DESIGN: Prospective, non-randomized trial.
SETTING: Naturalistic driving in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Heavy vehicle drivers in Malaysia were assigned to the Device (n = 25) or Control condition (n = 34).
INTERVENTION: Both conditions were monitored for driving events at work over 4-weeks in Phase 1, and 12-weeks in Phase 2. In Phase 1, the Device condition wore the device operated in the silent mode (i.e., no drowsiness alerts) to examine the accuracy of the device in predicting driving events. In Phase 2, the Device condition wore the device in the active mode to examine if drowsiness alerts from the device influenced the rate of driving events (compared to Phase 1).
MEASUREMENTS: All participants were monitored for harsh braking and harsh acceleration driving events and self-reported sleep duration and sleepiness daily.
RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the rate of harsh braking events (Rate ratio = 0.48, p
METHODS: Observational study conducted on 68 patients (1- 18 yrs.) with physical status of ASA II during methotrexate injection with MAC at the RSUP dr. Sardjito. The depth of anaesthesia was monitored with Observer's Alertness Assessment Sedation Scale (OAAS) every two minutes. Consciousness was defined as OAAS=5, or if there is volunteer movement of patients. The result was analysed and categorised according to age, sex, physical status, Body Mass Index (BMI) and anaesthesia's medication of patients.
RESULTS: Positive consciousness in paediatric patients based on OASS score at 2-minute and 4-minutes was 26.5% and 3.2% respectively, and was rescued by additional propofol 2mg/kg body weight.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of paediatric consciousness in patients during methotrexate injection with Monitored Anaesthesia Care (MAC) in the Sardjito General Hospital is 26.5% (2-minute after induction) and 3.2% (4-minute after induction), and this is considerably high thus needing futher prevention.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective, quasi-experimental physiological study. Selected healthy subjects were observed electrocardiographically for 60 s continuously in three equal phases of 20 s each - baseline phase, nasoendoscopic phase, and recovery phase (post-nasoendoscopy). Heart rate fluctuations were charted, followed by identification of a positive nasocardiac reflex group of subjects and a negative group. Analyses against multiple variables were done.
RESULTS: A total of 53 subjects were analysed. Heart rate during the baseline phase was 81.0 ± 9.9, nasoendoscopic phase was 72.7 ± 10.1, and recovery phase was 75.2 ± 9.6. Sixteen subjects (30.2%) had a positive nasocardiac reflex, and they remained in sinus rhythm with no occurrences of skipped beats, atrioventricular blocks or asystoles. One subject (1.9%) developed temporary ectopic premature ventricular contractions after nasoendoscopy. No variables were found affecting the incidence of a nasocardiac reflex in our study.
CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of heart rate dynamics was consistent as heart rates drop rapidly upon endoscope insertion and recover in some measure after its withdrawal. Although all our subjects remained asymptomatic, clinicians should not overlook the risks of a severe nasocardiac reflex when performing nasoendoscopy. We recommend that electrical cardiac monitoring be part of the management of vasovagal responses during in-office endonasal procedures.