Factors affecting the preference of anesthesia residents regarding subspecialty training.

BACKGROUND: There is scant information about the factors that influence the career decisions of anesthesia residents in Turkey. The aim of this study was to determine the preferences of anesthesia residents in Turkey regarding future career and subspecialty training plans and practice location, and to determine the factors that influence those preferences. METHODS: A 21-item e-questionnaire was administered to anesthesia residents who were registered with at least one of the two societies of anesthesiologists in Turkey. Data were collected on demographics and preferences regarding subspecialty training and future practice location. RESULTS: The response rate of the survey was 41.04%. The percentages of participants who intended to pursue a fellowship in intensive care and algology were 12.1 and 23.1%, respectively; 21.7% of participants did not intend to pursue any fellowship training and the decision of 43.1% of the participants was uncertain. The most popular reasons for pursuing a fellowship were to perform compulsory service in a better place (47.2%) and improve earning potential (43.1%). Forty-two percent of participants did not intend to pursue any fellowship training because of their attention to general anesthesiology practice and 15.2% because of the additional compulsory service obligation following the training. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the desirability of sub-specialization among anesthesia residents in Turkey could be accepted as low. This result seems to be associated with the additional compulsory service obligation.

Immediate and midterm follow-up results of using an electrodetachable, fully retrievable SOLO stent system in the endovascular coil occlusion of wide-necked cerebral aneurysms.

OBJECT: Stent-assisted embolization is an alternative endovascular treatment method for wide-necked intracranial aneurysms. Currently available stents have the limitations of poor radial force, difficult delivery systems, and lack of full retrievability. The authors report on their preliminary experience with the use of a new, fully retrievable, self-expanding neurovascular stent, which has a high radial force and easy delivery system, combined with coil or Onyx embolization for the treatment of wide-necked aneurysms, including 6-month follow-up data. METHODS: Fifteen patients with 18 wide-necked intracranial aneurysms were treated using the SOLO stent system and detachable platinum coils. Aneurysms were located at the posterior communicating artery (seven lesions), midbasilar artery (one lesion), internal carotid artery (ICA) bifurcation (one lesion), ICA-ophthalmic artery segment (eight lesions), and posterior cerebral artery (one lesion). Eleven aneurysms were small, six were large, and one was giant. Only one of these aneurysms was in the acute stage of subarachnoid hemorrhage; balloon remodeling alone failed to keep the coils in the aneurysm sac. RESULTS: Only one stent required retrieving and repositioning after it had been fully deployed, and retrieval was easy and successful. No thromboembolic complication, dissection/rupture, or vasospasm occured during stent placement. Follow-up angiograms obtained at 6 months posttreatment in the 18 aneurysms demonstrated that all stents were patent with no evidence of intimal hyperplasia or stenosis. In all cases but one, 100% lesion occlusion was observed at the 6-month control angiography examination. Only one aneurysm had recanalized. CONCLUSIONS: The fully retrievable self-expandible SOLO stent is a feasible, secure, and effective system with a high radial force and ease of delivery in treating wide-necked intracranial aneurysms in combination with coil embolization.

The growth of bacteria in infusion drugs: propofol 2% supports growth when remifentanil and pantoprazole do not.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contamination risks of propofol 2%, remifentanil, and pantoprazole; and in vitro effects of these drugs on the growth of common infective agents in intensive care units were evaluated. METHODS: For detection of contamination risk, drugs were prepared ready to use under intensive care unit conditions, were tested. Effects of these three drugs on bacterial growth were also investigated. Drugs were prepared at the concentrations used in the intensive care unit and inoculated with common pathogens after which they were incubated at 4°C, 22°C and 36°C. Subcultures were made at 0, 2, 4 and 8h and colony counts were evaluated. Minimum inhibitory concentration values were determined for all drugs at 4°C, 22°C and 36°C. RESULTS: No growth was observed in the drugs prepared in the intensive care unit. Propofol tended to support while remifentanil inhibited bacterial growth. Effect of pantoprozole differed according to the bacteria tested. None of the drugs showed antibacterial activity at the maximum concentrations which may be achieved in blood of the patients. CONCLUSION: Propofol strongly supports the growth of the microorganisms tested, although remifentanil and pantoprazole do not. Therefore, it is important to follow the strict aseptic techniques for the preparation of propofol.

Crescimento de bactérias em agentes de infusão: propofol 2% sustenta o crescimento, enquanto remifentanil e pantoprazol não / The growth of bacteria in infusion drugs: propofol 2% supports growth when remifentanil and pantoprazole do not / Crecimiento de bacterias en agentes de infusión: el propofol al 2% sustenta el crecimiento, mientras que el remifentanilo y el pantoprazol no

EXPERIÊNCIA E OBJETIVOS: Foram avaliados os riscos da contaminação de propofol 2%, remifentanil e pantoprazol e os efeitos desses agentes in vitro no crescimento de agentes infecciosos comuns em unidades de terapia intensiva. MÉTODOS: Para a detecção do risco de contaminação, foram testados agentes preparados para uso imediato em condições de unidade de terapia intensiva. Também foram investigados os efeitos desses três agentes no crescimento bacteriano. Os agentes foram preparados nas concentrações utilizadas na unidade de terapia intensiva e inoculados com patógenos comuns; em seguida, foram incubados a 4ºC, 22ºC e 36ºC. Foram obtidas subculturas a 0, 2, 4 e 8 h e avaliadas as contagens de colônias. Foram determinados os valores de concentração inibitória mínima para todos os agentes a 4ºC, 22ºC e 36ºC. RESULTADOS: Não foi observado crescimento nos agentes preparados na unidade de terapia intensiva. Propofol tendeu a suportar o crescimento, enquanto que remifentanil inibiu o crescimento bacteriano. O efeito de pantoprazol foi variável, dependendo com a bactéria testada. Nenhum dos agentes demonstrou atividade antibacteriana nas concentrações máximas que podem ser alcançadas no sangue dos pacientes. CONCLUSÃO: Propofol sustenta vigorosamente o crescimento dos microrganismos testados, o que não ocorre com remifentanil e pantoprazol. Portanto, é importante que sejam praticadas técnicas assépticas rígidas na preparação de propofol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contamination risks of propofol 2%, remifentanil, and pantoprazole; and in vitro effects of these drugs on the growth of common infective agents in intensive care units were evaluated. METHODS: For detection of contamination risk, drugs were prepared ready to use under intensive care unit conditions, were tested. Effects of these three drugs on bacterial growth were also investigated. Drugs were prepared at the concentrations used in the intensive care unit and inoculated with common pathogens after which they were incubated at 4ºC, 22ºC and 36ºC. Subcultures were made at 0, 2, 4 and 8 h and colony counts were evaluated. Minimum inhibitory concentration values were determined for all drugs at 4ºC, 22ºC and 36ºC. RESULTS: o growth was observed in the drugs prepared in the intensive care unit. Propofol tended to support while remifentanil inhibited bacterial growth. Effect of pantoprozole differed according to the bacteria tested. None of the drugs showed antibacterial activity at the maximum concentrations which may be achieved in blood of the patients. CONCLUSION: Propofol strongly supports the growth of the microorganisms tested, although remifentanil and pantoprazole do not. Therefore, it is important to follow the strict aseptic techniques for the preparation of propofol.

EXPERIENCIA Y OBJETIVOS: Fueron evaluados los riesgos de la contaminación de propofol al 2%, remifentanilo y pantoprazol y los efectos de esos agentes in vitro en el crecimiento de agentes infecciosos comunes en las unidades de cuidados intensivos. MÉTODOS: Para la detección del riesgo de contaminación, fueron testados agentes preparados para el uso inmediato bajo condiciones de la unidad de cuidados intensivos. También se investigaron los efectos de esos tres agentes en el crecimiento bacteriano. Los agentes fueron preparados en las concentraciones utilizadas en la unidad de cuidados intensivos e inoculados con patógenos comunes; enseguida fueron incubados a 4ºC, 22ºC y 36ºC. Fueron obtenidos subcultivos a 0, 2, 4 y 8 h y se evaluaron los conteos de las colonias. Fueron determinados los valores de concentración inhibitoria mínima para todos los agentes a 4ºC, 22ºC y 36ºC. RESULTADOS: No se observó el crecimiento en los agentes preparados en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. El Propofol soportó el crecimiento, mientras que el remifentanilo inhibió el crecimiento bacteriano. El efecto de pantoprazol varió dependiendo de la bacteria testada. Ninguno de los agentes demostró actividad antibacteriana en las concentraciones máximas que pueden ser alcanzadas en la sangre de los pacientes. CONCLUSIONES: El Propofol sustenta vigorosamente el crecimiento de los microrganismos testados, lo que no ocurre con el remifentanilo y el pantoprazol. Por tanto, es importante que se practiquen técnicas asépticas rígidas en la preparación del propofol.