BackgroundThe weight-based dosing of ondansetron to reduce hypotension has never been investigated. The aim of this study is to determine the optimal dose of ondansetron required based on the patient’s weight to reduce hypotension following spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.MethodsIn this prospective, triple-blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, a total of 228 pregnant women were randomized to receive either normal saline (group NS) or ondansetron 0.05 mg/kg (group O1) or ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg (group O2) intravenously 5 min before induction of spinal anesthesia. The incidence of hypotension, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, vasopressor requirements, and blood loss between the three groups were compared. Maternal and neonatal complications were also assessed. Changes in blood pressure and heart rate were compared using the generalized estimating equations method.ResultsThirteen patients were excluded from the analysis because of no intervention (n = 12) and protocol violation (n = 1). Two hundred and fifteen patients remained for the intention-to-treat analysis. The incidence of hypotension in groups NS (n = 72), O1 (n = 71), and O2 (n = 72) were 81.9%, 84.5%, and 73.6%, respectively (P = 0.23). The episodes of hypotension before delivery (first 14 min after spinal anesthesia) were significantly higher in group O1 compared to NS (5 vs 2, P = 0.02). The overall heart rates throughout the operations were not different among the three groups. The ephedrine requirements and amount of blood loss were also similar among the three groups. The metoclopramide requirement was significantly lower in group O2 compared to group NS (2.8% vs 16.7%, P = 0.01). There were no serious adverse events in terms of maternal or neonatal complications.ConclusionsOndansetron 0.05 mg/kg or 0.1 mg/kg administered before spinal anesthesia did not reduce the incidence of hypotension in this study.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR 20160323001, 22 March 2016.

ObjectiveTo report our institutional experience with implementing a clinical cerebral autoregulation testing order set with protocol in children hospitalized with traumatic brain injury (TBI).MethodsAfter IRB approval, we examined clinical use, patient characteristics, feasibility, and safety of cerebral autoregulation testing in children aged <18 years between 2014 and 2021. A clinical order set with a protocol for cerebral autoregulation testing was introduced in 2018.Results25 (24 severe TBI and 1 mild TBI) children, median age 13 years [IQR 4.5; 15] and median admission GCS 3[IQR 3; 3.5]) underwent 61 cerebral autoregulation tests during the first 16 days after admission [IQR1.5; 7; range 0–16]. Testing was more common after implementation of the order set (n = 16, 64% after the order set vs. n = 9, 36% before the order set) and initiated during the first 2 days. During testing, patients were mechanically ventilated (n = 60, 98.4%), had invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (n = 60, 98.4%), had intracranial pressure monitoring (n = 56, 90.3%), brain-tissue oxygenation monitoring (n = 56, 90.3%), and external ventricular drain (n = 13, 25.5%). Most patients received sedation and analgesia for intracranial pressure control (n = 52; 83.8%) and vasoactive support (n = 55, 90.2%) during testing. Cerebral autoregulation testing was completed in 82% (n = 50 tests); 11 tests were not completed [high intracranial pressure (n = 5), high blood pressure (n = 2), bradycardia (n = 2), low cerebral perfusion pressure (n = 1), or intolerance to blood pressure cuff inflation (n = 1)]. Impaired cerebral autoregulation on first assessment resulted in repeat testing (80% impaired vs. 23% intact, RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.06:8.08, p = 0.03). Seven out of 50 tests (14%) resulted in a change in cerebral hemodynamic targets.ConclusionFindings from this series of children with TBI indicate that: (1) Availability of clinical order set with protocol facilitated clinical cerebral autoregulation testing, (2) Clinicians ordered cerebral autoregulation tests in children with severe TBI receiving high therapeutic intensity and repeatedly with impaired status on the first test, (3) Clinical cerebral autoregulation testing is feasible and safe, and (4) Testing results led to change in hemodynamic targets in some patients.

Acute coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection usually results in mild symptoms, but secondary infections after SARS-CoV-2 infection can occur, particularly with comorbid conditions. We present the clinical course of a healthy adolescent with a brain abscess and life-threatening intracranial hypertension requiring emergent decompressive craniectomy after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. A 13-year-old healthy immunized male presented with invasive frontal, ethmoid, and maxillary sinusitis and symptoms of lethargy, nausea, headache, and photophobia due to a frontal brain abscess diagnosed three weeks after symptoms and 11 days of oral amoxicillin treatment. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was negative twice but then positive on amoxicillin day 11 (symptom day 21), when magnetic resonance imaging revealed a 2.5-cm right frontal brain abscess with a 10-mm midline shift. The patient underwent emergent craniotomy for right frontal epidural abscess washout and functional endoscopic sinus surgery with ethmoidectomy. On a postoperative day one, his neurological condition showed new right-sided pupillary dilation and decreased responsiveness. His vital signs showed bradycardia and systolic hypertension. He underwent an emergent decompressive craniectomy for signs of brain herniation. Bacterial PCR was positive for Streptococcus intermedius, for which he received intravenous vancomycin and metronidazole. He was discharged home on hospital day 14 without neurological sequelae and future bone flap replacement. Our case highlights the importance of timely recognition and treatment of brain abscess and brain herniation in patients with neurological symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in otherwise healthy patients.

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe associated factors of patients with moderate to severe pain after laparoscopic abdominal surgery in Post Anesthetic Care Unit.Material and Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominal surgeries (bariatric, colorectal, gynecological, urological, and upper gastrointestinal surgery) between February and July 2019. Demographic data were retrieved from the anesthetic records. Pain score was evaluated by self- rating using verbal numerical rating scale (0-10). Logistic regression was used to obtain independent risk factors of moderate to severe (score 4-10) pain against no or mild pain.Results: Two-hundred and ten patients were included. The incidence of moderate (score 4-6) to severe pain (score 7-10) was 50.0%. Those who suffered from moderate to severe pain required higher consumption of analgesic drugs in recovery room than the other groups, however durations of hospitalization were not different between the two groups (p-value=0.329). This was because the highest intensity of pain was in the first postoperative day. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that abdominal pressure more than 12 mmHg (odd ratio (OR)=1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-4.22, p-value=0.153), and operation time more than 3 hours (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.86-2.61, p-value=0.158) were independent risk factors of moderate to severe pain after laparoscopic procedureConclusion: High intra-abdominal pressure (≥12 mmHg) and prolonged operation time (>3 hours) are the independent risk factors of moderate and severe pain in laparoscopic surgery.