Local Anaesthetic Toxicity after Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Block in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a small pilot observational study of the effects of bilateral thoracic paravertebral block (BTPB) as an adjunct to perioperative analgesia in coronary artery bypass surgery patients. The initial ropivacaine dose prior to induction of general anaesthesia was 3 mg/kg, which was followed at the end of the surgery by infusion of ropivacaine 0.25% 0.1 ml/kg/hour on each side (e.g. total 35 mg/hour for a 70 kg person). The BTPB did not eliminate the need for supplemental opioids after CABG in the eight patients studied. Moreover, in spite of boluses that were within the manufacturer's recommendation for epidural and major nerve blocks, and an infusion rate that was only slightly higher than what appeared to be safe for epidural infusion, potentially toxic total plasma ropivacaine concentrations were common. We also could not exclude the possibility that the high ropivacaine concentrations were contributing to postoperative mental state changes in the postoperative period. Also, one patient developed local anaesthetic toxicity after the bilateral paravertebral dose. As a result, the study was terminated early after four days. The question of whether paravertebral block confers benefits in cardiac surgery remains unanswered. However, we believe that the bolus dosage and the injection rate we used for BTPB were both too high, and caution other clinicians against the use of these doses. Future studies on the use of BTPB in cardiac surgery patients should include reduced ropivacaine doses injected over longer periods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".