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.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study on IOL using the CRB in women with previous caesarean section or grandmultiparity between January 2014 and March 2015. All cases were identified from the Sarawak General Hospital CRB request registry. Individual admission notes were traced and data extracted using a standardised proforma.
RESULTS: The overall success rate of vaginal delivery after IOL was 50%, although this increases to about two-thirds when sub analysis was performed in women with previous tested scars and the unscarred, grandmultiparous woman. There was a significant change in Bishop score prior to insertion and after removal of the CRB. The Bishop score increased by a score of 3.2 (95% CI 2.8-3.6), which was statistically significant (p<0.01) and occurred across both subgroups, not limited to the grandmultipara. There were no cases of hyperstimulation but one case of intrapartum fever and scar dehiscence each (1.4%). Notably, there were two cases of change in lie/presentation after CRB insertion.
CONCLUSION: CRB adds to the obstetricians' armamentarium and appears to provide a reasonable alternative for the IOL in women at high risk of uterine rupture. Rates of hyperstimulation, maternal infection and scar dehiscence are low and hence appeals to the user.