Citations

Background Regional anesthesia is increasing in popularity for ambulatory surgical procedures. Concomitantly, the prevalence of obesity in the United States population is increasing. The objective of the present investigation was to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on patient outcomes after ambulatory regional anesthesia. Methods This study was based on prospectively collected data including 9,038 blocks performed on 6,920 patients in a single ambulatory surgery center. Patients were categorized into three groups according to their BMI (<25 kg/m2, 25-29 kg/m2, > or =30 kg/m2). Block efficacy, rate of acute complications, postoperative pain (at rest and with movement), postoperative nausea and vomiting, rate of unscheduled hospital admissions, and overall patient satisfaction were assessed. Linear and logistic multivariable analyses were used to obtain the risk-adjusted effect of BMI on these outcomes. Results Of all patients 34.8% had a BMI <25 kg/m2, 34.0% were overweight (BMI 25-29 kg/m2), and 31.3% were obese (BMI > or = 30 kg/m2). Patients with BMI > or =30 kg/m2 were 1.62 times more likely to have a failed block (P = 0.04). The unadjusted rate of acute complications was higher in obese patients (P = 0.001). However, when compared with patients with a normal BMI, postoperative pain at rest, unanticipated admissions, and overall satisfaction were similar in overweight and obese patients. Conclusions The present investigation shows that obesity is associated with higher block failure and complication rates in surgical regional anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. Nonetheless, the rate of successful blocks and overall satisfaction remained high in patients with increased BMI. Therefore, overweight and obese patients should not be excluded from regional anesthesia procedures in the ambulatory setting.

Abstract Background: Objective methods to assess the adequacy of medication therapy for patients with advanced heart failure are lacking. Serial measurements of biomarkers might be beneficial. Therapy guided by N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) might be helpful because NT-proBNP should be lowered by therapies that decrease endogenous BNP secretion. Methods: NT-proBNP and BNP were measured in a nonconsecutive patient cohort receiving clinically indicated intravenous nesiritide. Blood samples were drawn before, at 6 and 24 h during, and at 6 h after infusion. A reduction in NT-proBNP was defined as a decrease from baseline during infusion (“infusion responders”) of &gt;3 SD of the variability of the assay measurement (∼20%). Patients with decreases &gt;20% in both NT-pro BNP and BNP at 6 h post infusion were designated “biochemical responders”. Results: Forty patients [27 males; mean (SE) age, 68 (2) years; mean (SE) left ventricular ejection fraction, 25 (1.4)%] were studied. All patients improved clinically. Overall, the changes in NT-proBNP were a 18 (4.6)% [mean (SE)] and 19.8% (median) decrease from baseline at 24 h of infusion and a 22 (6.0)% and 17.8% decrease at 6 h post infusion (P &lt;0.001 compared with baseline). In a large number of patients, decreases in NT-proBNP were, however, within the variability of the assay. Subgroup analysis showed that 22 of 40 patients were infusion responders with a &gt;20% decrease from baseline in NT-proBNP during nesiritide infusion, whereas only 12 patients were biochemical responders with &gt;20% decreases from baseline postinfusion for both NT-proBNP and BNP. Conclusions: In this study, many patients had decreased NT-proBNP and BNP values after therapy with nesiritide, but the majority of patients did not demonstrate biochemically significant decreases in analytes despite a clinical response. Until we know more about the responses of natriuretic peptides to therapies such as nesiritide, a strategy of monitoring NT-proBNP and BNP to guide therapy cannot be universally advocated.

Purpose Gemcitabine remains the standard therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ACA), but has limited activity. ISIS-2503 is an antisense compound directed against H-ras with preclinical activity against pancreatic ACA in tumor models. The combination of ISIS-2503 and gemcitabine has been evaluated in a prior phase I study. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic ACA not amenable to surgery or local radiation received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 and ISIS-2503 6 mg/kg/d as a continuous intravenous infusion over 14 days of an every-3-weeks cycle. Responses were monitored by radiologic imaging every 6 weeks. Results Forty-eight eligible patients were enrolled, 43 with metastatic disease. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range, 2.2 to 16.8 months) for living patients. A median of four cycles of treatment was given (range, 1 to 18 cycles). All patients were assessable for response and toxicity. The 6-month survival percentage was 57.5% (95% CI, 44.9% to 73.5%) and the median survival was 6.6 months. The response rate was 10.4% (one complete response, four partial responses). Clinically significant toxicity was limited except for one fatal pulmonary embolism. Conclusion This study shows a promising response rate to the combination of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in patients with pancreatic ACA. The observed 6-month survival rate in these patients met our protocol-defined criteria for success. This regimen is tolerable, but is of unclear benefit. Additional studies evaluating the role of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in the treatment of pancreatic ACA should be considered.