No abstract

Background: Hydrocortisone showed an important role in reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the most common side effects associated with corticosteroid treatment. Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses versus continuous infusion in septic shock patients. Settings and Design: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Materials and Methods: One hundred and forty patients with septic shock and who received noradrenaline were enrolled in this randomized study. Group 1 was intermittent bolus hydrocortisone group ( n = 70) and Group 2 was continuous infusion group ( n = 70). All patients who were admitted with septic shock and who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included in the study. Those patients who had exceeded 200 mg per day of hydrocortisone were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of the study was mean blood glucose. Statistical Analysis Used: Qualitative variables were compared between the two groups with the Chi-square of the Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were compared using the Student's t -test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Out of 112 patients, 54 patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (48.2%), and 58 patients (51.8%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 154.44 mg.dL −1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 144.18–166.88) in the bolus group and 160.2 mg.dL −1 (95% CI: 143.82–176.76) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 05.76 mg.dL −1 (95% CI: −13.86–25.38). For the secondary outcomes of the study, no difference was found between the two groups in hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events, mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit, and reversal of shock. Conclusions: The risk of hyperglycemia is almost equal in both intermittent and continuous infusions of hydrocortisone in septic shock patients.

Background: Ketamine and dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to caudal block are used in the pediatric population. Aims: We aimed to compare the analgesic and safety profile of dexmedetomidine with ketamine for single-shot caudal block. Settings and Design: This was a randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care university hospital. Materials and Methods: Ninety patients admitted for routine infraumbilical surgical procedures under general anesthesia were enrolled in this double-blind randomized study. Following caudal block under general anesthesia, patients were allocated to one of three groups; Group LS received 0.75 mL.kg − 1 levobupivacaine 0.25% diluted in saline 0.9%, Group LK received 0.75 mL.kg − 1 levobupivacaine 0.25% with ketamine 0.5 mg.kg − 1 , and Group LD received 0.75 mL.kg − 1 levobupivacaine 0.25% with dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg − 1 . Postoperative pain was assessed by the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) score, and the duration of analgesia (time from caudal block to time at which FLACC score 4 or more) was recorded. Hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation were also monitored. Statistical Analysis Used: Categorical data were analyzed by Chi-squire test and numerical continuous data were analyzed by Student's t -test for comparison between two groups. Mann–Whitney test was used to compare score. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the means between three groups. Results: The addition of dexmedetomidine and ketamine to levobupivacaine resulted in significant prolongation of postoperative analgesia duration (467 min and 385 min, respectively) compared with 0.25% levobupivacaine alone (276 min). No significant side effects requiring intervention were observed in any group. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to levobupivacaine provides a longer duration of analgesia as compared to ketamine without any significant side effect.

No abstract

Background And Aims: Epidural anaesthesia is widely performed using a landmark-guided midline approach. The indistinct or distorted landmark is associated with obesity, previous spinal surgeries, deformities, or degenerative changes due to ageing. In the present study, we compared the efcacy of real-time ultrasound (RUS)-guided paramedian approach, and pre-procedure ultrasound (PUS) landmark-guided paramedian approach in obese patients. Methods: Sixty patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 were included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups : PUS and RUS group . The primary end point was to attain a successful placement of epidural catheter. Variables like the number of attempts, the number of passes, the time taken for identifying epidural space(s), and time taken for successful epidural catheter placement(s) were secondary end points and were recorded in both the groups. Results: The median number of attempts were 4 (IQR 2-4) and 2 (IQR 1-2), respectively, in the PUS and RUS group (P-value < 0.001). The median number of passes, the median time for identifying space, and the time for successful epidural catheter placement was statistically signicantly less in the RUS group, than the PUS group. Conclusion:The time taken for the identication of the space, the number of attempts, number of passes, and the time taken for successful epidural catheter placement was more in the PUS group as compared to the RUS group.