Patients who received sBPBs for ambulatory wrist fracture surgery had a higher rate of unplanned health care resource utilization caused by pain after hospital discharge than those undergoing GA. These findings warrant confirmation in a prospective trial and emphasize the need for a defined postdischarge analgesic pathway as well as the potential merits of perineural home catheters.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after cardiac surgery. However, in contrast to other surgical populations, routine PONV prophylaxis is not a standard of care in cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that routine administration of a single prophylactic dose of ondansetron (4 mg) at the time of stopping postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit would decrease the incidence of PONV. METHODS: With institutional human ethics board approval and written informed consent, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients ≥19 years of age with no history of PONV undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the first 24 hours postextubation, compared by the χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included the incidence and times to first dose of rescue antiemetic treatment administration, the incidence of headaches, and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: PONV within the first 24 hours postextubation occurred in 33 of 77 patients (43%) in the ondansetron group versus 50 of 82 patients (61%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.70 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51–0.95]; absolute risk difference, −18% [95% CI, −33 to −2]; number needed to treat, 5.5 [95% CI, 3.0–58.4]; χ2 test, P = .022). Kaplan-Meier “survival” analysis of the times to first rescue antiemetic treatment administration over 24 hours indicated that patients in the ondansetron group fared better than those in the placebo group (log-rank [Mantel-Cox] test; P = .028). Overall, 32 of 77 patients (42%) in the ondansetron group received rescue antiemetic treatment over the first 24 hours postextubation versus 47 of 82 patients (57%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.52–1.00]; absolute risk difference, −16% [95% CI, −31 to 1]); P = .047. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative headache (ondansetron group, 5 of 77 patients [6%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; Fisher exact test; P = .740) or ventricular arrhythmias (ondansetron group, 2 of 77 patients [3%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; P = .68). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the routine administration of ondansetron prophylaxis at the time of discontinuation of postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in patients following cardiac surgery. Further research is warranted to optimize PONV prophylaxis in cardiac surgery patients.

Sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging, as both over- and under-sedation are detrimental. Current methods of assessment, such as the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), are measured intermittently and rely on patients' behavioral response to stimulation, which may interrupt sleep/rest. A non-stimulating method for continuous sedation monitoring may be beneficial and allow more frequent assessment. Processed electroencephalography (EEG) monitors have not been routinely adopted in the ICU. The aim of this observational study was to assess the feasibility of using the NeuroSENSE™ monitor for EEG-based continuous sedation assessment. With ethical approval, ICU patients on continuous propofol sedation were recruited. Depth-of-hypnosis index (WAV) values were obtained from the NeuroSENSE. Bedside nurses, blinded to the NeuroSENSE, performed regular RASS assessments and maintained the sedation regimen as per standard of care. Participants were monitored throughout the duration of their propofol infusion, up to 24 h. Fifteen patients, with median [interquartile range] age of 57 [52-62.5] years were each monitored for a duration of 9.0 [5.7-20.1] h. Valid WAV values were obtained for 89% [66-99] of monitoring time and were widely distributed within and between individuals, with 6% [1-31] spent < 40 (very deep), and 3% [1-15] spent > 90 (awake). Significant EEG suppression was detected in 3/15 (20%) participants. Observed RASS matched RASS goals in 36/89 (40%) assessments. The WAV variability, and incidence of EEG suppression, highlight the limitations of using RASS as a standalone sedation measure, and suggests potential benefit of adjunct continuous brain monitoring.

No abstract