DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, double-blinded study.
SETTING: University-based tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Thirty claustrophobic adults with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II who were planned for MRI.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to target-controlled infusion propofol or dexmedetomidine loading followed by maintenance dose for procedural sedation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was adequate reduction in patient anxiety levels to allow successful completion of the MRI sequence. Both methods of sedation adequately reduced anxiety levels in visual analog scale scores and Spielberger Strait Test Anxiety Inventory (P
METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey and modified Delphi study was conducted among healthcare professionals across Malaysia from 22 March to 31 August 2024. A modified Delphi process was used to develop a consensus from existing literature, with two Delphi rounds assessing the relevance, clarity, and importance of each question. Consensus was achieved if 90 % or more participants agreed.
RESULTS: Among 137 responses, 89.1 % of healthcare professionals were aware of rescue medications. However, only 62.0 % recognized the superior absorption and bioavailability of IM midazolam over rectal diazepam, and 78.1 % were aware of its efficacy in terminating seizures. Of those (69.3 %) involved in SE management, 29.5 % (n = 28) were engaged in prehospital management of SE. Only 35.7 % (n = 10) reported that prehospital personnel were permitted to use IM midazolam for SE management and all required physician endorsement. Notably, 78.9 % of participants reported that 25 % or fewer patients with SE were treated with IM midazolam. The main barriers include unfamiliarity (64.2 %) and lack of protocols (62.1 %). A strong consensus was reached on the recommendation of IM midazolam as a first-line treatment for SE management.
CONCLUSION: While Malaysian healthcare professionals are aware of rescue medications for prehospital seizure emergencies, they lack an understanding of IM midazolam's benefits. Key barriers include unfamiliarity and lack of protocols despite strong consensus on its first-line use.
METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.
RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.
CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.