MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Analysis of cricoid pressure application: anaesthetic trainee doctors vs. nursing anaesthetic assistants

Yahaya NH, Teo R, Izaham A, Tang S, Mohamad Yusof A, Abdul Manap N

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2016 May-Jun;66(3):283-8.
PMID: 27108826 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.008

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of anaesthetic trainee doctors compared to nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage, applying the appropriate cricoid pressure and producing an adequate laryngeal inlet view.

METHODS: Eighty-five participants, 42 anaesthetic trainee doctors and 43 nursing anaesthetic assistants, were asked to complete a set of questionnaires which included the correct amount of force to be applied to the cricoid cartilage. They were then asked to identify the cricoid cartilage and apply the cricoid pressure on an upper airway manikin placed on a weighing scale, and the pressure was recorded. Subsequently they applied cricoid pressure on actual anaesthetized patients following rapid sequence induction. Details regarding the cricoid pressure application and the Cormack-Lehane classification of the laryngeal view were recorded.

RESULTS: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were significantly better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage (95.2% vs. 55.8%, p=0.001). However, both groups were equally poor in the knowledge about the amount of cricoid pressure force required (11.9% vs. 9.3% respectively) and in the correct application of cricoid pressure (16.7% vs. 20.9% respectively). The three-finger technique was performed by 85.7% of the anaesthetic trainee doctors and 65.1% of the nursing anaesthetic assistants (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the Cormack-Lehane view between both groups.

CONCLUSION: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in cricoid cartilage identification but both groups were equally poor in their knowledge and application of cricoid pressure.
Fulltext Combined spinal-epidural analgesia in labour: its effects on delivery outcome

Singh SK, Yahya N, Misiran K, Masdar A, Nor NM, Yee LC

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2016 May-Jun;66(3):259-64.
PMID: 27108822 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.09.006

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional labour epidural due to its rapid onset and reliable analgesia provided. This was a prospective, convenient sampling study to determine the effects of CSE analgesia on labour outcome.

METHODS: One hundred and ten healthy primigravida parturients with a singleton pregnancy of ≥37 weeks gestation and in the active phase of labour were studied. They were enrolled to the CSE (n=55) or Non-CSE (n=55) group based on whether they consented to CSE analgesia. Non-CSE parturients were offered other methods of labour analgesia. The duration of the first and second stage of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and Apgar scores were compared.

RESULTS: The mean duration of the first and second stage of labour was not significantly different between both groups. Instrumental delivery rates between the groups were not significantly different (CSE group, 11% versus Non-CSE group, 16%). The slightly higher incidence of cesarean section in the CSE group (16% versus 15% in the Non-CSE group) was not statistically significant. Neonatal outcome in terms of Apgar score of less than 7 at 1 and 5min was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the duration of labour, rate of instrumental vaginal delivery and emergency cesarean section, and neonatal outcome in parturients who received compared to those who did not receive CSE for labour analgesia.
Fulltext Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScope™ visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients

Wan Ibadullah WH, Yahya N, Ghazali SS, Kamaruzaman E, Yong LC, Dan A, et al.

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2016 Jul-Aug;66(4):363-8.
PMID: 27343785 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.013

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScope™ visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients.

METHODS: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded.

RESULTS: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScope™ Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p=0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2±9.3s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9±13.0s (p=0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p=0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking.

CONCLUSION: This study showed that using the GlideScope™ to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.
Fulltext Faster onset time of supraclavicular brachial plexus block using local anesthetic diluted with dextrose

Lim HJ, Hasan MS, Chinna K

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2016 Jul-Aug;66(4):341-5.
PMID: 27343781 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.11.012

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A high sodium concentration is known to antagonize local anesthetics when infiltrated around neural tissue. Thus, we hypothesized that the onset time for sensory and motor blockade, in supraclavicular brachial plexus block using ropivacaine diluted with dextrose would be shorter than with saline.

METHODS: Patients scheduled for upper limb surgery were randomized to receive ultrasound guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block with 0.5% ropivacaine. Evaluation of sensory and motor blockade was performed every 5min for 60min. Patients were followed-up on postoperative day 1, and between days 7 and 10 for the presence of any complications. Twenty-five patients in each group were analyzed.

RESULTS: Mean time for onset of analgesia for the dextrose group was 37.6±12.9min while the mean time for the saline group was 45.2±13.9min with a p-value of 0.05. The effect size was 0.567, which was moderate to large. No major complications were observed.

CONCLUSION: We conclude that there was a decrease in onset time of analgesia when dextrose was used as a diluent instead of saline for ultrasound guided supraclavicular block.
Fulltext [A comparison of ramping position and sniffing position during endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

Tsan SEH, Ng KT, Lau J, Viknaswaran NL, Wang CY

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2020 11 09;70(6):667-677.
PMID: 33288219 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2020.08.009

OBJECTIVES: Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI.
RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence.
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.
Fulltext Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chua EX, Wong ZZ, Hasan MS, Atan R, Yunos NM, Yip HW, et al.

Braz J Anesthesiol, 2022;72(6):780-789.
PMID: 35809681 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2022.06.007

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) in intubated COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low).
CONCLUSION: Prone ventilation improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SpO2 in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.