METHODS: Non-inferiority randomized, clinical trial involving patients presenting with acute respiratory failure conducted in the ED of a local hospital. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either hCPAP or fCPAP as per the trial protocol. The primary endpoint was respiratory rate reduction. Secondary endpoints included discomfort, improvement in Dyspnea and Likert scales, heart rate reduction, arterial blood oxygenation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), dryness of mucosa and intubation rate.
RESULTS: 224 patients were included and randomized (113 patients to hCPAP, 111 to fCPAP). Both techniques reduced respiratory rate (hCPAP: from 33.56 ± 3.07 to 25.43 ± 3.11 bpm and fCPAP: from 33.46 ± 3.35 to 27.01 ± 3.19 bpm), heart rate (hCPAP: from 114.76 ± 15.5 to 96.17 ± 16.50 bpm and fCPAP: from 115.07 ± 14.13 to 101.19 ± 16.92 bpm), and improved dyspnea measured by both the Visual Analogue Scale (hCPAP: from 16.36 ± 12.13 to 83.72 ± 12.91 and fCPAP: from 16.01 ± 11.76 to 76.62 ± 13.91) and the Likert scale. Both CPAP techniques improved arterial oxygenation (PaO2 from 67.72 ± 8.06 mmHg to 166.38 ± 30.17 mmHg in hCPAP and 68.99 ± 7.68 mmHg to 184.49 ± 36.38 mmHg in fCPAP) and the PaO2:FiO2 (Partial pressure of arterial oxygen: Fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio from 113.6 ± 13.4 to 273.4 ± 49.5 in hCPAP and 115.0 ± 12.9 to 307.7 ± 60.9 in fCPAP. The intubation rate was lower with hCPAP (4.4% for hCPAP versus 18% for fCPAP, absolute difference -13.6%, p = 0.003). Discomfort and dryness of mucosa were also lower with hCPAP.
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema or decompensated COPD, hCPAP was non-inferior to fCPAP and resulted in greater comfort levels and lower intubation rate.
Methods: A quasi-experimental trial study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of nasal rinsing between two groups. The intervention group was instructed to perform nasal rinsing during ablution, while the control group was not asked to do nasal rinsing. Both groups were provided progress diaries to record the symptoms of respiratory tract infection, including cough, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, fever, and sore throat, as well as thick phlegm, shortness of breath, epistaxis, and changes in sense of smell. The groups were also instructed to record any visits to clinics for their symptoms throughout their stay in Makkah for the Hajj ritual.
Results: The study showed that nasal rinsing significantly reduced the symptoms of cough, rhinorrhoea, and nasal blockage. The intervention group had an increased number of visits to healthcare facilities for treatment, when compared to those of the control group. There were no significant differences in the groups regarding the symptoms of fever and sore throat.
Conclusion: Nasal rinsing can be included as part of intervention methods that include vaccination and the use of a face mask. Nasal rinsing can be easily practiced by the pilgrims, since it is a Sunnah act in ablution, which is an integral element of Muslims' daily life.
Material and method: This study surveyed 303 orthopaedic surgeons from all over Pakistan. The survey had 30 questions targeting the setup of outpatient, emergency and operation services in orthopaedic departments of different hospitals in Pakistan.
Result: A total of 302 surgeons were included from 53 cities all over Pakistan. Between 35-48% of the respondents reported lack of availability of standard operating procedures in OPD, ER and in OT. Majority of the respondents noted that their OPD and surgical practice had been affected to some degree and 69% of the surgeons were only doing trauma surgery. This trend was higher in younger consultants of less than 45 years of age (p<0.001). Almost two-third of the surgeons, mostly senior (p=0.03) were using surgical masks as the only protective measure during various practices of OPD, ER and OT, while most of the setups were not assessing patients even for signs and symptoms of COVID. Almost 89% of the orthopaedic community is facing definite to mild stress during this pandemic and this has significantly affected the senior surgeons (p=0.01).
Conclusion: Our study highlighted that COVID-19 has resulted in marked changes to the practices of the majority of Pakistani orthopaedic surgeons. Despite a sharp upsurge in the number of cases and mortality due to COVID-19, guidelines were still lacking at most of the settings and a substantial percentage of the orthopaedic community were not following adequate safety measures while attending to patients.
METHODS: We evaluated the performance characteristics of the LMA Protector™ in 30 unparalysed, moderately obese patients. First attempt insertion rate, time for insertion, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), and incidence of complications were recorded.
RESULTS: We found high first and second attempt insertion rates of 28(93%) and 1(33%) respectively, with one failed attempt where no capnography trace could be detected, presumably from a downfolded device tip. The LMA Protector™ was inserted rapidly in 21.0(4.0) seconds and demonstrated high OLP of 31.8(5.4) cmH2O. Fibreoptic assessment showed a clear view of vocal cords in 93%. The incidence of blood staining on removal of device was 48%, postoperative sore throat 27%, dysphagia 10% and dysphonia 20% (all self-limiting, resolving a few hours postoperatively).
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the LMA Protector™ was associated with easy, expedient first attempt insertion success, demonstrating high oropharyngeal pressures and good anatomical position in the moderately obese population, with relatively low postoperative airway morbidity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001152314 . Registered 7 August 2017.
OBJECTIVE: Thus, this study aimed to evaluate their perception of face mask wearing during COVID-19 and its contributing factors.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 1024 respondents, aged ≥ 18 years, participated in this online cross-sectional survey from October 2021 to December 2021. The Face Mask Perception Scale (FMPS) was used to measure their perceptions.
RESULTS: Most of the respondents perceived wearing a face mask as uncomfortable. Our findings also revealed statistically significant differences and a small effect (f2 = 0.04) in which respondents who were concerned about being infected by the virus perceived face mask wearing appearance positively (B = - 0.09 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = - 0.15, - 0.04), whereas married respondents perceived it negatively (B = 0.07 units of log-transformed, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in other domains of FMPS.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, discomfort was a major complaint. Marital status and fear of COVID-19 infection affected their perceptions. The public health implications of these findings highlight the importance of addressing discomfort and societal perceptions, particularly those influenced by factors such as marital status and COVID-19 experience, to promote widespread acceptance and consistent usage of face masks, which is crucial in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.