Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Intraperitoneal administration of local anesthesia is often used to improve pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We have conducted a meta-analysis to establish the efficacy of this technique in reducing early postoperative abdominal pain. A systematic literature search revealed 24 randomized, controlled trials assessing intraperitoneal local anesthetic use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy that met inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 studies reported sufficient data to allow pooled quantitative analysis. The weighted mean differences (WMD) in visual analog pain score at 4 h after surgery were pooled using a random effects model. Overall, the use of intraperitoneal local anesthesia resulted in a significantly reduced pain score at 4 h (WMD, -9 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to -5). Subgroup analysis suggested that the effect was greater when the local anesthetic was given at the start of the operation (WMD, -13 mm; 95% CI, -19 to -7) compared with instillation at the end (WMD, -6 mm; 95% CI, -10 to -2). No adverse events related to local anesthetic toxicity were reported. We conclude that the use of intraperitoneal local anesthesia is safe, and it results in a statistically significant reduction in early postoperative abdominal pain.

for the Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) Team IMPORTANCE There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.OBJECTIVE To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSRandomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019. INTERVENTIONS Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.RESULTS Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, −1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, −2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, ...

No abstract