METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, crosssectional study involving snakebite patients presented at the Emergency Department (ED), Hospital Sultan Abdul Halim (HSAH), Kedah from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2019. The cases were extracted from the computerized system and the case records of patients were retrieved from the Medical Record Unit. Patients that met the study criteria were included and their sociodemographic features, clinical presentations including use of anti-venom were collected. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with severe envenomation.
RESULTS: A total of 220 snakebite cases with the mean age of patients was 39.66 (SD±21.79) years old. Majority of them were Malay and males. 41.4% of snakebite cases occurred in late evenings and the mean time-lapsed to arrive at HSAH was 108.6 minutes. 81.4% of snakebite cases occurred while engaging in outdoor activities and 43.6% of the snakebite cases involved work-related incidents. 58.2% of the patients were bitten in the lower limb. 78.6% of patients were bitten by the identified snake species, predominantly from Viperidae family. The prevalence of severe envenomation was 50.9%. Malay ethnicity (adj. OR =2.549, 95% CI =1.277,5.089), bite to the upper limb (adj. OR =2.125, 95% CI =1.192, 3.790), and bite by snakes from Viperidae family (adj. OR =3.017, 95% CI =1.613, 5.642) were found to have significant associations with severe envenomation of snakebite.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of severe envenomation was more than 50% of snakebite cases. Malay ethnicity, upper limb snake bites, and snakebite from a Viperidae family had a higher chance of severe envenomation.
DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Prospective randomized placebo-controlled study. Subjects were recruited from an otolaryngology clinic in 2 tertiary referral centers in the East coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The study period ranged from April 2010-April 2011.
METHODS: Forty AR patients were divided equally into a case group and a control group. All the subjects received a daily dose of 10 mg of loratadine for 4 weeks. The case group ingested 1 g/kg body weight of honey daily in separate doses for the 4-week period. The control group ingested the same dose of honey-flavored corn syrup as placebo. AR symptoms were scored at the start, week 4, and week 8 of the study.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the mean total symptom score of the case and the control groups at the start of the study. At week 4, both groups showed progressive improvement in the symptoms; at week 8, only the case group showed a continuous improvement in the symptom score. Only the group that ingested honey showed a significant improvement in individual AR symptoms. The improvement persisted for a month after the cessation of the treatment.
CONCLUSION: Honey ingestion at a high dose improves the overall and individual symptoms of AR, and it could serve as a complementary therapy for AR.