Although most randomized clinical trials conclude that the addition of continuous peripheral nerve blockade (CPNB) decreases postoperative pain and opioid-related side effects when compared with opioids, studies have included relatively small numbers of patients and the majority failed to show statistical significance during all time periods for reduced pain or side effects. We identified studies primarily by searching Ovid Medline (1966-May 21, 2004) for terms related to postoperative analgesia with CPNB and opioids. Each article from the final search was reviewed and data were extracted from tables, text, or extrapolated from figures as needed. Nineteen articles, enrolling 603 patients, met all inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were a clearly defined anesthetic technique (combined general/regional anesthesia, general anesthesia alone, peripheral nerve block), randomized trial, adult patient population (> or =18 yr old), CPNB (or analgesia) used postoperatively (intrapleural catheters were deemed not to be classified as a peripheral nerve catheter), and opioids administered for postoperative analgesia in groups not receiving peripheral nerve block. Perineural analgesia provided better postoperative analgesia compared with opioids (P < 0.001). This effect was seen for all time periods measured for both mean visual analog scale and maximum visual analog scale at 24 h (P < 0.001), 48 h (P < 0.001), and 72 h (mean visual analog scale only) (P < 0.001) postoperatively. Perineural catheters provided superior analgesia to opioids for all catheter locations and time periods (P < 0.05). Nausea/vomiting, sedation, and pruritus all occurred more commonly with opioid analgesia (P < 0.001). A reduction in opioid use was noted with perineural analgesia (P < 0.001). CPNB analgesia, regardless of catheter location, provided superior postoperative analgesia and fewer opioid-related side effects when compared with opioid analgesia.
Objectives: To examine patterns of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) inheritance and other features in twin pairs by zygosity, sex, and specific ASD diagnosis.
Increasing biomedical workforce diversity remains a persistent challenge. Recent reports have shown that biomedical sciences (BMS) graduate students become less interested in faculty careers as training progresses; however, it is unclear whether or how the career preferences of women and underrepresented minority (URM) scientists change in manners distinct from their better-represented peers. We report results from a survey of 1500 recent American BMS Ph.D. graduates (including 276 URMs) that examined career preferences over the course of their graduate training experiences. On average, scientists from all social backgrounds showed significantly decreased interest in faculty careers at research universities, and significantly increased interest in non-research careers at Ph.D. completion relative to entry. However, group differences emerged in overall levels of interest (at Ph.D. entry and completion), and the magnitude of change in interest in these careers. Multiple logistic regression showed that when controlling for career pathway interest at Ph.D. entry, first-author publication rate, faculty support, research self-efficacy, and graduate training experiences, differences in career pathway interest between social identity groups persisted. All groups were less likely than men from well-represented (WR) racial/ethnic backgrounds to report high interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities (URM men: OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36–0.98, p = 0.04; WR women: OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47–0.89, p = 0.008; URM women: OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30–0.71, p<0.001), and URM women were more likely than all other groups to report high interest in non-research careers (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.28–2.90, p = 0.002). The persistence of disparities in the career interests of Ph.D. recipients suggests that a supply-side (or “pipeline”) framing of biomedical workforce diversity challenges may limit the effectiveness of efforts to attract and retain the best and most diverse workforce. We propose incorporation of an ecological perspective of career development when considering strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce and professoriate through diversity.
Opioids are frequently associated with side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. We hypothesized that a prophylactic, continuous small-dose naloxone infusion would reduce the incidence of opioid-induced side effects without affecting analgesia or opioid consumption. In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we studied 46 postoperative patients (M:F, 21:25), averaging 14 +/- 2.5 yr and 53 +/- 17 kg, at the start of morphine IV patient-controlled analgesia. Patients were randomized to either saline (control, n = 26) or naloxone 0.25 microg . kg(-1) . h(-1) (n = 20). We found that the incidence and severity of pruritus (77% versus 20%; P < 0.05) and nausea (70% versus 35%; P < 0.05) was significantly more frequent in the placebo group compared with the naloxone group. Morphine consumption (1.02 +/- 0.41 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1) versus 1.28 +/- 0.61 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1)), pain scores at rest (4 +/- 2 versus 3 +/- 2), and pain scores with coughing (6 +/- 2 versus 6 +/- 2) were not different. We conclude that, in children and adolescents, a small-dose naloxone infusion (0.25 microg . kg(-1) . h(-1)) can significantly reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced side effects without affecting opioid-induced analgesia. When initiating morphine IV patient-controlled analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain, clinicians should strongly consider starting a concomitant small-dose naloxone infusion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.