Person:

Vlassakov, Kamen

The aim of this study was to assess progress in the field of anesthetic drugs over the past 30 years using scientometric indices: popularity indices (general and specific), representing the proportion of articles on a drug relative to all articles in the field of anesthetics (general index) or the subfield of a specific class of anesthetics (specific index); index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic from one period to the next; index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed; and index of ultimate success, representing a publication outcome when a new drug takes the place of a common drug previously used for the same purpose. Publications on 58 topics were assessed during six 5-year periods from 1984 to 2013. Our analysis showed that during 2009–2013, out of seven anesthetics with a high general popularity index (≥2.0), only two were introduced after 1980, ie, the inhaled anesthetic sevoflurane and the local anesthetic ropivacaine; however, only sevoflurane had a high index of expectations (12.1). Among anesthetic adjuncts, in 2009–2013, only one agent, sugammadex, had both an extremely high index of change (>100) and a high index of expectations (25.0), reflecting the novelty of its mechanism of action. The index of ultimate success was positive with three anesthetics, ie, lidocaine, isoflurane, and propofol, all of which were introduced much longer than 30 years ago. For the past 30 years, there were no new anesthetics that have produced changes in scientometric indices indicating real progress.

Over the past 2 decades, many new techniques and drugs for the treatment of acute pain have achieved widespread use. The main aim of this study was to assess the progress in their implementation using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indices were used: 1) popularity index, representing the share of articles on a specific technique (or a drug) relative to all articles in the field of acute pain; 2) index of change, representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic compared to the previous period; and 3) index of expectations, representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed. Publications on specific topics (ten techniques and 21 drugs) were assessed during four time periods (1993–1997, 1998–2002, 2003–2007, and 2008–2012). In addition, to determine whether the status of routine acute pain management has improved over the past 20 years, we analyzed surveys designed to be representative of the national population that reflected direct responses of patients reporting pain scores. By the 2008–2012 period, popularity index had reached a substantial level (≥5%) only with techniques or drugs that were introduced 30–50 years ago or more (epidural analgesia, patient-controlled analgesia, nerve blocks, epidural analgesia for labor or delivery, bupivacaine, and acetaminophen). In 2008–2012, promising (although modest) changes of index of change and index of expectations were found only with dexamethasone. Six national surveys conducted for the past 20 years demonstrated an unacceptably high percentage of patients experiencing moderate or severe pain with not even a trend toward outcome improvement. Thus, techniques or drugs that were introduced and achieved widespread use for acute pain management within the past 20 years have produced no changes in scientometric indices that would indicate real progress and have failed to improve national outcomes for relief of acute pain. Two possible reasons for this are discussed: 1) the difference between the effectiveness of old and new techniques is not clinically meaningful; and 2) resources necessary for appropriate use of new techniques in routine pain management are not adequate.

The aim of this study was to assess progress in the field of anesthesia monitoring over the past 40 years using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indexes were used: popularity indexes (general and specific), representing the proportion of articles on either a topic relative to all articles in the field of anesthetics (general popularity index, GPI) or the subfield of anesthesia monitoring (specific popularity index, SPI); index of change (IC), representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic from one period to the next; and index of expectations (IE), representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed. Publications on 33 anesthesia-monitoring topics were assessed. Our analysis showed that over the past 40 years, the rate of rise in the number of articles on anesthesia monitoring was exponential, with an increase of more than eleven-fold, from 296 articles over the 5-year period 1974–1978 to 3,394 articles for 2009–2013. This rise profoundly exceeded the rate of rise of the number of articles on general anesthetics. The difference was especially evident with the comparison of the related GPIs: stable growth of the GPI for anesthesia monitoring vs constant decline in the GPI for general anesthetics. By the 2009–2013 period, among specific monitoring topics introduced after 1980, the SPI index had a meaningful magnitude (≥1.5) in 9 of 24 topics: Bispectral Index (7.8), Transesophageal Echocardiography (4.2), Electromyography (2.8), Pulse Oximetry (2.4), Entropy (2.3), Train-of-four (2.3), Capnography (1.9), Pulse Contour (1.9), and Electrical Nerve Stimulation for neuromuscular monitoring (1.6). Only one of these topics (Pulse Contour) demonstrated (in 2009–2013) high values for both IC and IE indexes (76 and 16.9, respectively), indicating significant recent progress. We suggest that rapid growth in the field of anesthetic monitoring was one of the most important developments to compensate for the intrinsically low margins of safety of anesthetic agents.

Background: The aim of this study was to delineate research reflecting advances in regional/local anesthesia where recent clinical progress was clearly defined by meta-analysis. Methods: We conducted a search to identify all articles with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials related to the field of regional/local anesthesia. From 279 titles, after multiple exclusions, 16 meta-analyses on important clinical practice developments with high potential for a positive conclusion on the effectiveness of the treatment were left for the assessment. The assessment was performed in two steps. The first step was related to verification of proof-of-concept: the effect is statistically reliable (p-value, effect size, heterogeneity across different RCTs) and the risk of bias not too high. The second step was devoted to attempts to form an opinion on the real clinical benefits of a new development. Results: The assessment revealed that seven recent developments passed the proof-of-concept step. At the same time, positive conclusion on real clinical benefits was reached only by one of these seven developments: ultrasound guidance for peripheral nerve blocks (at least with some of the blocks). Meaningful clinical improvements with other developments remains uncertain. The assessment of the relationships between analyzed advancements over the past 30 years and earlier similar developments indicated that their evolution was usually incremental. The most original advancement was found to be the introduction of the transversus abdominis plane block. Conclusion: The assessment of recent advances in regional/local anesthesia, based on the evaluation of related meta-analyses, revealed only incremental progress with mostly marginal benefits. The progress was the most notable with ultrasound guidance for some of peripheral nerve blocks.

Purpose The ultrasound-guided retrolaminar block is one of the newer and simpler alternatives to the traditional, often technically challenging, paravertebral (PV) block. Its feasibility, safety, and efficacy have already been clinically demonstrated in patients with multiple rib fractures using higher volumes of local anesthetic, when compared with the traditional approach. The primary aim of this observational anatomical study was to assess the spread of local anesthetic from the retrolaminar injection point to the PV space and its volume dependence. Second, we assessed the incidence of epidural and contralateral PV spread in the both groups. Methods: Ten fresh porcine cadavers were randomized into 2 groups (n=5 each) to receive ultrasound-guided retrolaminar injections at Th4-Th5 level with either 10 mL (low-volume group) or 30 mL (high-volume group) of 2% lidocaine and methylene blue mixture. After the procedure, the cadavers were dissected and frozen. Cross-section cuts (~1 cm thick) were performed to evaluate the injectate spread. Results: In the high-volume group, injectate spread from the retrolaminar to the PV space was observed in all specimens (5 out of 5; 100%), while in the low-volume group, no apparent spread to the PV space was found (0 out of 5; 0%). No epidural or contralateral PV spread was observed in any of the specimens. Conclusion: Following ultrasound-guided retrolaminar injections in fresh porcine cadavers, injectate spread from the retrolaminar tissue plane to the PV space is strongly volume dependent, suggesting that, clinically, high local anesthetic volumes maybe critical for achieving regional anesthesia and analgesia consistent with traditional PV blockade.