Purpose Perioperative intravenous ketamine may be a useful addition in pain management regimens. Previous systematic reviews have included all methods of ketamine administration, and heterogeneity between studies has been substantial. This study addresses this issue by narrowing the inclusion criteria, using a random effects model, and performing subgroup analysis to determine the specific types of patients, surgery, and clinical indications which may benefit from perioperative ketamine administration. Source We included published studies from 1966 to 2010 which were randomized, double-blinded, and placebocontrolled using intravenous ketamine (bolus or infusion) to decrease postoperative pain. Studies using any form of regional anesthesia were excluded. No limitation was placed on the ketamine dose, patient age, or language of publication. Principal findings Ninety-one comparisons in seventy studies involving 4,701 patients met the inclusion criteria (2,652 in ketamine groups and 2,049 in placebo groups). Forty-seven of these studies were appropriate for evaluation in the core meta-analysis, and the remaining 23 studies were used to corroborate the results. A reduction in total opioid consumption and an increase in the time to first analgesic were observed across all studies (P \ 0.001). The greatest efficacy was found for thoracic, upper abdominal, and major orthopedic surgical subgroups. Despite using less opioid, 25 out of 32 treatment groups (78%) experienced less pain than the placebo groups at some point postoperatively when ketamine was efficacious. This finding implies an improved quality of pain control in addition to decreased opioid consumption. Hallucinations and nightmares were more common with ketamine but sedation was not. When ketamine was efficacious for pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting was less frequent in the ketamine group. The dose-dependent role of ketamine analgesia could not be determined. Conclusion Intravenous ketamine is an effective adjunct for postoperative analgesia. Particular benefit was observed in painful procedures, including upper abdominal, thoracic, and major orthopedic surgeries. The analgesic effect of ketamine was independent of the type of intraoperative opioid administered, timing of ketamine administration, and ketamine dose. RésuméObjectif La ke´tamine intraveineuse pe´riope´ratoire peut constituer un ajout utile a`l'arsenal the´rapeutique de prise en charge de la douleur. Les revues me´thodiques pre´ce´dentes ont examine´toutes les me´thodes d'administration de la ke´tamine, et l'he´te´roge´ne´ite´entre les e´tudes est conside´rable. Cette e´tude aborde la question en limitant les crite`res d'inclusion, en utilisant un mode`le a`effets ale´atoires et en re´alisant une analyse de sous-groupe afin de de´terminer les types spe´cifiques de patients et de chirurgie ainsi que les indications cliniques qui pourraient be´ne´ficier de l'administration pe´riope´ratoire de ke´tamine.

BackgroundMassive transfusion protocols (MTP) aid in the efficient delivery of blood components to rapidly exsanguinating patients. Unfortunately, clinical gestalt and currently available clinical scoring systems lack the optimal accuracy to prevent blood product wastage (through over-activation), as well as individual patient morbidity and mortality (through under-activation). In order to help refine the MTP activation criteria and protocols, we surveyed clinicians on acceptable over- and under-activation rates for massive transfusions.MethodsWe surveyed Canadian content experts in their respective fields, using a snowball survey technique. Respondents were categorized into two groups: Group 1 was comprised of trauma and acute care specialists (TACS), while Group 2 was comprised of clinical and laboratory medicine specialists (CLMS). Between-group differences were examined using Fisher’s exact test and the likelihood ratio. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.ResultsWe received responses from 35 clinicians in the TACS group and 10 clinicians in the CLMS group. About half (45.7%) of respondents in the TACS group considered an MTP overactivation rate of 5% - 10% acceptable (vs. 60% of the CLMS group; not significant (NS)). Approximately one-third (34.2%) of the respondents in the TACS group considered an MTP under-activation rate of less than 5% acceptable, whereas the majority (60%) of respondents in the CLMS group considered an under-activation rate of less than 5% acceptable (NS). A significantly greater proportion of respondents in the TACS group felt that an anticipated need for > 20 units of packed red blood cells within the next 24 hours was an acceptable criterion for MTP activation. Respondents in the CLMS group were more likely to consider “poor communication” as a reason for blood component wastage.ConclusionSimilarities in acceptable MTP over- and under-activation rates were noted across specialties. Collaboration between involved parties is necessary for MTP protocol development to improve patient outcomes and reduce blood wastage.

Introduction: Paramedics commonly administer intravenous dextrose to severely hypoglycemic patients. Typically, the treatment provided is a 25g ampule of 50% dextrose (D50). This dose of D50 is meant to ensure a return to consciousness. However, this dose may be unnecessary and lead to harm or difficulties regulating blood glucose post treatment. We hypothesize that a lower dose such as dextrose 10% (D10) or titrating the D50 to desired level of consciousness may be optimal and avoid adverse events. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central on June 5th 2019. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The GRADE methods and risk of bias assessments were applied to determine the certainty of the evidence. We included primary literature investigating the use of intravenous dextrose in hypoglycemic diabetic patients presenting to paramedics or the emergency department. Outcomes of interest were related to the safe and effective reversal of symptoms and blood glucose levels (BGL). Results: 660 abstracts were screened, 40 full text articles, with eight studies included. Data from three randomized controlled trials and five observational studies were analyzed. A single RCT comparing D10 to D50 was identified. The primary significant finding of the study was an increased post-treatment glycemic profile by 3.2 mmol/L in the D50 group; no other outcomes had significant differences between groups. When comparing pooled data from all the included studies we find higher symptom resolution in the D10 group compared to the D50 group; at 99.8% and 94.9% respectively. However, the mean time to resolution was approximately 4 minutes longer in the D10 group (4.1 minutes (D50) and 8 minutes (D10)). There was more need for subsequent doses in the D10 group at 23.0% versus 16.5% in the D50 group. The post treatment glycemic profile was lower in the D10 group at 5.9 mmol/L versus 8.5 mmol/L in the D50 group. Both treatments had nearly complete resolution of hypoglycemia; 98.7% (D50) and 99.2% (D10). No adverse events were observed in the D10 group (0/871) compared to 12/133 adverse events in the D50 group. Conclusion: D10 may be as effective as D50 at resolving symptoms and correcting hypoglycemia. Although the desired effect can take several minutes longer there appear to be fewer adverse events. The post treatment glycemic profile may facilitate less challenging ongoing glucose management by the patients.