To what extent can local anesthetics be reduced for infraclavicular block with ultrasound guidance?

Local anesthetic systemic toxicity: A narrative review for emergency clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Emergency clinicians utilize local anesthetics for a variety of procedures in the emergency department (ED) setting. Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a potentially deadly complication.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with the most current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, evaluation, and management of patients with LAST.

DISCUSSION

LAST is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication of local anesthetic use that may be encountered in the ED. Patients at extremes of age or with organ dysfunction are at higher risk. Inadvertent intra-arterial or intravenous injection, as well as repeated doses and higher doses of local anesthetics are associated with greater risk of developing LAST. Neurologic and cardiovascular manifestations can occur. Early recognition and intervention, including supportive care and intravenous lipid emulsion 20%, are the mainstays of treatment. Using ultrasound guidance, aspirating prior to injection, and utilizing the minimal local anesthetic dose needed are techniques that can reduce the risk of LAST.

CONCLUSIONS

This focused review provides an update for the emergency clinician to manage patients with LAST.

Intra- and inter-Individual variability in nerve block duration: A randomized cross-over trial in the common peroneal nerve of healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

The reported variation in nerve block duration is considerable. To individualize nerve block therapy, knowledge of the intra- vs inter-individual variability is essential. We investigated the relative contribution of these 2 parameters to the overall nerve block duration variability.

METHODS

With ethics committee approval, we conducted a randomized cross-over trial where 20 healthy volunteers received 8 common peroneal nerve blockades with lidocaine 0.5% on 4 consecutive days. Allocations were 5 mL to either the right or left side and 10 mL to the opposite side on day 1 and 2 and vice versa on day 3 and 4. With fixed needle entry and nerve target, we repeated local anaesthetic deposition for each blockade. The primary outcome was variation in duration of sensory nerve block defined as insensitivity to a cold stimulus. Data were analysed using linear mixed model regression.

RESULTS

The mean sensory block duration of 380 (95% CI = [342; 418]) minutes on day one was 55 [33; 77] minutes longer than on day two (P < .001), but there were no differences in mean duration between days 2, 3 and 4. The ratios with 2.5; 97.5 percentiles between inter- and intra-individual variation were 2.4 [0.8; 5.2] for the 5 mL blockades and 3.0 [0.9; 6.7] for the 10 mL blockades. The probabilities of inter- to intra-individual variation-ratios >1 were 96% and 97%.

CONCLUSION

The intra-individual variability is a substantially minor contributor to the overall variability in sensory nerve block duration compared with the inter-individual variability.

Longitudinal neural exposure to local anesthetic and nerve block duration: a retrospective analysis of experimental data from healthy volunteer trials

Background and objectives

Characteristics of a nerve block depend on the distribution of local anesthetic (LA) close to the nerve. The relationship between longitudinal distribution of LA and nerve block characteristics has not been investigated in vivo, but one in vitro study showed decrements in action potential amplitudes with increasing exposure length. We describe the influence of longitudinal neural exposure to LA on nerve block duration adjusted for other likely influential factors.

Methods

We analyzed data from an ethical board approved prospective consecutive collected dataset of 180 healthy volunteers with a common peroneal nerve block (2.5–20 mL, 5–40 mg of ropivacaine). Data were retrieved from three independent randomized controlled trials. The longitudinal neural exposure to LA in millimeters was evaluated using ultrasound. Interventional covariates and demographics were retrieved. Nerve block duration, the dependent variable in the primary assessment, was defined as time of insensitivity to a cold stimulus and was evaluated blinded to all other covariates. Using a multiple linear mixed-effects model, we explored the association between neural exposure to LA and nerve block duration.

Results

We found a significant positive association between longitudinal neural exposure to LA and block duration (p<0.01). A 10% increase in longitudinal exposure resulted in an 8.7 (2.5; 15) min increase in block duration. LA dose was associated to block duration (p<0.001) but LA volume had no impact (p=0.93).

Conclusions

Longitudinal neural exposure to LA was significantly associated with nerve block duration. LA dose was the strongest determinant for block duration whereas LA volume had no influence.

Clinical indications for image guided interventional procedures in the musculoskeletal system: a Delphi-based consensus paper from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR)-part III, nerves of the upper limb

BACKGROUND

Image-guided interventional procedures of the nerves are commonly performed by physicians from different medical specialties, although there is a lack of clinical indications for these types of procedures. This Delphi-based consensus provided a list of indications on image-guided interventional procedures for nerves of the upper limb based on updated published evidence.

METHODS

An expert panel of 45 members of the Ultrasound and Interventional Subcommittees of the ESSR participated in this Delphi-based consensus study. After revision of the published papers on image-guided interventional procedures for nerves of the upper limb updated to September 2018, the experts drafted a list of statements according to the Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence. Consensus on statements regarding clinical indications was considered as strong when more than 95% of experts agreed, and broad if more than 80% agreed.

RESULTS

Ten statements were drafted on procedures for nerves of the upper limb. Only two statements reached the highest level of evidence (ultrasound guidance is a safe and effective method for brachial plexus block; ultrasound-guided non-surgical approaches are safe and effective methods to treat carpal tunnel syndrome in the short term, but there is sparse evidence on the mid- and long-term effectiveness of these interventions). Strong consensus was obtained on 6/10 statements (60%), while 4/10 statements reached broad consensus (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi-based consensus study reported poor evidence on image-guided interventional procedures for nerves of the upper limb. Sixty percent of statements on clinical indications provided by the expert board reached a strong consensus.

KEY POINTS

• An expert panel of the ESSR provided 10 evidence-based statements on clinical indications for image-guided interventional procedures for nerves of the upper limb • Two statements reached the highest level of evidence • Strong consensus was obtained on 6/10 statements (60%), while 4/10 statements reached broad consensus (40%).

Ultrasound guidance for upper and lower limb blocks

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. Specifically, we have asked whether the use of ultrasound guidance:1. improves success rates and effectiveness of regional anaesthetic blocks, by increasing the number of blocks that are assessed as adequate2. reduces the complications, such as cardiorespiratory arrest, pneumothorax or vascular puncture, associated with the performance of regional anaesthetic blocks

SEARCH METHODS

In the 2014 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (July 2008 to August 2014); EMBASE (July 2008 to August 2014); ISI Web of Science (2008 to April 2013); CINAHL (July 2014); and LILACS (July 2008 to August 2014). We completed forward and backward citation and clinical trials register searches.The original search was to July 2008. We reran the search in May 2015. We have added 11 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into the formal review findings during future review updates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block of the upper and lower limbs, alone or combined, with at least one other method of nerve location. In the 2014 update, we excluded studies that had given general anaesthetic, spinal, epidural or other nerve blocks to all participants, as well as those measuring the minimum effective dose of anaesthetic drug. This resulted in the exclusion of five studies from the original review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and degree of practitioner experience for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 2844 adult participants. Twenty-six assessed upper-limb and six assessed lower-limb blocks. Seventeen compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and nine compared ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (US + NS) against PNS alone. Two studies compared ultrasound with anatomical landmark technique, one with a transarterial approach, and three were three-arm designs that included US, US + PNS and PNS.There were variations in the quality of evidence, with a lack of detail in many of the studies to judge whether randomization, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was sufficient. It was not possible to blind practitioners and there was therefore a high risk of performance bias across all studies, leading us to downgrade the evidence for study limitations using GRADE. There was insufficient detail on the experience and expertise of practitioners and whether experience was equivalent between intervention and control.We performed meta-analysis for our main outcomes. We found that ultrasound guidance produces superior peripheral nerve block success rates, with more blocks being assessed as sufficient for surgery following sensory or motor testing (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), fixed-effect 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.04); 1346 participants), and fewer blocks requiring supplementation or conversion to general anaesthetic (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39); 1807 participants) compared with the use of PNS, anatomical landmark techniques or a transarterial approach. We were not concerned by risks of indirectness, imprecision or inconsistency for these outcomes and used GRADE to assess these outcomes as being of moderate quality. Results were similarly advantageous for studies comparing US + PNS with NS alone for the above outcomes (M-H OR, fixed-effect 3.33 (95% CI 2.13 to 5.20); 719 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.34 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.56); 712 participants respectively). There were lower incidences of paraesthesia in both the ultrasound comparison groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.42 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.76); 471 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.97 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.12); 178 participants respectively) and lower incidences of vascular puncture in both groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.57); 387 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90); 143 participants). There were fewer studies for these outcomes and we therefore downgraded both for imprecision and paraesthesia for potential publication bias. This gave an overall GRADE assessment of very low and low for these two outcomes respectively. Our analysis showed that it took less time to perform nerve blocks in the ultrasound group (mean difference (MD), IV, fixed-effect -1.06 (95% CI -1.41 to -0.72); 690 participants) but more time to perform the block when ultrasound was combined with a PNS technique (MD, IV, fixed-effect 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.98); 587 participants). With high levels of unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we graded this outcome as very low quality. We did not combine data for other outcomes as study results had been reported using differing scales or with a combination of mean and median data, but our interpretation of individual study data favoured ultrasound for a reduction in other minor complications and reduction in onset time of block and number of attempts to perform block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that peripheral nerve blocks performed by ultrasound guidance alone, or in combination with PNS, are superior in terms of improved sensory and motor block, reduced need for supplementation and fewer minor complications reported. Using ultrasound alone shortens performance time when compared with nerve stimulation, but when used in combination with PNS it increases performance time.We were unable to determine whether these findings reflect the use of ultrasound in experienced hands and it was beyond the scope of this review to consider the learning curve associated with peripheral nerve blocks by ultrasound technique compared with other methods.

Ultrasound guidance for upper and lower limb blocks

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve blocks can be performed using ultrasound guidance. It is not yet clear whether this method of nerve location has benefits over other existing methods. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess whether the use of ultrasound to guide peripheral nerve blockade has any advantages over other methods of peripheral nerve location. Specifically, we have asked whether the use of ultrasound guidance:1. improves success rates and effectiveness of regional anaesthetic blocks, by increasing the number of blocks that are assessed as adequate2. reduces the complications, such as cardiorespiratory arrest, pneumothorax or vascular puncture, associated with the performance of regional anaesthetic blocks

SEARCH METHODS

In the 2014 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8); MEDLINE (July 2008 to August 2014); EMBASE (July 2008 to August 2014); ISI Web of Science (2008 to April 2013); CINAHL (July 2014); and LILACS (July 2008 to August 2014). We completed forward and backward citation and clinical trials register searches.The original search was to July 2008. We reran the search in May 2015. We have added 11 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into the formal review findings during future review updates.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve block of the upper and lower limbs, alone or combined, with at least one other method of nerve location. In the 2014 update, we excluded studies that had given general anaesthetic, spinal, epidural or other nerve blocks to all participants, as well as those measuring the minimum effective dose of anaesthetic drug. This resulted in the exclusion of five studies from the original review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including an assessment of risk of bias and degree of practitioner experience for all studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 2844 adult participants. Twenty-six assessed upper-limb and six assessed lower-limb blocks. Seventeen compared ultrasound with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), and nine compared ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (US + NS) against PNS alone. Two studies compared ultrasound with anatomical landmark technique, one with a transarterial approach, and three were three-arm designs that included US, US + PNS and PNS.There were variations in the quality of evidence, with a lack of detail in many of the studies to judge whether randomization, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was sufficient. It was not possible to blind practitioners and there was therefore a high risk of performance bias across all studies, leading us to downgrade the evidence for study limitations using GRADE. There was insufficient detail on the experience and expertise of practitioners and whether experience was equivalent between intervention and control.We performed meta-analysis for our main outcomes. We found that ultrasound guidance produces superior peripheral nerve block success rates, with more blocks being assessed as sufficient for surgery following sensory or motor testing (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), fixed-effect 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.04); 1346 participants), and fewer blocks requiring supplementation or conversion to general anaesthetic (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.28 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.39); 1807 participants) compared with the use of PNS, anatomical landmark techniques or a transarterial approach. We were not concerned by risks of indirectness, imprecision or inconsistency for these outcomes and used GRADE to assess these outcomes as being of moderate quality. Results were similarly advantageous for studies comparing US + PNS with NS alone for the above outcomes (M-H OR, fixed-effect 3.33 (95% CI 2.13 to 5.20); 719 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.34 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.56); 712 participants respectively). There were lower incidences of paraesthesia in both the ultrasound comparison groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.42 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.76); 471 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.97 (95% CI 0.30 to 3.12); 178 participants respectively) and lower incidences of vascular puncture in both groups (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.57); 387 participants, and M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.22 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.90); 143 participants). There were fewer studies for these outcomes and we therefore downgraded both for imprecision and paraesthesia for potential publication bias. This gave an overall GRADE assessment of very low and low for these two outcomes respectively. Our analysis showed that it took less time to perform nerve blocks in the ultrasound group (mean difference (MD), IV, fixed-effect -1.06 (95% CI -1.41 to -0.72); 690 participants) but more time to perform the block when ultrasound was combined with a PNS technique (MD, IV, fixed-effect 0.76 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.98); 587 participants). With high levels of unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we graded this outcome as very low quality. We did not combine data for other outcomes as study results had been reported using differing scales or with a combination of mean and median data, but our interpretation of individual study data favoured ultrasound for a reduction in other minor complications and reduction in onset time of block and number of attempts to perform block.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that peripheral nerve blocks performed by ultrasound guidance alone, or in combination with PNS, are superior in terms of improved sensory and motor block, reduced need for supplementation and fewer minor complications reported. Using ultrasound alone shortens performance time when compared with nerve stimulation, but when used in combination with PNS it increases performance time.We were unable to determine whether these findings reflect the use of ultrasound in experienced hands and it was beyond the scope of this review to consider the learning curve associated with peripheral nerve blocks by ultrasound technique compared with other methods.