RESUMEN
Background and aim: Point-of-care ultrasound imaging of the inferior vena cava distensibility index is a potential indicator for determining fluid overload and dehydration in the mechanically ventilated patients. Data on inferior vena cava distensibility index and inferior vena cava distensibility variability are limited in mechanically ventilated pediatric patients. That is why our aim in this study was to measure inferior vena cava distensibility index and to obtain mean values in pediatric patients, ventilated in the operating room before the ambulatory surgical procedure started. Materials and methods: This crosssectional study was performed between February 2019 and February 2020. Ultrasonographic measurements were performed in a total of 125 children. Results: In a period of 13 months, the measurements were performed in a total of 125 children, of which 120 (62.5% male) met the criteria and were included in the study. Overall inferior vena cava distensibility index (%): mean ± SD: 6.8 ± 4.0, median (minmax): 5.7 (1.419.6), IQR: 3.88.7. Overall inferior vena cava distensibility variability (%): mean ± SD: 6.5 ± 3.7, median (minmax): 5.5 (1.417.8), IQR: 3.78.4. Conclusion: Our study is the largest series of children in the literature in which inferior vena cava distensibility index measurements were investigated.
Asunto(s)
Sistemas de Atención de Punto , Respiración Artificial , Vena Cava Inferior , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Quirófanos , Ultrasonografía , Vena Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In intensive care unit (ICU) patients, intravenous (iv) and volatile agents are used for sedation. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane on pulmonary mechanics in ICU patients with pulmonary disorders. METHODS: After approval of the ethical committee and informed consent between the ages of 18-65 years were obtained, 30 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologist status I-III, who were mechanically ventilated, who had pulmonary disorders and who needed sedation were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were severe hepatic, pulmonary and renal failures; pregnancy; convulsion and/or seizure history; haemodynamic instability and no indication for sedation. Patients were divided into two groups by randomised numbers generated by a computer. For sedation, 0.5%-1% sevoflurane (4-10 mL h-1) was used by an Anaesthetic Conserving Device in Group S (n=15), and iv dexmedetomidine infusion (1 µg-1 kg-1 10 min-1 loading and 0.2-0.7 µg-1 kg-1 h-1 maintenance) was performed in Group D (n=15). Arterial blood gas analysis, airway resistance, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), frequency, tidal volume (TV), peak airway pressure (Ppeak), static pulmonary compliance and end-tidal CO2 values were recorded at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 h. RESULTS: Demographic data, airway resistance, PEEP, frequency, TV, Ppeak and static pulmonary compliance values were similar between the groups. PaCO2 and end-tidal CO2 values were higher in Group S than in Group D. Sedation and patient comfort scores were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both sevoflurane and dexmedetomidine are suitable sedative agents in ICU patients with pulmonary diseases.