Right-sided versus left-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary obstruction: a randomized controlled study

AIM

To compare the technical difficulty, safety, radiation exposure and success rates between right-sided and left-sided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (RPTBD and LPTBD) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients (28 males, 22 females; mean age 51.78 years) with MBO were randomized to undergo either RPTBD or LPTBD during the study period between June 2016 and May 2018. The procedure time, fluoroscopy time, radiation doses to the operators and patients, technical success, clinical success, complications and effect on quality of life were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in each group. The technical success was 100% in both groups. There was no significant difference between RPTBD and LPTBD groups in terms of major complications [4% and 12%, respectively; p = 0.297] and minor complications [40% and 32%, respectively; p = 0.597]. Further, the average procedure time (37.80 ± 13.07 min vs 41.04 ± 14.94 min), fluoroscopy time (5.88 ± 4.2 min vs 5.97 ± 3.8 min), radiation doses to the operator (136.84 ± 106.67 μSv vs 130.40 ± 106.46 μSv) and to the patient (8.23 ± 5.80 Gycm² vs 11.74 ± 11.28 Gycm²) were not significantly different between the groups. Clinical success was achieved in 21 patients (84%) of RPTBD group and 17 patients (68%) of LPTBD group with no significant difference (p = 0.416) between them.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between RPTBD and LPTBD with reference to the technique, safety, radiation dose, success rates and impact on quality of life suggesting no laterality advantage for biliary drainage in cases of MBO.

Procedural sedation and analgesia for percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage: Randomized clinical trial for comparison of two different concepts

Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is important during painful dilatation and stenting in patients undergoing percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). A prospective, nonblinded randomized clinical trial was performed comparing different analgesic regimens with regard to the patient’s comfort. Patients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups in a parallel study, receiving either remifentanil or combined midazolam, piritramide, and S-ketamine. The primary study endpoint was pain intensity before, during, and after the intervention using the numerical rating scale (0, no pain; 10, maximum pain). The secondary study endpoint was the satisfaction of the interventional radiologist. Fifty patients underwent PTBD of whom 19 (38.0%) underwent additional stenting. During intervention, the two groups did not differ significantly. After the intervention, the need for auxiliary opioids was higher (12.5% vs 7.7%; p = 0.571) and nausea/vomiting was more frequently observed (33.4% vs 3.8%; p = 0.007) in patients with remifentanil than in patients with PSA. Overall, 45 patients (90.0%) needed additional administration of non-opioid analgesics during postinterventional observation. Remifentanil and combined midazolam, piritramide, and S-ketamine obtained adequate analgesic effects during PTBD. After the intervention, medications with antiemetics and long-acting analgesics were more frequently administered in patients treated with remifentanil (EudraCT No. 2006-003285-34; institutional funding).

Different effects of oxycodone and remifentanil in patients undergoing ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatic cancer: a randomized trial

Background

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a recently introduced alternative technique for the treatment of hepatic cancer. Anesthesia is required for RFA of hepatic cancer to achieve patient comfort and immobilization during this painful procedure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the analgesic efficacy and evaluate the safety of a single intravenous injection of oxycodone hydrochloride for this procedure.

Patients and methods

A total of 120 American Society of Anesthesiologists class I–II grade patients for elective ultrasound-guided percutaneous RFA were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either a single intravenous injection of oxycodone (group O) or continuous infusion of remifentanil (group R). Both groups received the continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine for sedation. Visual analog scale (VAS), rescue analgesic, and side effects were checked during the periprocedural period. In addition, patient and oncologist satisfaction on a scale of 1–5 were determined.

Results

VAS score in group O was significantly lower than in group R at 1, 2, and 3 hours after RFA, and patients in group O required analgesics significantly later and less doses in the first 24 hours after RFA. The occurrence of unwanted body movements was significantly lower in group O. We found no complications including allergic reaction, excessive sedation, and chest wall rigidity in all patients. The patient satisfaction score was significantly higher in group O than that in group R.

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous RFA for hepatic cancer can be completed both with continuous infusion of remifentanil or a single intravenous injection of oxycodone. However, oxycodone hydrochloride provides better patient experience with higher satisfactory score and less unwanted body movements, relieves post-procedural pain better, and is not associated with an increase in adverse effects.

Comparison between local anaesthesia with remifentanil and total intravenous anaesthesia for operative hysteroscopic procedures in day surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at comparing total i.v. anaesthesia (TIVA) with monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) during day-surgery operative hysteroscopy regarding: operation time, time to mobilization and discharge, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Ninety-one healthy women were randomized to MAC with paracervical local anaesthesia and remifentanil or to TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Time from arrival to leaving the operating theatre, time from arrival in the recovery room to mobilization and discharge readiness, and patient satisfaction with MAC and TIVA were observed.

RESULTS

Time from arrival to leaving the operating theatre showed no significant difference between groups (P=0.6). The time to mobilization {MAC: 53 min [inter-quartile range (IQR) 40-83], TIVA: 69 min (IQR 52-96) (P=0.017)} and the total time from arrival to discharge readiness [MAC: 118 min (IQR 95-139), TIVA: 138 (IQR 120-158) (P=0.0009)] were significantly reduced for patients in the MAC group. More patients in the MAC group 45 (91.8%) than in the TIVA group 24 (64.9%) responded positively to the question: would you like to receive the same kind of anaesthesia for a similar procedure in the future? (P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Paracervical local anaesthesia combined with remifentanil is suitable for operative hysteroscopy in day surgery.

Remifentanil, a different opioid: potential clinical applications and safety aspects

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Opioids play an important role in every aspect of modern anesthetic practice. Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid featuring a unique pharmacokinetic profile allowing clinical versatility and improved control of its action. In this review, we assess the pharmacology of remifentanil, its clinical uses as well as safety issues on its action on the major organ systems and in particular clinical settings.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

A synthesis of evidence from a MEDLINE search for articles from 1993 to 2009 for available up-to-date information on remifentanil and its current applications and safety profile.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A synopsis of the unique pharmacokinetic properties of remifentanil and its action on major organ systems will provide insight on the safe and effective use of the drug in a variety of clinical settings.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Remifentanil is a valuable opioid in the armamentarium of the clinician, providing great clinical flexibility and safety but vigilance is required to avoid pitfalls.

[Anaesthesiologic implications of the radial approach in interventional cardiology]

The development of the radial approach in interventional cardiology is one of the reasons for the increase in demands for anaesthesia services in the cardiac catheterization room. The technique in which sedation is carried out in this particular environment has gradually changed, in parallel with the development of new technologies in anaesthesia, particularly suited to achieving short sedation in spontaneous ventilation. This article evaluates this issue and suggests an updated therapeutic approach.