Use of Continuous Regional Anesthesia Infusion as an Opioid‐Sparing Modality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Acute Traumatic Rib Fractures—A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous regional anesthesia (CRA) techniques are used for analgesia in patients with acute rib fractures. However, there is a paucity of evidence supporting the initiation of CRA in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). We therefore performed this retrospective study to assess changes in opioid consumption and the rate of liberation from MV in patients with traumatic rib fractures. METHODS: Patients referred to the Acute Pain Service (January 2022-July 2023) who were mechanically ventilated with acute rib fractures were included in this study. Patients received consultation either with or without CRA. Demographic and severity of injury data were collected. Mechanical ventilator requirements, pain scores, sedation use, opioids, adjunct analgesics, neurological status, and sedation status were collected for the 24 h prior to APS consultation/CRA intervention and for 48 h afterward. RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the study, with 18 in the non-CRA group and 22 in the CRA group. There was a statistically significant decrease in overall opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents) for the CRA group compared to the non-CRA group 0-48 h postintervention (0-24 h post-CRA [median 135 mg { 33.1-296.6}]) versus non-CRA 368.3 (121.5-727.9) (p = 0.018), 24-48 h post-CRA (31.5 mg [11.5-131.6] vs. non-CRA 342.8 [99.3-645.8]) (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in rates of liberation from MV between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CRA use was associated with a decrease in opioid consumption 24-48 h after CRA intervention compared to baseline. CRA did not facilitate early liberation from MV. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This retrospective study provides evidence that CRA may reduce opioid requirements in mechanically ventilated patients with rib fractures. Although CRA did not facilitate earlier liberation from ventilation, the opioid-sparing effect is clinically relevant in this population. Larger prospective studies are warranted to define optimal timing, patient selection, and integration of CRA into critical care pathways.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".