It’s not easy being green, or is it? Alkaline battery versus A/C power for programmed intermittent epidural bolus pumps

Dinges, E.; Heier, Jake

doi:10.1016/j.ijoa.2017.10.003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the programmed intermittent bolus application is applied by the pumps with a higher pressure than in continuous infusion technique, resulting in higher energy consumption as compared with the continuous infusion [ 14 ]. When using alkaline batteries, a shorter interval of battery exchange might have a considerable economic and ecologic impact [ 15 ]. Thus, if available, A/C adapters or rechargeable batteries should be considered when using PIEB modes, regardless of the specific manufacturer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal and gynecological cancer surgery: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundContinuous epidural infusion (CEI) is the standard application setting for epidural infusion. A new mode, the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique, showed reduced local anesthetic (LA) consumption and improved analgesia in obstetric analgesia. Goal of this trial was to evaluate the effects of PIEB versus CEI [combined with patient-controlled bolus (PCEA)] on LA consumption and pain scorings in major abdominal cancer surgery.MethodsFollowing ethical approval, patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery under general anesthesia in combination with epidural analgesia were randomized to receive either a PIEB mode of 6 mL/h or a CEI mode set at 6 mL/h of ropivacaine 0.2%, both combined with a PCEA mode set at a 4 mL bolus. LA consumptions and pain scorings were documented until the second postoperative evening.ResultsEighty-four datasets were analyzed (CEI: n = 40, PIEB: n = 44). Regarding the primary endpoint, cumulative LA PCEA bolus volumes until day 2 differed significantly between the groups [PIEB 10 mL (2–28 mL) versus CEI, 28 mL (12–64 mL), median (25th–75th percentiles), p = 0.002]. Overall, LA consumption volumes were significantly lower in the PIEB group versus in the CEI group [PIEB: 329 mL (291–341 mL) vs. CEI: 350 mL (327–381 mL), p = 0.003]. Pain scores were comparable at each time point.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrates reduced needs for PCEA bolus in the PIEB group. There were no clinically relevant benefits regarding morphine consumption, pain scorings, or other secondary outcome parameters.Trial registrationThis study has been registered retrospectively in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03378804), date of registration: December, 20th 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0613-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%