Remifentanil target-controlled infusion vs propofol target-controlled infusion for conscious sedation for awake fibreoptic intubation: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) is a technique used in patients with difficult airways. This study compares the suitability of remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) to propofol TCI for conscious sedation during AFOI in patients with bona fide difficult airways. METHODS: We recruited 24, ASA I-III patients, who were undergoing sedation for elective AFOI. Patients were randomized to one of the two groups, Group P (n=10) received propofol TCI and Group R (n=14) received remifentanil TCI. Primary outcome measures were conditions achieved at endoscopy, intubation, and post-intubation, which were graded using scoring systems. Other parameters measured were the endoscopy time, intubation time, and number of attempts at intubation. A postoperative interview was conducted to determine recall of events and level of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Endoscopy scores (0-5) and intubation scores (0-5) were significantly different [Group P 3 (1-4) vs Group R 1 (0-3) P<0.0001, Group P 3 (2-4) vs Group R 1 (0-3) P<0.0001, respectively]; with much better conditions in Group R, endoscopy times and intubation times were also significantly different, being shorter in Group R (P<0.007 and P<0.023, respectively). Patient tolerance of the procedure, judged by the discomfort scores (P<0.004) and the post-intubation scores (P<0.08), was significantly better in Group R. The level of recall for events was higher in Group R. However, there were no significant differences in the patient satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil TCI appears to provide better conditions for AFOI when compared with propofol TCI. The disadvantage of remifentanil in this setting may be a higher incidence of recall.

Misuse of the London ambulance service: How much and why?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree of inappropriate use of the London Ambulance Service and analyse the reasons for misuse. DESIGN: An immediate assessment of the appropriateness of the "999" call by the ambulanceperson and casualty senior house officer followed by a retrospective review of each case by the accident and emergency (A&E) consultant. SETTING: A busy inner London A&E department. METHODS: Three hundred consecutive emergency ambulance arrivals to the A&E department underwent assessment as to the appropriateness of the call. RESULTS: Overall 53.7% of patients were considered justified in their call, 15.7% of calls were inappropriate, and in 19.0% of cases a unanimous decision was not reached. Eleven per cent of all forms were incompletely filled. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 16% of emergency ambulance calls were considered unanimously to be inappropriate. This suggests that 75,000 emergency calls per year to the London Ambulance Service are not necessary. The commonest reason for inappropriately calling an ambulance was that the caller felt that they had a serious or life threatening condition. The need for public education and deterrents of ambulance abuse are discussed. The further introduction of a nursing led triage "hot line" to appropriately dispatch ambulances according to clinical needs of the patient, and other alternatives to this are discussed.

Magnetic resonance coronary artery imaging for redo coronary operations.

Imaging the native coronary vessels using contrast angiography can be difficult in the context of redo coronary operations when native disease is severe. When previous vein grafts undergo aneurysmal dilatation, imaging of the native vessel is restricted by the inability to infuse a sufficient volume of contrast medium through the graft and into the native vessel. We present a case of a patient whose redo coronary artery bypass graft operation was planned on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging of his native coronary arteries and vein graft after unsuccessful coronary angiography.