Background The role of preoperative gabapentin in postoperative pain management is not clear, particularly in patients receiving regional blockade. Patients undergoing thoracotomy benefit from epidural analgesia but still may experience significant postoperative pain. We examined the effect of preoperative gabapentin in thoracotomy patients. Methods Adults undergoing elective thoracotomy were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, and randomly assigned to receive 600 mg gabapentin or active placebo (12.5 mg diphenhydramine) orally within 2 hours preoperatively. Standardized management included thoracic epidural infusion, intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia, acetaminophen and ketorolac. Pain scores, opioid use and side effects were recorded for 48 hours. Pain was also assessed at 3 months. Results One hundred twenty patients (63 placebo and 57 gabapentin) were studied. Pain scores did not significantly differ at any time point (p=0.53). Parenteral and oral opioid consumption was not significantly different between groups on postoperative day 1 or 2 (p>0.05 in both cases). The frequency of side effects such as nausea and vomiting or respiratory depression was not significantly different between groups, but gabapentin was associated with decreased frequency of pruritus requiring nalbuphine (14% gabapentin vs. 43% control group, p<0.001). The frequency of patients experiencing pain at 3 months post-thoracotomy was also comparable between groups (70% gabapentin vs. 66% placebo group, p=0.72). Conclusions A single preoperative oral dose of gabapentin (600 mg) did not reduce pain scores or opioid consumption following elective thoracotomy, and did not confer any analgesic benefit in the setting of effective multimodal analgesia that included thoracic epidural infusion.

Background Pain following thoracotomy is common. The objective of this study was to assess whether pain 3 months post-thoracotomy negatively impacts quality of life. Methods One hundred ten patients were prospectively assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey before and 3 months after elective thoracotomy. Pain and medication use were evaluated by questionnaire. Patients experiencing pain at 3 months were compared with patients who did not have post-thoracotomy pain. Results Seventy-five patients (68%) had pain 3 months post-thoracotomy; 12 patients (11%) rated their average pain greater than 3 (out of 10). Eighteen (16%) patients required opioid analgesics. The pain group reported lower SF-36 scores in: physical functioning (P=0.049), bodily pain (P=0.0002), and vitality (P=0.044). There were no other significant differences in any SF-36 scale between the pain and non-pain groups. Conclusion Pain is commonly reported at 3 months following elective thoracotomy, but is generally mild, shows improvement over with time, and does not usually require opioid analgesics. Patients who experience post-thoracotomy pain at 3 months are at risk for significantly decreased physical functioning and vitality, but are not at risk for significantly decreased social, emotional, or mental health functioning compared with patients who do not experience post-thoracotomy pain at 3 months.

Objectives In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol (FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols. Design Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new shock. Setting ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating hospitals. Patients Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497 subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT Lite. Interventions Fluid management by protocol. Measurements and Main Results Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite, −136 ±491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502 mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84). Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ±0.3) were equivalent to FACTT Conservative (14.6±0.5) (p = 0.61) and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ±0.5, p < 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p = 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p = 0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%) (p = 0.18 vs Lite). Conclusions FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Fluid resuscitation has become the cornerstone of early septic shock management, but the optimal fluid rate is still not well studied. The goal of this investigation is to examine the relationship between fluid resuscitation rate and septic shock resolution. Method: We retrospectively studied adult (≥ 18 years) patients with septic shock, defined based on sepsis III definition, from January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2018, in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) of Mayo Clinic Rochester. The fluid resuscitation time was defined as the time required to infuse the initial fluid bolus of 30 ml/kg, based on the recommendations of the 2016 surviving sepsis campaign. The cohort was divided into four groups based on the average fluid rate (group 1 ≥ 0.5, group 2 0.25-0.49, group 3 0.17-0.24, and group 4 < 0.17 ml/kg/min). The primary outcome was the time to shock reversal. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to account for potential confounders. Result: A total of 1052 patients met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The time-to-shock reversal was significantly different among the groups (P < .001). Patients in group 1 who received fluid resuscitation at a faster rate had a shorter time to shock reversal (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91; P = .01) when compared with group 4 with a median (IQR) time-to-shock reversal of 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) vs. 2.8 (2.6, 3.3) days, respectively. Using 0.25 ml/kg/min as cutoff, the higher fluid infusion rate was associated with a shorter time to shock reversal (HR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.41; P = .004) and with decreased odds of 28-day mortality (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.60-0.85; P < .001). Conclusion: In septic shock patients, initial fluid resuscitation rate of 0.25-0.50 ml/kg/min (i.e., completion of the initial 30 ml/kg IV fluid resuscitation within the first 2 h), may be associated with early shock reversal and lower 28-day mortality compared with slower rates of infusion.In this study, we assess the impact of the initial fluid replacement rate on the outcome of patients with septic shock managed based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines. We found among septic shock patients the minimum initial fluid resuscitation rate of 0.25-0.50 ml/kg/min (i.e., completion of the initial 30 ml/kg IV fluid resuscitation within the first 2 h) is associated with a shorter time to shock reversal and improved patient outcome.

No abstract