A novel approach to managing COVID-19 patients; results of lopinavir plus doxycycline cohort.

This manuscript aims to present a treatment algorithm we applied to manage COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital. During the study period, 2043 patients with suspected COVID-19 were admitted to the emergency department. Molecular tests indicated that 475 of these patients tested positive for COVID-19. We administered hydroxychloroquine plus doxycycline to mild cases (isolated at home) for 3 days and lopinavir plus doxycycline to moderate and severe cases (hospitalized) for 5 days. The overall case fatality rate was 4.2% (20/475).

Prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus: which is superior: Fentanyl, midazolam, or a combination? A Retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: In this retrospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of fentanyl, midazolam, and a combination of fentanyl and midazolam to prevent etomidate-induced myoclonus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was performed based on anesthesia records. Depending on the drugs that would be given before the induction of anesthesia with etomidate, the patients were separated into 4 groups: no pretreatment (Group NP), fentanyl 1 µg·kg-1 (Group F), midazolam 0.03 mg·kg-1 (Group M), and midazolam 0.015 mg·kg-1 + fentanyl 0.5 µg·kg-1 (Group FM). Patients who received the same anesthetic procedure were selected: 2 minutes after intravenous injections of the pretreatment drugs, anesthesia is induced with 0.3 mg·kg-1 etomidate injected intravenously over a period of 20-30 seconds. Myoclonic movements are evaluated, which were observed and graded according to clinical severity during the 2 minutes after etomidate injection. The severity of pain due to etomidate injection, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and adverse effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: Study results showed that myoclonus incidence was 85%, 40%, 70%, and 25% in Group NP, Group F, Group M, and Group FM, respectively, and were significantly lower in Group F and Group FM. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that pretreatment with fentanyl or combination of fentanyl and midazolam was effective in preventing etomidate-induced myoclonus.

Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine: a comparison of hypertensive and normotensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is the most common problem with spinal anesthesia. This prospective study aimed to compare normotensive and hypertensive patients with respect to the hemodynamic effects of spinal anesthesia performed with hyperbaric bupivacaine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients who were scheduled to undergo various elective operations under spinal anesthesia were included into the study. The patients were separated into 2 groups: hypertensive patients constituted Group H (n=30) and normotensive patients constituted Group N (n=30). After fluid loading, spinal anesthesia was performed with 3.5 ml 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Demographic characteristics and incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were compared. Systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean blood pressures (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were also compared before and after spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to demographic characteristics, maximal height of sensory block, incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the amount of fluids infused (p>0.05). In the hypertensive patient group, the SBP, DBP, and MBP values were significantly higher than in the normotensive patient group at all measurement times (p<0.05). Comparison within the groups did not reveal any significant differences in either group compared to the basal values (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in HR between or within groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between normotensive and hypertensive patients in the incidences of hypotension caused by spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine.

Acute isoniazid intoxication: an uncommon cause of convulsion, coma and acidosis.

Despite the widespread use, suicidal ingestion of isoniazid is a rare condition in Turkey. We reported a case of acute isoniazid intoxication associated with alcohol intake presenting with convulsion, coma and metabolic acidosis. The patient was treated successfully with intravenous pyridoxine administration. Early recognation and appropriate treatment in the intensive care unit is very important to prevent mortality in patients with acute isoniazid toxicity.

Combination of propofol and nasal sufentanil or intravenous midazolam for colonoscopy: a comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the side effects (SEs) and sedation characteristics of synergistic sedation with doses of 0.25 µg kg-1 or 0.5 µg kg-1 intranasal (IN) sufentanil, and intravenous (IV) midazolam during propofol-based sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The patients were randomly allocated into one of 3 groups: group I (n = 33) - sufentanil IN 0.5 µg kg-1; group II (n = 33) - sufentanil IN 0.25 µg kg-1; and group III (n = 33) - IN 0.9% NaCl ( placebo ) and IV 0.04 mg kg-1 midazolam. After 15 minutes, all patients received 0.5 mg kg-1 propofol intravenously. Cardiorespiratory side effects and sedation characteristics were compared. RESULTS: The propofol consumption in group III was significantly higher than in group I and II (P < 0.001). Spontaneous eye opening time was significantly longer in group III than in group I and II ( < 0.001). The patients in group III had significantly longer recovery times than patients in group I and II (P < 0.0001). Hypotension and bradycardia were not encountered during the study. The incidence of hypoxaemia was significantly greater in group III compared to other groups (P < 0.001). Pain control and endoscopist satisfaction was significantly better for group I and II than for group III (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Synergistic sedation can be achieved safely and effectively by the combination of propofol and IN sufentanil or IV midazolam for colonoscopy. However, IN sufentanil can be considered as a reasonable alternative to IV midazolam due to less respiratory depression, and better pain control and endoscopist satisfaction.

Spinal/epidural block as an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been generally performed under general anesthesia. Laparoscopic appendectomy is rarely performed under regional anesthesia because of pneumoperitoneum-related problems. AIM: To compare spinal/epidural anesthesia (SEA) and general anesthesia (GA) during LA with respect to perioperative and postoperative adverse events and postoperative pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients, aged 18-65, who underwent LA, were randomly allocated to two groups: the GA (n = 25) and SEA (n = 25) groups. Perioperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain level, and patient satisfaction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: None of the patients needed conversion to an open procedure or conversion from SEA to GA. In the SEA group we encountered shoulder pain in 6 (24%) patients, abdominal discomfort/pain in 4 (16%) patients, anxiety in 4 (16%) patients, and hypotension in 2 (8%) patients intraoperatively. Also, post-spinal headache was observed in 5 (20%) patients in the SEA group. Postoperative right shoulder pain was significantly higher in the GA group compared to the SEA group (32% vs. 8%; p = 0.037). In the SEA group the incidence of urinary retention and in the GA group the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were higher, but these differences were not statistically significant. The postoperative surgical pain level was significantly lower in the SEA group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal/epidural anesthesia is effective and safe in ASA I healthy patients undergoing LA. Less postoperative pain, PONV and shoulder pain are the advantages of SEA compared to GA.

Open mesh and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair under spinal and general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Mesh placement is the main standard in repair of inguinal hernia, and laparoscopic repair is the standard of care via spinal, epidural, or combined anesthesia. Here, we compared open and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs under general (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA). METHODS: Inguinal hernia patients (n=440) were analyzed retrospectively. There were four groups: Group 1 was TEP under GA (TEP-GA) (n=111); Group 2 was open mesh repair (OM) under SA (n=116) (OM-SA); Group 3 was open mesh repair under GA (n=117) (OM-GA); Group four was TEP under SA (n=96) (TEP-SA). The age, body mass index, duration of operation, hospital stay, postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores, recurrence, postoperative pain, urinary retention, headache, and patient satisfaction were all recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of hypotension, vomiting, seroma and scrotal edema, recurrence, and wound infection incidence between the groups. However, the operation duration, hospital stay period, headache, urinary retention, postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores, chronic pain, and patient satisfaction showed significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TEP hernia repair is a safe and effective method along with its advantages of shorter hospital stay, less recurrence, less postoperative pain, higher patient satisfaction, and similar postoperative complication rates. SA has the disadvantage of higher incidence of headache and urinary retention compared to GA.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a prospective randomised study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC. METHODS: Forty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups. RESULTS: Anesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group. CONCLUSION: CSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is routinely performed under general, not regional anesthesia. This study assessed the feasibility, efficacy, and side effects of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in LA. METHODS: Thirty-three American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification grade I patients underwent LA under CSEA. CSEA was performed using the needle-through-needle technique at the L3-L4 interspace. Preoperative and postoperative adverse events related to CSEA, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain levels were recorded. RESULTS: LA under CSEA was performed successfully in 33 patients (84.6%). Peroperatively, right shoulder pain was observed in 8 patients (24.1%), abdominal discomfort in 6 (18.2%), anxiety in 5 (15.2%), hypotension in 2 (6.1%) and nausea-vomiting in 1 (3%). In the first 24 hours after LA, headache, urinary retention, right shoulder pain, and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) occurred in 18.1%, 12.1%, 9.1%, and 0% of patients, respectively. In the first 6 hours postoperation, no patients had operation-site pain that required analgesic treatment. Thirty-one patients (94%) evaluated their satisfaction with the procedure as good or moderate. CONCLUSION: CSEA is an efficient and suitable anesthesia technique in LA for ASA physical status classification grade I healthy patients. CSEA is associated with good postoperative pain control and the absence of PONV and intubation-associated complications.

Spinal anesthesia is safe in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. A retrospective clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is an effective and safe method for the treatment of inguinal hernia. There are very few studies on regional anesthesia methods in TEP surgery. AIM: To compare TEP inguinal hernia repair performed when the patient was treated under spinal anesthesia (SA) with that performed under general anesthesia (GA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All total of 80 patients were studied between December 2015 and March 2017. Hyperbaric bupivacaine and fentanyl were used for SA, to achieve a sensorial level of T3. Propofol, sevoflurane, rocuronium, fentanyl, and tracheal intubation were used for GA. Intraoperative events related to SA, surgical times, intra- and postoperative complications, and pain scores were recorded. RESULTS: The mean operative time in the SA TEP group was 70.2 ±6.7 min, which was significantly longer than the mean operative time in the GA TEP group of 67.2 ±6.2 min (p < 0.038). The mean pain scores in the SA TEP group were 0.23 ±0.42 at the first hour, 1.83 ±0.64 at 6 h and 1.28 ±0.45 at 24 h. These scores were significantly lower than the corresponding scores of 5.18 ±0.84 (p < 0.001), 2.50 ±0.55 (p < 0.001) and 1.58 ±0.55 in the GA TEP group. Generally, patients were more satisfied with SA than GA (p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia TEP is significantly less painful in the early postoperative period, leading to earlier ambulation than GA TEP. Additionally, SA TEP results in significantly less need for analgesics and better patient satisfaction results. SA TEP seems to be a better alternative than the existing GA TEP.

A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). Prospective randomized studies comparing sedation properties and complications of propofol and midazolam/meperidine in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) are few. AIM: To compare propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation for UGE in terms of cardiopulmonary side effects, patient and endoscopist satisfaction and procedure-related times. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of propofol versus midazolam and meperidine in 100 patients scheduled for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine groups. Randomization was generated by a computer. Cardiopulmonary side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (endoscopy time, awake time, time to hospital discharge), and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were compared between groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the cost, endoscopy time, or demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. Awake time and time to hospital discharge were significantly shorter in the propofol group (6.58 ±4.72 vs. 9.32 ±4.26 min, p = 0.030 and 27.60 ±7.88 vs. 32.00 ±10.54 min, p = 0.019). Hypotension incidence was significantly higher in the propofol group (12% vs. 0%, p = 0.027). The patient and endoscopist satisfaction was better with propofol. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol may be preferred to midazolam/meperidine sedation, with a shorter awake and hospital discharge time and better patient and endoscopist satisfaction. However, hypotension risk should be considered with propofol, and careful evaluation is needed, particularly in cardiopulmonary disorders.

Novel hematologic inflammatory parameters to predict acute mesenteric ischemia.

Acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is an emergency condition that requires urgent diagnosis. Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) have been studied as inflammatory biomarkers in atherosclerosis, but data regarding AMI are lacking. The study population included patients with AMI (n = 46) versus age and sex-matched healthy controls (n = 46). Computed multidetector tomographic angiography was performed to diagnose AMI. NLR and PLR were calculated using complete blood count. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also analyzed. Neutrophil levels and lymphocytes were significantly higher in patients with AMI than in the control individuals (P < 0.001 and P = 0.43, respectively). NLR levels were significantly higher in patients with AMI compared with that in the control individuals (P < 0.001). Platelet levels did not reach statistical significance between the groups (P = 0.709). However, patients with AMI had significantly higher PLR levels than the control group (P = 0.039). CRP levels on admission were higher in patients with AMI in comparison with control individuals. There was also a positive correlation between NLR and CRP (r = 0.548, P < 0.001), and between PLR and CRP (r = 0.528, P < 0.001). NLR level greater than 4.5, measured on admission, yielded an area under the curve value of 0.790 (95% confidence interval 0.681-0.799, sensitivity 77%, specificity 72%), and PLR level of greater than 157 yielded an area under the curve value of 0.604 (95% confidence interval 0.486-0.722, sensitivity 59%, specificity 65%). Patients with AMI had increased NLR, PLR, and CRP levels compared with controls. Increased NLR and PLR was an independent predictor of AMI.

Two-port laparoscopic appendectomy assisted with needle grasper comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.

PURPOSE: The 2-port laparoscopic appendectomy technique (TLA) is between the conventional 3-port and single-port laparoscopic appendectomy surgeries. We compared postoperative pain and cosmetic results after TLA with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) by a 3-port device. METHODS: Patients undergoing TLA were matched with patients undergoing CLA between February 2015 and November 2015 at the same institution. Thirty-two patients underwent TLA with a needle grasper. The appendix was secured by a percutaneous organ-holding device (needle grasper), then removed through a puncture at McBurney's point. Another 38 patients underwent CLA. Patient demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: One patient in the TLA group developed a wound infection and 1 patient in the CLA group developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and 3 wound infections. There was no significant difference between the groups when comparing the length of hospital stay, time until oral intake, and other complications. The pain score in the first 12 hours after surgery was significanly higher in CLA group than the TLA group (P < 0.001). Operative time was significantly shorter in the CLA group compared to the TLA group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TLA using a needle grasper was associated with a significantly lower pain score 12 hours after surgery, better cosmetic results, and lower cost, than the CLA 3-port procedure because of the fewer number of ports.

New advantageous tool in single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the needle grasper.

INTRODUCTION: During single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC), the gallbladder is suspended with stitches, resulting in perforation risk and difficulty in exploration. AIM: We used the needle grasper in SILC to hang and manipulate the gallbladder. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients (43 female, 22 male) who underwent SILC between December 2013 and December 2014 were analyzed retrospectively for patient demographics, duration of operation, laparotomy or conventional laparoscopy necessity, drain use, complications, and hospital stay periods. To place the SILC port (Covidien, Inc.), the needle grasper was inserted at the right upper abdominal quadrant without an incision to hang and manipulate the gall-bladder. RESULTS: The mean age was 47.9 ±13.068 years; the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.94 ±3.913 kg/m2. ASA scores were 1, 2, and 3. Two patients with high BMI with additional trocar use were excluded. The operations were completed without any additional trocar in 59 patients. The mean operation time was 89 ±22.41 min. Eighteen patients required a drain; all were discharged after drain removal. One patient needed re-hospitalization and percutaneous drainage and was discharged on the 9th day. Fifty-three patients were discharged on the 1st post-operative day. Eleven patients with drains were discharged on the 2nd day, and 1 was discharged on the 7th day. The mean hospital stay period was 1.26 ±0.815 days. CONCLUSIONS: The main difficulty of SILC is to manipulate hand tools because the triangulation principle of laparoscopy use is not possible in SILC. Inserting a needle grasper into the abdominal cavity at the right subcostal area to manipulate the gallbladder helps and does not leave a visible scar.

Is there any effect of pneumoperitoneum pressure on coagulation and fibrinolysis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) are generally performed in a 12 mmHg-pressured pneumoperitoneum in a slight sitting position. Considerable thromboembolism risk arises in this operation due to pneumoperitoneum, operation position and risk factors of patients. We aim to investigate the effect of pneumoperitoneum pressure on coagulation and fibrinolysis under general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) I-III patients who underwent elective LC without thromboprophlaxis were enrolled in this prospective study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the pneumoperitoneum pressure during LC: the 10 mmHg group (n = 25) and the 14 mmHg group. Prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), International Normalized Ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and blood levels of d-dimer and fibrinogen were measured preoperatively (pre), one hour (post1) and 24 h (post24) after the surgery. Moreover, alanine amino transferase, aspartate amino transferase and lactate dehydrogenase were measured before and after the surgery. These parameters were compared between and within the groups. RESULTS: PT, TT, aPTT, INR, and D-dimer and fibrinogen levels significantly increased after the surgery in both of the groups. D-dimer level was significantly higher in 14-mmHg group at post24. CONCLUSION: Both the 10-mmHg and 14-mmHg pressure of pneumoperitoneum may lead to affect coagulation tests and fibrinogen and D-dimer levels without any occurrence of deep vein thrombosis, but 14-mmHg pressure of pneumoperitoneum has a greater effect on D-dimer. However, lower pneumoperitoneum pressure may be useful for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis.

A comparison of the effects of hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia on hemodynamics and heart rate variability.

AIM: To compare the effects of hyperbaric and isobaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia on hemodynamics and heart rate variability (HRV) in nonobstetric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Group I (n = 30) received 15 mg (3 mL) of hyperbaric bupivacaine and Group II (n = 30) received 15 mg (3 mL) of isobaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded before and after spinal anesthesia over 30 min. Analyses of HRV were performed on the day of surgery, after volume loading, and 20 min after spinal injection. Low frequency (LF) values, high frequency (HF) values, and LF/HF ratios were recorded. The incidences of hypotension and alterations of HRV parameters in both groups were investigated. RESULTS: The incidence ofhypotension was 26.6% and 23.3% in Groups I and II, respectively. There were no significant differences in the LF and HF values and LF/HF ratios between groups. In Group I, LF/HF ratios were significantly lower and HF values were significantly higher at 20 min after spinal anesthesia, in comparison to the baseline value (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hyperbaric bupivacaine caused a significantly greater decrease in LF/HF ratios and a significantly greater increase in HF values.

Cardiopulmonary safety of propofol versus midazolam/meperidine sedation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

BACKGROUND: Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients' evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.

Right upper lobe atelectasis after tracheal extubation in a morbidly obese patient.

BACKGROUND: Acute lobar collapse caused by a reflex bronchoconstriction was previously reported to occur during the induction of anesthesia, however there are no reports on its occurrence during the emergence period. CASE REPORT: A 56-year-old morbidly obese woman was scheduled for surgery due to a gastric ulcer perforation. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental 500 mg, fentanyl and rocuronium, and maintained with sevoflurane in a N2O/O2 mixture. The operative procedure and anesthesia were uneventful; however, the patient developed a sudden decrease in SaO2 and blurring of consciousness after extubation. She was re-intubated and ventilated with 100% O2. Arterial blood gas analysis at that time showed respiratory acidosis and hypoxemia. Further work-up revealed a bronchospasm-induced right upper lobe atelectasis, which occurred immediately after tracheal extubation. The patient was successfully treated using mechanical ventilation and bronchodilators. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchospasm may cause acute lobar atelectasis immediately after tracheal extubation. Morbid obesity and the use of 100% oxygen may facilitate atelectasis formation during emergence from anesthesia.