Elevated International Normalized Ratio Is Not Associated With Increased Perioperative Morbidity in Podiatric Limb Salvage Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

The risk of hemorrhage always exists in anticoagulated patients with an elevated international normalized ratio (INR), a risk that must be measured against the necessity for surgical procedures. The objective of the present retrospective medical record study was to assess the safety with which limb salvage procedures can be conducted in patients with an INR >1.4. The medical records of 231 patients who had undergone limb salvage procedures by 1 surgeon at the Yale New Haven Health System from November 2008 through July 2014 were reviewed. All patients were administered foot blocks with monitored intravenous sedation. The patients' demographic data, comorbidities, preoperative anticoagulant use, coagulation profile, intraoperative analgesic administration, estimated blood loss, total operating room time, total postanesthesia care unit time, intraoperative ankle tourniquet use, and postoperative complications within the initial 72 hours were reviewed. We found no differences in intraoperative bleeding, total intraoperative time, or recovery time between the INR <1.4 group (n = 212) and the INR >1.4 group (n = 19). None of the patients experienced any postoperative complications, defined as any cardiac or pulmonary event, the need for invasive monitoring, or admission to the intensive care unit within the initial 72-hour period. Our findings suggest that patients are suitable for undergoing peripheral procedures with foot blocks and monitored intravenous sedation even in the presence of an elevated INR.

Levobupivacaine 0.125% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Levobupivacaine, a long acting, amino-amide, local anesthetic, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to compare levobupivacaine to lidocaine for IVRA. METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, eight unpremedicated male American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II volunteers received 40 ml of levobupivacaine 0.125% or lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA on separate days. Onset and regression of sensory anesthesia by pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), and of motor function were tested before, during, and after release of the tourniquet. Central nervous system and cardiac side effects were evaluated after local anesthetic administration and tourniquet release. The tourniquet remained inflated for 30-45 min. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with either agent provided surgical anesthesia. Sensory anesthesia to pinprick (lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) was faster with lidocaine at median 1.5 min. versus 12.5 min with levobupivacaine. Loss of sensation to TES occurred at median 22.5 and 27.5 min for lidocaine and levobupivacaine, respectively. Loss of motor function occurred earlier after lidocaine administration. After release of the tourniquet, return of sensation to TES, pinprick (ulnar nerve), and return of motor function occurred later with levobupivacaine at median 25, 15, and 21.25 versus 10, 4.5, and 10 min with lidocaine. Central nervous system side effects were absent in volunteers given levobupivacaine, but five of eight volunteers given lidocaine experienced mild side effects. No cardiac events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 0.125% may be an alternative to lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA. Longer lasting analgesia after release of the tourniquet may be caused by a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of levobupivacaine.