Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anesth Analg ; 127(4): 1035-1043, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29863605

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound, nerve stimulation, and their combination are all considered acceptable ways to guide peripheral nerve blocks. Which approach is most effective and associated with the fewest complications is unknown. We therefore used a large registry to analyze whether there are differences in vascular punctures, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia. METHODS: Twenty-six thousand seven hundred and thirty-three cases were extracted from the 25-center German Network for Regional Anesthesia registry between 2007 and 2016 and grouped into ultrasound-guided puncture (n = 10,380), ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (n=8173), and nerve stimulation alone (n = 8180). The primary outcomes of vascular puncture, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia during insertion were compared with conditional logistic regression after 1:1:1 propensity score matching. Results are presented as odds ratios and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Propensity matching successfully paired 2508 patients with ultrasound alone (24% of 10,380 patients), 2508 patients with a combination of ultrasound/nerve stimulation (31% of 8173 patients), and 2508 patients with nerve stimulation alone (31% of 8180 patients). After matching, no variable was imbalanced (standardized differences <0.1). Compared with ultrasound guidance alone, the odds of multiple skin punctures (2.2 [1.7-2.8]; P < .001) and vascular puncture (2.7 [1.6-4.5]; P < .001) were higher with nerve stimulation alone, and the odds for unintended paresthesia were lower with nerve stimulation alone (0.3 [0.1-0.7]; P = .03). The combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation showed higher odds of multiple skin punctures (1.5 [1.2-1.9]; P = .001) and lower odds of unintended paresthesia (0.4 [0.2-0.8]; P = .007) compared with ultrasound alone. Comparing the combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation with ultrasound alone, the odds for vascular puncture (1.3 [0.7-2.2]; P = .4) did not differ significantly. Systemic toxicity of local anesthetics was not observed in any patient with ultrasound guidance alone, in 1 patient with the combined use of ultrasound and nerve stimulation, and in 1 patient with nerve stimulation alone. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ultrasound alone reduced the odds of vascular and multiple skin punctures. However, the sole use of ultrasound increases the odds of paresthesia.


Assuntos
Bloqueio Nervoso Autônomo/métodos , Estimulação Elétrica , Nervos Periféricos/diagnóstico por imagem , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Adulto , Idoso , Bloqueio Nervoso Autônomo/efeitos adversos , Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Alemanha , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Parestesia/etiologia , Punções , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/efeitos adversos
2.
Anesthesiology ; 128(4): 764-773, 2018 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29420315

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prolonged catheter use is controversial because of the risk of catheter-related infection, but the extent to which the risk increases over time remains unknown. We thus assessed the time-dependence of catheter-related infection risk up to 15 days. METHODS: Our analysis was based on the German Network for Regional Anesthesia, which includes 25 centers. We considered 44,555 patients who had surgery between 2007 and 2014 and had continuous regional anesthesia as well as complete covariable details. Cox regression analysis was performed and adjusted for confounding covariables to examine the relationship between catheter duration and probability of infection-free catheter use. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounding factors, the probability of infection-free catheter use decreases with each day of peripheral and epidural catheter use. In peripheral catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 96% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. In epidural catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 95% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. Only 31 patients (0.07%) had severe infections that prompted surgical intervention. Among these were five catheters that initially had only mild or moderate signs of infection and were left in situ; all progressed to severe infections. CONCLUSIONS: Infection risk in catheter use increases over time, especially after four days. Infected catheters should be removed as soon as practical. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B683.


Assuntos
Anestesia por Condução/efeitos adversos , Anestesia por Condução/instrumentação , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/diagnóstico , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/epidemiologia , Sistema de Registros , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/prevenção & controle , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...