Using an ultraviolet cabinet improves compliance with the World Health Organization's hand hygiene recommendations by undergraduate medical students: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate hand hygiene (HH) is key to reducing healthcare-acquired infections. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends education and training to improve HH knowledge and compliance. Physicians are ranked among the worst of all healthcare workers for compliant handrubbing with its origin probably being the failure to learn this essential behavior during undergraduate medical studies. This study evaluated if the use of Ultraviolet-cabinets (UVc) for fluorescent-alcohol-based handrubs (AHR) during an undergraduate medical student training improved the compliance rate to the WHO hand hygiene recommendations (completeness of AHR application and HH opportunities). METHODS: This randomized trial compared a HH training with personal feedback (using UVc) to a control group. The first year, the students (2nd degree) were convened by groups (clusters) of 6-9 for a demonstration of the correct execution of WHO procedure. Randomization by cluster was done prior HH training. In the control group, the students hand rubbed under visual supervision of a tutor. In the intervention group after the same visual supervision, completeness of fluorescent-AHR hand application was recorded under UVc and was shown to the student. The intervention group had free access to the UVc until complete application. HH practices were included in simulation sessions for the both groups. One year after (3rd degree), all the students were asked to hand rub with fluorescent-AHR. A tutor (blinded to the study group) assessed the completeness of hand application under UVc and the compliance with the WHO opportunities. Complete application of AHR was defined as fluorescence for all the surfaces of hands and wrists. RESULTS: 242 students participated (140 in the intervention group and 102 in the control group). One year after the initial training, the rate of complete application of AHR was doubled in the intervention group (60.0% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis which included gender, additional HH or UVc training, surgical traineeship and regular use of AHR, the hazard ratio for the intervention was 3.84 (95%CI: 2.09-7.06). The compliance with the HH WHO's opportunities was increased in the intervention group (58.1% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.018). CONCLUSION: Using UVc for undergraduate medical students education to hand hygiene improves their technique and compliance with WHO recommendations.

Vasopressin and epinephrine vs. epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)

Tramadol added to 1.5% mepivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block improves postoperative analgesia dose-dependently.

UNLABELLED: Adjuncts to local anesthetics for peripheral plexus blockade may enhance the quality and duration of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. The analgesic, tramadol, has a unique mechanism of action that suggests efficacy as such an adjunct. It displays a central analgesic and peripheral local anesthetic effect. We designed a prospective, randomized, controlled and double-blind clinical trial to assess the effect of tramadol added to brachial plexus anesthesia. One-hundred patients scheduled for carpal tunnel release surgery under brachial plexus anesthesia were randomized into four groups. All patients received 1.5% mepivacaine 40 mL plus a study solution containing either isotonic sodium chloride (Group P, n = 17), tramadol 40 mg (Group T(40), n = 22), tramadol 100 mg (Group T(100), n = 20) or tramadol 200 mg (Group T(200), n = 20). We evaluated the time of onset of anesthesia, duration of sensory and motor blockade, duration and quality of postoperative analgesia, and occurrence of adverse effects. Onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks were not different among groups. The number of patients requesting analgesia in the postoperative period was significantly less in the 3 tramadol groups compared with the placebo group (P = 0.02); this was also noted with the placebo and T(40) groups compared with the T(200) group. No statistical significance was demonstrated between the placebo and the T(40) group or the T(100) group and the T(200) group. Furthermore, there was a significant trend effect among groups applying the Cochran-Armitage tendency test (P = 0.003), suggesting a dose-dependent decrease for additional postoperative analgesia requirements when tramadol was added. Side effects did not differ among groups, although they were more frequently recorded in the T groups. Our study suggests that tramadol added to 1.5% mepivacaine for brachial plexus block enhances in a dose-dependent manner the duration of analgesia with acceptable side effects. However, the safety of tramadol has to be investigated before allowing its use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: Tramadol's unique mechanism of action suggests efficacy as a local anesthetic adjunct for peripheral plexus blockade. Our study demonstrates that tramadol, added to mepivacaine for brachial plexus anesthesia, extends the duration and improves the quality of postoperative analgesia in a dose dependent fashion with acceptable side effects.