Minerva anestesiologica最新文献

Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery is a major issue with a rate of almost 20%, as suggested by the literature. Guidelines recommend screening patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery who have at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Clinical trials are characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity. Myocardial injury definitions vary among studies, and multiple troponin assays with different cut-offs are utilized. Myocardial injury has a poorly understood pathophysiology. While some studies only include troponin elevations that are thought to be caused by ischemia, others do not. Troponin elevation can be a result of patient-related factors and comorbidities, including age, chronic renal failure, and inflammatory status. Currently, there is no effective strategy to prevent perioperative myocardial injury, and there are no therapeutic options that significantly improve the outcome of patients with myocardial injury. We have focused on this topic and on perioperative myocardial injury to highlight the areas of research that remain unexplored.

Background: A high tibial osteotomy is usually associated with severe postoperative pain. Both adductor canal block (ACB) and interspace between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee (IPACK) have been described as effective block techniques for providing analgesia after knee surgeries, with few comparisons in wedge osteotomy cases. We aim to compare the postoperative analgesic profile of the previously mentioned two block techniques in patients undergoing tibial osteotomies.

Methods: Sixty patients were enrolled in this randomized prospective trial (30 received IPACK and 30 received ACB). Both blocks were installed before the spinal anesthesia after infiltration of 2 mL lidocaine 2%. Twenty mL of bupivacaine 0.25% mixed with dexamethasone as anesthetic adjuvant were used for both blocks. The postoperative analgesic profiles were compared between the two groups.

Results: Postoperative pain scores were lower in the IPACK group, and that decrease was evident throughout the first 10 hours postoperatively. Additionally, the duration of analgesia was much prolonged with the same block (487.50±82.39 vs. 301.93±92.06 minutes with ACB). There was a significant decline in postoperative analgesic consumption (1.27±0.45 vs. 1.8±0.61 gm, P=0.000), and a significant increase in the ambulation distance (19.10±0.60 vs. 17.73±0.45 m, P=0.000) with a significant decline in the duration of hospitalization (43.27±7.61 vs. 54±8.35 hours) in the IPACK group compared to the ACB group.

Conclusions: IPACK is a superior block technique compared to ACB in patients undergoing high tibial osteotomy regarding postoperative analgesia, ambulation distance, and patient satisfaction with little rate of adverse events in both groups.

Introduction: Remimazolam, an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine recognized and approved as an anesthetic and sedative in multiple countries, offers a distinctive pharmacokinetic profile, boasting advantages such as rapid onset, short action duration, and rapid recovery. These attributes may contribute to enhanced hemodynamic stability and a diminished risk of respiratory depression compared to other sedatives.

Evidence acquisition: We conducted the first comprehensive systematically structured narrative review to evaluate the role and potential application of remimazolam in cardiac surgery. Twenty-one studies published from 2021 to 2023 delved into remimazolam's application in open cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization or electrophysiology laboratories, and high-risk cardiovascular patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Evidence synthesis: Overall, remimazolam usage was apparently linked to potentially superior hemodynamic stability compared to other hypnotic drugs. However, findings regarding the reduction in postoperative delirium incidence with remimazolam and the doses of remimazolam for anesthesia induction and maintenance were inconsistent across the studies.

Conclusions: Though remimazolam has demonstrated potential safety, efficacy, and ease-of-use for both anesthesia induction and maintenance in cardiac surgery patients and high-risk cardiovascular patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, further research is imperative to delve into specific patient subgroups (e.g., the elderly or emergent procedures) so as to ascertain optimal dose ranges to suit diverse clinical scenarios.