METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.
BACKGROUND: The Occlutech® PDA occluder is novel, self-shaping Nitinol wire device with PET (polyethylene terephthalate) patches integrated into the shank of the device to assure a better obturation of the ductus. The Occlutech® PDA occluder has undergone two design modifications.
METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized pilot study was started in November 2011. Thirty-three patients were included until April 2013. Patients weighing <6 kg or those with associated cardiac anomalies that required surgery were excluded. All patients were followed up by transthoracic echocardiography at 24 hr, 30 days, 90 days, 180 days, and 360 days after implantation. Residual shunt, left pulmonary artery (LPA) and descending aortic velocities were among the parameters assessed. All occluders were delivered via 6-8 F long sheaths and PDA closures were performed following standard techniques.
RESULTS: Thirty three patients (20 female/13 male), with a median age of 2 years (6 month to 38 years), and median weight of 9.3 kg (6-69.2 kg) were included. The narrowest median PDA diameter was 3mm (1.8-5.8 mm). All the 33 patients were closed successfully using Occlutech ductal occluder, 16 patients (48.4%) had immediate and complete closure on angiography. Within 24 hr, color Doppler revealed complete closure in 27patients (81.8%), 32patients (97%) at 30 days, and in 100% of patients at 90 days. All patients with a large PDA had immediate residual shunt which was closed at the 90-day follow-up. There was no device embolization, hemolysis, or obstruction to the LPA or descending aorta.
CONCLUSION: The new Occlutech® PDA is safe and effective. In patients with a large PDA complete closure tended to take longer time.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.
CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a population based randomized control trial. Women aged 20-65 years in the population that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were re-called for a repeat smear. There are four different intervention groups; letter, registered letters, short messages services (SMS) and phone calls where 250 subjects were recruited into each group. Samples were generated randomly from the same population in Klang into four different groups. The first group received a recall letter for a repeat smear similar to the one that has been given during the first invitation. The intervention groups were either be given a registered letter, an SMS or a phone call to re-call them. The socio-demographic data of the patients who came for uptake were collected for further analysis. All the groups were followed up after 8 weeks to assess their compliance to the recall.
CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide recommendations about the most effective methods for recall in a population based pap smear screening program on two outcomes: i) patients response; ii) uptake for repeat pap smear.