Opioids alone sometimes provide insufficient postoperative analgesia. Coadministration of drugs may reduce opioid use and improve opioid efficacy. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the administration of ketamine or nefopam to postoperative patients with pain only partly alleviated by morphine reduces the amount of subsequent opioid necessary to produce adequate analgesia. Patients (n=77) recovering from major surgery were given up to 9 mg of IV morphine. Those who still had pain were randomly assigned to blinded administration of 1) isotonic saline (control group; n=21), 2) ketamine 10 mg (ketamine group; n=22), or 3) nefopam 20 mg (nefopam group; n=22). Three-milligram morphine boluses were subsequently given at 5-min intervals until adequate analgesia was obtained, until 60 min elapsed after the beginning of study drug administration, or until ventilation became insufficient (respiratory rate <10 breaths/min or saturation by pulse oximetry <95%). Supplemental morphine (i.e., after test drug administration) requirements were significantly more in the control group (mean +/- sd; 17 +/- 10 mg) than in the nefopam (10 +/- 5 mg; P <0.005) or ketamine (9 +/- 5 mg; P <0.001) groups. Morphine titration was successful in all ketamine and nefopam patients but failed in four control patients (two because of respiratory toxicity and two because of persistent pain). Tachycardia and profuse sweating were more frequent in patients given nefopam, and sedation was more intense with ketamine; however, the incidence of other potential complications did not differ among groups.
The accuracy of EUS in differentiating between submucosal tumors and extraluminal compressions is substantially superior to that of endoscopy, but EUS is still inadequate for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant submucosal tumors. However, EUS is still the best method of visualizing submucosal lesions precisely. The influence of EUS on the further management in these patients remains to be examined in subsequent studies.
BackgroundAcute kidney injury is a common complication after major surgery. In this study, we investigated whether an algorithm-guided goal-directed haemodynamic therapy (GDT) can improve renal outcome compared to good standard clinical care.MethodsA total of 180 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were prospectively and randomly assigned to one of two groups: in the GDT group, patients were treated with a GDT algorithm using transpulmonary thermodilution while standard care was applied to the control patients. Change in creatinine was studied as the primary end point, postoperative complications as well as 1-year mortality as secondary outcomes. Haemodynamics in GDT and control patients were compared calculating goal-achievement rates.ResultsPostoperative change in creatinine (18 ± 39 μmol/l (control) vs. 16 ± 42 μmol/l (GDT); mean difference (95 % confidence interval) 1.6 μmol/l (−10 to 13 μmol/l)) was comparable between the GDT and the control group. Postoperative complications and mortality during hospital stay and after 1 year were not influenced by the use of a GDT algorithm. Achievement rates of haemodynamic goals were not higher in the GDT group compared to the already high (>80 %) rates in the control group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed intraoperative hypotension (MAP < 70 mmHg) and postoperative hypovolaemia (GEDI < 640 ml/m2) as risk factors for postoperative renal impairment.ConclusionsIn this study, GDT was not superior to standard clinical care in order to avoid renal failure after major abdominal surgery. The reason for this finding is most likely the high achievement rate of haemodynamic goals in the control group, which cannot be improved by the GDT algorithm.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov; NCT01035541; registered 17 December 2009.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1237-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background: To assess the prevalence of Herpes simplex and Cytomegalovirus infection in respiratory samples of critically-ill COVID-19 patients, its role in outcome and mortality and the influence of dexamethasone treatment in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: All mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated on ICU between March 2020 and January 2021 were included. Respiratory specimens were tested for Herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1, 2 and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) by quantitative real-time PCR. Clinical parameters were compared in the cohort cohorts with and without HSV-1-infection.Results: 134 patients with a median age of 72.5 years (73.0% male, n=98) were included. HSV-1 reactivation occurred in 61 patients (45.5%), after median 9 (7-13) days of mechanical ventilation. The main factor for reactivation was length of stay on ICU (24 days vs 13 days, p<0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (417 vs 214 hours, p<0.001). Treatment with dexamethasone and a history of immunosuppression did not associate with HSV-infection in the univariate analysis (39 vs 41, p=0.462 and 27.9% vs 23.3%, p=0.561, respectively). Both ICU and hospital mortality were not significantly different in the cohorts with and without HSV-infection (57.4% vs 45.2%, p=0.219).Conclusions: Our study shows a high prevalence of HSV-infection in critically-ill COVID-19 patients which was unexpectedly higher than the prevalence of CMV-infections and unrelated to dexamethasone treatment. The main risk factors for HSV and CMV in the studied cohorts were the length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Therefore, we recommend routine monitoring of critically ill COVID-19 patients for these viral co-infections and consider treatment in those patients.
Background Albumin is a key regulator of fluid distribution within the extracellular space and has several properties beyond its oncotic activity. The accumulating evidence suggests that supplementation of albumin may provide survival advantages only when the insult is severe as in patients with septic shock. Methods/design The randomized controlled multicentre study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS) investigates whether the replacement with albumin and the maintenance of its serum levels of at least 30 g/l for 28 days improve survival in patients with septic shock compared to resuscitation and volume maintenance without albumin. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with septic shock are randomly assigned within a maximum of 24 h after the onset of septic shock after obtaining informed consents to treatment or control groups. Patients assigned to the treatment group receive a 60-g loading dose of human albumin 20% over 2–3 h. Serum albumin levels are maintained at least at 30 g/l in the ICU for a maximum of 28 days following randomization using 40–80 g human albumin 20% infusion. The control group is treated according to the usual practice with crystalloids as the first choice for the resuscitation and maintenance phase of septic shock. The primary endpoint is 90 days mortality and secondary endpoints include 28-day, 60-day, ICU, and in-hospital mortality, organ dysfunction/failure, total amount of fluid administration and total fluid balance in the ICU, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. In total, 1412 patients need to be analysed, 706 per group. For the sample size estimation, a 15% reduction in 90-day mortality is assumed, i.e. an absolute reduction of 7.5% points to 42.5% (relative risk 1.18). Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 1662 patients need to be allocated. Discussion The results of the clinical trial may influence the treatment of patients with septic shock. The expected improvement in patient survival may result in a reduction in the resources currently used in the treatment of these patients and in the socioeconomic burden of this disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03869385. Registration on 18 July 2019. Protocol version: Final 3.0.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.