Search PubMedSearch

Biomedical subjects

Fredrik Sjövall

Publications and source records attributed to Fredrik Sjövall.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A Novel Multiple Sensory Nerve Block Combination Using Ultrasound Guidance in Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Combining adductor canal block (ACB), infiltration between the popliteal artery and posterior capsule of the knee (IPACK), and genicular nerve blocks provides motor-sparing analgesia in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Adding nerve blocks targeting the nerve to vastus medialis, vastus intermedius, and anterior femoral cutaneous nerve may improve postoperative pain management without affecting mobility. This study evaluated the effect of an eight-nerve block combination for pain relief after TKA versus local infiltration analgesia (LIA). METHODS: Participants were randomized into intervention or standard treatment groups. The intervention group received an eight-nerve block combination using 40 mL ropivacaine, 5&#x2009;mg/mL, with 75 &#xb5;g of clonidine. The control group received LIA comprising 150 mL ropivacaine, 2&#x2009;mg/mL, supplemented with 0.5&#x2009;mg adrenaline. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity, measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) at postanesthesia care unit (PACU) arrival, 1 hour, 2 hours after PACU arrival, at ward arrival, evening of surgery, morning of postoperative day 1 (POD1), and at 14:00 POD1. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Secondary outcomes included 48-hour oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption and length of hospital stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 217 patients scheduled for TKA were randomized. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome. NRS at rest, presented as median (IQR), did not differ between groups at any time point. At PACU arrival 0 (0-3) vs 0 (0-4), at 1 hour 2 (0-4) vs 2 (0-5), at 2 hours 2 (0-6) vs 2.5 (0-4), at ward arrival 3 (2-5) vs 3 (2-5), on the evening of POD0 4 (3-5) vs 3.5 (2-6), on the morning of POD1 4 (3-6) vs 4 (2-5), and at 14:00 POD1 3 (2-5) vs 3 (2-5) for nerve block and LIA groups, respectively (all P > .05). Exploratory secondary outcomes indicated reduced 48-hour OME consumption presented as median (IQR), 70&#x2009;mg (52.5-96.3), vs 96&#x2009;mg (61.3-148.8); P = .008) and shortened hospital stay, median (IQR), 1 day (1-2), vs 2 days, (1-3); P < .001) in the nerve block group compared to the LIA group. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed in pain scores between the eight-nerve block combination and LIA. Secondary outcomes revealed a reduction in 48-hour opioid consumption and a modestly shorter hospital stay with nerve block compared to LIA.

Humans

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70&#x2009;years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5&#x2009;months vs. threshold <&#x2009;12.0&#x2009;months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold <&#x2009;5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45&#x2009;days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of &#x2265;&#x2009;95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3&#x2009;months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30&#x2009;days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

Humans