BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common among trauma patients and analgesia remains the cornerstone of treatment. Intercostal nerve blocks provide analgesia but are limited by the duration of the anesthetic. This study compares outcomes of epidural analgesia with intercostal nerve block using liposomal bupivacaine for the treatment of traumatic rib fractures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was used to identify patients who received either epidural analgesia or intercostal nerve block with liposomal bupivacaine for the treatment of traumatic rib fractures. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio on age, Injury Severity Score, and number of rib fractures. Outcomes included intubations, mechanical ventilation days, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: After matching, 116 patients were included in the study. Patients receiving intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine were less likely to require intubation (3% vs 17%; p ¼ 0.015), had shorter hospital LOS (mean AE SD 8 AE 6 days vs 11 AE 9 days; p ¼ 0.020) and ICU LOS (mean AE SD 2 AE 5 days vs 5 AE 6 days; p ¼ 0.007). There were no differences in ventilator days or mortality. Minor complications occurred in 26% of patients that received an epidural catheter for rib fractures. No complications occurred in the patients receiving intercostal nerve block. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine required intubation less frequently and had shorter ICU and hospital LOS compared with epidural analgesia patients. These results suggest that intercostal nerve blocks with liposomal bupivacaine might be equal or superior to epidural analgesia.

No abstract

Introduction Adequate mean arterial pressure (MAP), or the average pressure in arteries during one cardiac cycle, plays an important role in ensuring adequate blood flow and perfusion in critically ill patients. MAP values of 65 mmHg or greater have been widely regarded as the ideal value for hospitalized patients in the past, especially those suffering from septic shock. Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) present a unique challenge due to their rapid progression and high mortality, which creates the need for specific diagnostic and treatment guidelines that differ from those directed toward the care of sepsis secondary to other causes. Further research is still required to better understand the complex interactions between mean arterial pressure and morbidity and mortality among those with necrotizing soft tissue infections. Methods Data was collected from a retrospective cohort study of 50 adult patients hospitalized with an NSTI from 2015-2021. MAP ranges in the first 48 hours of admission were sorted into four categories: under 60 mmHg, 60-69 mmHg, 70-79 mmHg, and above 79 mmHg. We investigated outcomes relating to increased morbidity, including need for repeat debridement, need for dialysis, or development of acute kidney injury. Statistical logistic regressions were fitted to model the outcome as a function of the available pool of predictors: demographic variables, co-morbidities, and hemodynamic variables, such as MAP and use of vasopressors. Results In this small study, we found no significant association between time spent in different MAP groups or vasopressor volumes on the need for repeat debridement for NSTI patients or overall patient morbidity and mortality (p=0.1742). Patients who were significantly more likely to need a repeat debridement included those with previously diagnosed diabetes and hypertension (p=0.0485 and 0.0252, respectively). Conclusions NSTI patients can tolerate mild fluctuations in MAP without these pressures significantly impacting their need for repeat debridement or other sources of morbidity. However, patients who are hypertensive at baseline or diabetic are significantly more likely to require a second surgery, necessitating a more extensive primary debridement. Applicability of Research to Practice Patients hospitalized for NSTI can fluctuate at pressures below the established MAP goal of 65 mmHg without a significant need for pressors. Those with a history of hypertension or diabetes should be followed closely for possible spread of infection after primary surgery.