Perioperative intravenous lidocaine use in children.

Perioperative pain management impacts patient morbidity, quality of life, and hospitalization cost. In children, it impacts not only the child, but the whole family. Adjuncts for improved perioperative analgesia continue to be sought to minimize adverse side effects associated with opioids and for those in whom regional or neuraxial anesthesia is not suitable. The use of ketamine and alpha agonists may be useful in these settings but have noted adverse effects including hallucinations, hemodynamic instability, and excessive sedation. One alternative is intravenous lidocaine. Despite its off-label use, intravenous lidocaine has demonstrated anti-neuropathic, anti-hyperalgesic, and anti-inflammatory actions and is an emerging technique. Multiple studies in adults have demonstrated beneficial effects of perioperative intravenous lidocaine including improved perioperative analgesia with reduced postoperative opioid use, improved gastrointestinal function, earlier mobilization, and reduction in hospital length of stay. Despite the limited pediatric literature, some of these findings have been replicated. Large-scale trials providing evidence for the pediatric pharmacokinetics and high-quality safety data with respect to intravenous lidocaine are still however lacking. To date, dose ranges studied in the pediatric population have not been associated with serious side effects and current data suggests perioperative intravenous lidocaine in a subgroup of pediatric surgical patients seems well-tolerated and beneficial.

Risk assessment and optimization strategies to reduce perioperative respiratory adverse events in Pediatric Anesthesia-Part 2: Anesthesia-related risk and treatment options.

Perioperative respiratory adverse events are the most common cause of critical events in children undergoing anesthesia and surgery. While many risk factors remain unmodifiable, there are numerous anesthetic management decisions which can impact the incidence and impact of these events, especially in at-risk children. Ongoing research continues to improve our understanding of both the influence of risk factors and the effect of specific interventions. This review discusses anesthesia risk factors and outlines strategies to reduce the rate and impact of perioperative respiratory adverse events with a chronologic based inquiry into anesthetic management decisions through the perioperative period from premedication to postoperative disposition.

Risk assessment and optimization strategies to reduce perioperative respiratory adverse events in pediatric anesthesia-Part 1 patient and surgical factors.

Pediatric surgery cases are increasing worldwide. Within pediatric anesthesia, perioperative respiratory adverse events are the most common precipitant leading to serious complications. They can have intraoperative impact on the surgical procedure itself, lead to premature case termination and in addition may have postoperative impact resulting in longer hospitalization stays and costs. Although most perioperative respiratory adverse events can be promptly detected and managed, and will not lead to any sequelae, the risk of life-threatening progression remains. The incidence of respiratory adverse events increases in children with comorbid respiratory and/or nonrespiratory illnesses. Optimized perioperative patient care, risk-stratified care level choice, and practitioners with appropriate training allow for risk mitigation. This review will discuss patient and surgical risk factors with a focus on common patient comorbid illnesses and review scoring systems to quantify risk.

Rare cause of adrenal insufficiency.

A 72-year-old man presented with weight loss, night sweats and haemoptysis and was hypotensive. CT imaging showed rapidly enlarging bilateral adrenal masses, and he was found to have primary adrenal insufficiency. An adrenal gland biopsy revealed the rare diagnosis of primary adrenal lymphoma. This unique case highlights possible rare causes of adrenal masses and adrenal insufficiency, their investigation and management principles.

The "cost" of treating to target: cross-sectional analysis of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: To describe the current treatment gap in management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in general practice as well as the associated financial and therapeutic burden of pharmacological treatment. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the Patient Engagement and Coaching for Health trial. This totalled 473 patients from 59 general practices with participants eligible if they had HbA1c > 7.5%. Main outcome measures included proportions of patients not within target risk factor levels and weighted average mean annual cost for cardiometabolic medications and factors associated with costs. Medication costs were derived from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule. RESULTS: Average age was 63 (range 27-89). Average HbA1c was 8.1% and average duration of diabetes was 10 years. 35% of patients had at least one micro or macrovascular complication and patients were taking a mean of 4 cardio-metabolic medications. The majority of participants on treatment for cardiovascular risk factors were not achieving clinical targets, with 74% and 75% of patients out of target range for blood pressure and lipids respectively. A significant proportion of those not meeting clinical targets were not on treatment at all. The weighted mean annual cost for cardiometabolic medications was AUD$1384.20 per patient (2006-07). Independent factors associated with cost included age, duration of diabetes, history of acute myocardial infarction, proteinuria, increased waist circumference and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates for cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in our participants are higher than those identified in earlier studies. However, rates of achieving target levels remain low despite the large 'pill burden' and substantial associated fiscal costs to individuals and the community. The complexities of balancing the overall benefits of treatment intensification against potential disadvantages for patients and health care systems in primary care warrants further investigation.