Background:Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is associated with a significant mortality in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of extended infusion of meropenem and nebulized amikacin on VAP caused by Gram-negative MDRO versus intravenous (IV) meropenem and amikacin alone.Methodology:A randomized nonblinded controlled trial was performed on ninety patients with VAP. Patients were randomized into three equal groups: Group I received IV amikacin 20 mg/kg/24 h and meropenem 2 g over 30 min/8 h. Group II received the same as Group I in addition to nebulized amikacin 25 mg/kg/day every 8 h. Group III received IV amikacin 20 mg/kg/24 h, nebulized amikacin 25 mg/kg/day every 8 h, and meropenem 2 g diluted in 240 ml normal saline over 3 h/8 h. The primary outcome was the clinical outcome of VAP. Secondary outcomes were microbiological outcome, VAP-related mortality, duration of MV, ICU stay, and nephrotoxicity.Results:Group II and Group III compared to Group I showed higher incidence of clinical cure (53.33% in Group II and 66.67% in Group III vs. 26.67% in Group I, P = 0.007). Group II compared to Group I showed significant reduction in ventilator days (5.32 ± 1.86 vs. 7.3 ± 2.1 days, respectively, P < 0.001) and reduction in ICU days (11.87 ± 2.6 vs. 15.3 ± 3.1 days, respectively, P < 0.001). Group III compared to Group II showed significant reduction in ventilator days (4.22 ± 1.32 vs. 5.32 ± 1.86, respectively, P = 0.011) and highly significant reduction in ICU days (9.21 ± 1.17 vs. 11.87 ± 2.6, respectively, P < 0.001). All groups were comparable as regards nephrotoxicity or mortality.Conclusions:Adding nebulized amikacin to systemic antibiotics in patients with VAP caused by Gram-negative MDRO may offer efficacy benefits, and the use of extended infusions of meropenem could improve the clinical outcomes in critically ill populations.

Background:Radiologic data remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of pneumothorax (PTX). The use of ultrasonography (US) has recently emerged as the method of choice with physicians who can perform bedside US.Purpose:To compare the diagnostic accuracy of lung US against bedside chest radiography (CR) for the detection of PTX using thoracic computed tomography (CT) as the gold standard.Materials and Methods:We conducted a prospective, single-blind study on 192 critically ill patients; each patient received lung US examination, bedside CR, followed by thoracic CT scan searching for PTX.Results:Of the studied patients, CT of the chest confirmed the diagnosis of PTX in 36 (18.75%) patients of which 31 were diagnosed by thoracic US while CR detected only 19 cases. Overall lung US showed a considerable higher sensitivity than bedside CR (86.1% vs. 52.7%), lung US also showed higher, negative predictive values, and diagnostic accuracy against CR (96.8% vs. 90.1%), and (95.3% vs. 90.6%), respectively. CR had a slightly higher specificity than lung US (99.4% vs. 97.4%), and higher positive predictive values (95.0% vs. 88.6%).Conclusion:Lung US is an accurate modality more than anteroposterior bedside CR in comparison with CT scanning when evaluating critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, patients underwent thoracocentesis, central venous catheter insertion, or patients with polytrauma.

Background:Satisfactory analgesia is of great importance in the labor. The clinical efficacy and side effects of remifentanil in the management of labor pain had been evaluated. Dexmedetomidine (DMET) demonstrates an antinociceptive effect in visceral pain conditions. Aims of the study were to assess whether the combination of DMET with remifentanil would produce a synergistic effect that results in lower analgesic requirements. Furthermore, whether this combination would have less maternal and neonatal adverse effects.Patients and Methods:Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II pregnant women had been enrolled into this study. All were full term (37-40 weeks’ gestation), singleton fetus with cephalic presentation in the first stage of spontaneous labor. They were divided into two groups group (I) Patient-controlled IV remifentanil analgesia (bolus dose 0.25 μg/kg, lockout interval 2 min) increased by 0.25 μg/kg to a maximum bolus dose 1 μg/kg in addition to a loading dose of DMET 1 μg/kg over 20 min, followed by infusion at 0.5 μg/kg/h group (II) Patient-controlled IV remifentanil analgesia (PCA) (bolus dose 0.25 μg/kg, lockout interval 2 min) increased by 0.25 μg/kg to a maximum bolus dose 1 μg/kg in addition to a the same volume of normal saline as a loading dose, followed by a continuous saline infusion. Visual analog scale score, maternal, and fetal complications and patients’ satisfaction were recorded.Results:Patients receiving a combination of PCA remifentanil and DMET had a lower pain score compared with remifentanil alone in the second stage of labor (P = 0.001). The Total consumption of remifentanil was reduced by 53.3% in group I. There was an increased incidence of maternal complications and a lower patient satisfaction score in group II.Conclusion:DMET has an opioid sparing effect; a combination of DMET and remifentanil produces a synergistic effect that results in lower analgesic requirements and less maternal and neonatal adverse events.

No abstract

No abstract