Ascending thoracic aorta dimension and outcomes in acute type B dissection (from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection [IRAD])

It is not well known if the size of the ascending thoracic aorta at presentation predicts features of presentation, management, and outcomes in patients with acute type B aortic dissection. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) database was queried for all patients with acute type B dissection who had documentation of ascending thoracic aortic size at time of presentation. Patients were categorized according to ascending thoracic aortic diameters ≤4.0, 4.1 to 4.5, and ≥4.6 cm. Four hundred eighteen patients met inclusion criteria; 291 patients (69.6%) were men with a mean age of 63.2 ± 13.5 years. Ascending thoracic aortic diameter ≤4.0 cm was noted in 250 patients (59.8%), 4.1 to 4.5 cm in 105 patients (25.1%), and ≥4.6 cm in 63 patients (15.1%). Patients with an ascending thoracic aortic diameter ≥4.6 cm were more likely to be men (p = 0.01) and have Marfan syndrome (p <0.001) and known bicuspid aortic valve disease (p = 0.003). In patients with an ascending thoracic aorta ≥4.1 cm, there was an increased incidence of surgical intervention (p = 0.013). In those with an ascending thoracic aorta ≥4.6 cm, the root, ascending aorta, arch, and aortic valve were more often involved in surgical repair. Patients with an ascending thoracic aorta ≤4.0 were more likely to have endovascular therapy than those with larger ascending thoracic aortas (p = 0.009). There was no difference in overall mortality or cause of death. In conclusion, ascending thoracic aortic enlargement in patients with acute type B aortic dissection is common. Although its presence does not appear to predict an increased risk of mortality, it is associated with more frequent open surgical intervention that often involves replacement of the proximal aorta. Those with smaller proximal aortas are more likely to receive endovascular therapy.

Minimal local anesthetic volume for peripheral nerve block: a new ultrasound-guided, nerve dimension-based method

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nerve blocks using local anesthetics are widely used. High volumes are usually injected, which may predispose patients to associated adverse events. Introduction of ultrasound guidance facilitates the reduction of volume, but the minimal effective volume is unknown. In this study, we estimated the 50% effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) volume of 1% mepivacaine relative to the cross-sectional area of the nerve for an adequate sensory block. METHODS: To reduce the number of healthy volunteers, we used a volume reduction protocol using the up-and-down procedure according to the Dixon average method. The ulnar nerve was scanned at the proximal forearm, and the cross-sectional area was measured by ultrasound. In the first volunteer, a volume of 0.4 mL/mm of nerve cross-sectional area was injected under ultrasound guidance in close proximity to and around the nerve using a multiple injection technique. The volume in the next volunteer was reduced by 0.04 mL/mm in case of complete blockade and augmented by the same amount in case of incomplete sensory blockade within 20 mins. After 3 up-and-down cycles, ED50 and ED95 were estimated. Volunteers and physicians performing the block were blinded to the volume used. RESULTS: A total 17 of volunteers were investigated. The ED50 volume was 0.08 mL/mm (SD, 0.01 mL/mm), and the ED95 volume was 0.11 mL/mm (SD, 0.03 mL/mm). The mean cross-sectional area of the nerves was 6.2 mm (1.0 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ultrasound measured cross-sectional area and using ultrasound guidance, a mean volume of 0.7 mL represents the ED95 dose of 1% mepivacaine to block the ulnar nerve at the proximal forearm.