfactants/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL