Background Multimodal analgesia in rib fractures (RFs) is designed to maximize pain control while minimizing narcotics. Prior research with intravenous lidocaine (IVL) efficacy produced conflicting results. We hypothesized IVL infusion reduces opioid utilization and pain scores. Methods A retrospective review of RF patients at an ACS-verified Level I trauma center from April 2018 to 2/2020 was conducted. Patients (pts) stratified as receiving IVL vs no IVL. Initial lidocaine dose: 1 mg/kg/hr with a maximum of 3 mg/kg/hr. Duration of infusion: 48 h. Pain quantified by the Stanford Pain Score system (PS). Bivariate and multivariate analyses of variables were performed on SPSS, version 21 (IBM Corp). Results 414 pts met inclusion criteria: 254 males and 160 females. The average age for the non-IVL = 67.4 ± 15.2 years vs IVL = 58.3 ± 17.1 years ( P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for ISS, PS for initial 48 h, and ICU length of stay (LOS). There was a difference in morphine equivalents per hour: non-IVL = 1.25 vs IVL = 1.72 ( P = .004) and LOS non-IVL = 10.2+/−7.6 vs IVL = 7.82+/−4.94. By analyzing IVL pts in a crossover comparison before and after IVL, there was reduction in opiates: 3.01 vs 1.72 ( P < .001) and PS: 7.0 vs 4.9 ( P < .001). Stanford Pain Score system reduction in the IVL = 48.3 ± 23.9%, but less effective in narcotic dependency (27 ± 22.9%, P = .035); IVL pts had hospital cost reduction: $82,927 vs $118,202 ( P < .01). Discussion In a crossover analysis, IVL is effective for reduction of PS and opiate use and reduces hospital LOS and costs. Patient age may confound interpretation of results. Our data support IVL use in multimodal pain regimens. Future prospective study is warranted.

The use of closed suction drains in the abdominal wall is a common practice in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) operations. Drains can be a conduit for bacteria and can cause pain and discomfort for patients after surgery. A single hernia program has implemented the principles of clinical quality improvement in an attempt to improve outcomes for hernia patients. An attempt at a process improvement was implemented to eliminate the use of drains in AWR by adapting the technique. A total of 102 patients undergoing AWR were included between 8/11 and 9/15 (49 months). Compared with the group before the attempt at eliminating the use of abdominal wall drains (8/11–9/13), the group of patients after the implementation of the attempted process improvement (9/13–9/15) had less wound and pulmonary complications, a shorter hospital stay, less time in the postanesthesia care unit, and less opioid use in the postanesthesia care unit as well as for the entire hospital stay. In this group of AWR patients, an attempt at process improvement that eliminated the use of drains led to improved outcomes. Abdominal wall drains may be able to be safely eliminated with appropriate technique adaptation for AWR.

Objective. We aimed to study the differences in perception of pain during cardiac catheterization with midazolam monotherapy compared to the current standard of midazolam plus fentanyl. Background. Procedural sedation is important to ensure comfort and safety in patients undergoing left heart catheterization. Despite the widespread use of midazolam and fentanyl for procedural sedation, the effectiveness of this dual agent approach to sedation has never been studied in comparison to midazolam monotherapy. Methods. A total of 129 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient elective cardiac catheterization were randomly assigned to either midazolam monotherapy (n = 69) or combination of midazolam and fentanyl (n = 60). The primary outcome was assessment of pain perception prior to discharge by patient completion of a pain questionnaire. Participants were asked if they experienced any pain during their procedure (yes/no) and, if yes, asked to rate their overall pain level using a 10-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (minimal pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Results. Most patients (n = 94, 73%) reported no pain during their procedure. Patients sedated with midazolam monotherapy reported similar average pain scores compared to patients sedated with the combination of midazolam and fentanyl (1.1 vs. 1.1, p = 0.95 ). Conclusions. Among patients undergoing elective cardiac catheterization, no significant differences in pain scores were noted between sedation with midazolam alone compared to midazolam and fentanyl. Due to fentanyl’s unfavorable interaction with P2Y12 agents, increased costs, and addiction potential, it is imperative that cardiologists revisit the role of effective procedural sedation with a single agent and avoid the use of fentanyl.

No abstract