No abstract

Pain or tenderness of an abdominal aortic aneurysm is widely believed to signify acute expansion and imminent rupture. To assess the potential benefit of emergency operation for the group of patients with an acutely expanding aneurysm, the clinical course of 19 patients with a symptomatic but unruptured expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm was compared with 117 patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm resection, and 69 patients having operation for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Postoperative morbidity was high in the patients with an expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm, and included a 21% incidence of myocardial infarction, a 10% incidence of stroke, a 37% risk of ventilatory failure, and a 31% incidence of acute renal failure, which was not statistically different from the results in patients having ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm resection. Patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm resection had only an 8% risk of myocardial infarction, and only a 2% risk of stroke, ventilatory failure, or renal failure. The mortality rate for expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm resection was 26% compared to 35% for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (p = 0.31). Both emergency operations had a mortality rate more than five times greater than the 5.1% after elective procedures (p = 0.008). Our findings emphasize the need for early and aggressive treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the elective setting, even in the patient at high risk, and suggest that the preoperative assessment and modification of risk factors is important to prevent the cardiac, cerebrovascular, pulmonary, and renal complications seen accompanying an emergency operation of this magnitude.

BACKGROUND Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used separately, and sometimes together, for paediatric deep sedation. Although their combination has been described in adults, the effect of dexmedetomidine as a potential synergist in children has not been studied before. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to compare the propofol requirements of children who receive propofol alone with those who receive it in combination with dexmedetomidine for deep sedation for upper and lower endoscopic gastrointestinal procedures. DESIGN This was a prospective, open-label, randomised study comparing patients who received propofol alone (group P) with those who received dexmedetomidine and propofol (group DP). The depth of sedation was titrated to a target bispectral (BIS) index. SETTING A Gastroenterology Procedure Unit at a single, tertiary care academic medical centre from April 2018 until December 2019. PATIENTS Eligible patients were scheduled for upper endoscopy, lower endoscopy or both. A total of 39 patients were enrolled (20 DP) and (19 P). INTERVENTIONS Patients in Group DP received dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg kg−1 administered over 1 min followed by an infusion of 0.15 μg kg−1 h−1. In both groups, intravenous propofol was given in bolus increments titrated to a BIS index of 40 to 50 and then a continuous infusion of propofol to maintain BIS at 40 to 50. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was propofol requirement in each group. Secondary outcome measures were time to achieve the targeted sedation depth, time to achieve an Aldrete recovery score of 9, duration of sedation, mean BIS values, adverse events, ‘PAED’ scores and time to discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS The median (range) total dose of propofol was 0.23 (0.10 to 0.50) mg kg−1 min−1 in group DP and 0.40 (0.20 to 0.50) mg kg−1 min−1 in group P (P = 0.0004). Time of discharge from the PACU was 60 (20 to 121) min in group DP and 63 (46 to 91) min in group P (P = 0.0409). CONCLUSION The combination of dexmedetomidine and propofol for paediatric procedural sedation achieved a significant reduction in median propofol dose and a slightly shorter median time to discharge from PACU. Large-scale studies may determine whether this reduction decreases the risk of significant adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02952222