Intravenous Administration of Hypertonic Glucose Solution to Prevent Dizziness in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dizziness is a common complication of gastrointestinal endoscopy under general anesthesia. Dizziness is primarily caused by a lack of energy and blood volume following fasting and water deprivation. Hypertonic glucose solution (HGS) is an intravenous energy replenishment, that increases blood volume due to its hyperosmotic characteristics and can be directly absorbed from blood circulation. This study aimed to HGS can prevent dizziness after gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled study. Eligible patients were randomly allocated into two groups based on the intravenous agent administered before gastrointestinal endoscopy: Group A, saline (0.9%; 20 mL); and group B, HGS (50%; 20 mL). Overall, 840 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The scores and incidence of dizziness were assessed. RESULTS: The dizziness score were higher in group A than in group B (1.92 ± 0.08 vs. 0.92 ± 0.06; p < 0.01). The incidence of mild dizziness and moderate-to-severe dizziness was significantly lower in group B than in group A (40.10% vs. 51.78% and 3.10% vs. 19.72%, respectively; p < 0.01). The incidence and score of dizziness were significantly lower in males than in females (30.81% vs. 51.82% and 0.64 ± 0.08 vs. 1.12 ± 0.08, respectively; p < 0.01) after pretreatment with HGS. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with HGS effectively prevents dizziness after gastrointestinal endoscopy under general anesthesia. The mechanism of action is unclear but might be related to body energy replacement and an increase in blood volume following HGS administration.

Parasternal Intercostal Block Complementation Contributes to Postoperative Pain Relief in Modified Radical Mastectomy Employing Pectoral Nerve Block I and Serratus-Intercostal Block: A Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Pectoral nerve block I (PECS I) and serratus-intercostal plane block (SIPB) can anesthetize the majority mammary region, while parasternal intercostal block (PSI) targets the internal area during breast resection surgery. The aim of this study was to determine whether including PSI with PECS I and SIPB is more effective compared to PECS I and SIPB alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two adult females undergoing unilateral modified radical mastectomy (MRM) were randomly assigned to receive either PECS I and SIPB (PS group, n=31) or a combination of PECS I, SIPB, and PSI (PSP group, n=31). The outcomes were measured with a numerical rating scale (NRS) score, and in terms of opioid consumption and anesthesia-related complications within 48 h after surgery. RESULTS: Although there were no differences in the NRS scores between the two groups during the inactive periods, the combination of three nerve blocks significantly reduced the NRS scores during movement. In addition, morphine equivalent consumption was lower in the PSP group compared to the PS group. Postoperative adverse events were similar in both groups in terms of regional anesthesia-related complications. CONCLUSION: The combination of PECS I block, SIPB, and PSI block provides superior pain relief and postoperative recovery for patients undergoing MRM.

Dexmedetomidine preconditioning protects against lung injury in hemorrhagic shock rats / Pré-condicionamento com dexmedetomidina protege contra lesão pulmonar em ratos com choque hemorrágico

Abstract Background and objectives: Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated protective effects against lung injury in vitro. Here, we investigated whether dexmedetomidine preconditioning protected against lung injury in hemorrhagic shock rats. Methods: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups (n = 8): control group, hemorrhagic shock group, 5 ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine (DEX1) group, and 10 ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine (DEX2) group. Saline or dexmedetomidine were administered over 20 min. 30 min after injection, hemorrhage was initiated in the hemorrhagic shock, DEX1 and DEX2 group. Four hours after resuscitation, protein and cellular content in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and the lung histopathology were measured. The malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, Bcl-2, Bax and caspase-3 were also tested in the lung tissue. Results: Compare with hemorrhagic shock group, 5 ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine pretreatment reduced the apoptosis (2.25 ± 0.24 vs. 4.12 ± 0.42%, p < 0.05), histological score (1.06 ± 0.12 vs. 1.68 ± 0.15, p < 0.05) and protein (1.92 ± 0.38 vs. 3.95 ± 0.42 mg.mL-1, p < 0.05) and WBC (0.42 ± 0.11 vs. 0.92 ± 0.13 × 109/L, p < 0.05) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Which is correlated with increased superoxide dismutase activity (8.35 ± 0.68 vs. 4.73 ± 0.44 U.mg-1 protein, p < 0.05) and decreased malondialdehyde (2.18 ± 0.19 vs. 3.28 ± 0.27 nmoL.mg-1 protein, p < 0.05). Dexmedetomidine preconditioning also increased the Bcl-2 level (0.55 ± 0.04 vs. 0.34 ± 0.05, p < 0.05) and decreased the level of Bax (0.46 ± 0.03 vs. 0.68 ± 0.04, p < 0.05), caspase-3 (0.49 ± 0.03 vs. 0.69 ± 0.04, p < 0.05). However, we did not observe any difference between the DEX1 and DEX2 groups for these (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine preconditioning has a protective effect against lung injury caused by hemorrhagic shock in rats. The potential mechanisms involved are the inhibition of cell death and improvement of antioxidation. But did not show a dose-dependent effect.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: Dexmedetomidina demonstrou efeitos protetores contra a lesão pulmonar in vitro. Neste estudo, investigamos se o pré-condicionamento com dexmedetomidina protege contra a lesão pulmonar em ratos com choque hemorrágico. Métodos: Ratos machos, Sprague-Dawley, foram aleatoriamente divididos em quatro grupos (n = 8): grupo controle, grupo com choque hemorrágico, grupo com 5 µg.kg-1 de dexmedetomidina (DEX1) e grupo com 10 µg.kg-1 de dexmedetomidina (DEX2). Solução salina ou dexmedetomidina foi administrada durante 20 minutos. Trinta minutos após a injeção, a hemorragia foi iniciada nos grupos choque hemorrágico, DEX1 e DEX2. Quatro horas após a ressuscitação, a proteína e o conteúdo celular no lavado broncoalveolar e a histopatologia pulmonar foram medidos. Malondialdeído, superóxido dismutase, Bcl-2, Bax e caspase-3 também foram testados no tecido pulmonar. Resultados: Na comparação com o grupo choque hemorrágico, o pré-tratamento com 5 ug.kg-1 de dexmedetomidina reduziu a apoptose (2,25 ± 0,24 vs. 4,12 ± 0,42%, p < 0,05), escore histológico (1,06 ± 0,12 vs. 1,68 ± 0,15, p < 0,05) e proteína (1,92 ± 0,38 vs. 3,95 ± 0,42 mg.mL-1, p < 0,05) e leucócitos (0,42 ± 0,11 vs. 0,92 ± 0,13 × 109/L, p < 0,05) no lavado broncoalveolar; o que está correlacionado com o aumento da atividade da superóxido dismutase (8,35 ± 0,68 vs. 4,73 ± 0,44 U.mg-1 de proteína, p < 0,05) e diminuição do malondialdeído (2,18 ± 0,19 vs. 3,28 ± 0,27 nmoL.mg-1 de proteína, p < 0,05). O pré-condicionamento com dexmedetomidina também aumentou o nível de Bcl-2 (0,55 ± 0,04 vs. 0,34 ± 0,05, p < 0,05) e diminuiu o nível de Bax (0,46 ± 0,03 vs. 0,68 ± 0,04, p < 0,05), caspase-3 (0,49 ± 0,03 vs. 0,69 ± 0,04, p < 0,05). No entanto, não houve diferença entre os grupos DEX1 e DEX2 para essas proteínas (p > 0,05). Conclusão: O pré-condicionamento com dexmedetomidina tem um efeito protetor contra a lesão pulmonar causada por choque hemorrágico em ratos. Os potenciais mecanismos envolvidos são a inibição da morte celular e a melhora da antioxidação. Porém, não mostrou um efeito dose-dependente.

[Dexmedetomidine preconditioning protects against lung injury in hemorrhagic shock rats]. / Pré­condicionamento com dexmedetomidina protege contra lesão pulmonar em ratos com choque hemorrágico.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated protective effects against lung injury in vitro. Here, we investigated whether dexmedetomidine preconditioning protected against lung injury in hemorrhagic shock rats. METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups (n=8): control group, hemorrhagic shock group, 5ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine (DEX1) group, and 10ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine (DEX2) group. Saline or dexmedetomidine were administered over 20min. 30min after injection, hemorrhage was initiated in the hemorrhagic shock, DEX1 and DEX2 group. Four hours after resuscitation, protein and cellular content in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and the lung histopathology were measured. The malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, Bcl-2, Bax and caspase-3 were also tested in the lung tissue. RESULTS: Compare with hemorrhagic shock group, 5ug.kg-1 dexmedetomidine pretreatment reduced the apoptosis (2.25±0.24 vs. 4.12±0.42%, p<0.05), histological score (1.06±0.12 vs. 1.68±0.15, p<0.05) and protein (1.92±0.38 vs. 3.95±0.42mg.mL-1, p<0.05) and WBC (0.42±0.11 vs. 0.92±0.13×109/L, p<0.05) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Which is correlated with increased superoxide dismutase activity (8.35±0.68 vs. 4.73±0.44U.mg-1 protein, p<0.05) and decreased malondialdehyde (2.18±0.19 vs. 3.28±0.27nmoL.mg-1 protein, p<0.05). Dexmedetomidine preconditioning also increased the Bcl-2 level (0.55±0.04 vs. 0.34±0.05, p<0.05) and decreased the level of Bax (0.46±0.03 vs. 0.68±0.04, p<0.05), caspase-3 (0.49±0.03 vs. 0.69±0.04, p<0.05). However, we did not observe any difference between the DEX1 and DEX2 groups for these (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine preconditioning has a protective effect against lung injury caused by hemorrhagic shock in rats. The potential mechanisms involved are the inhibition of cell death and improvement of antioxidation. But did not show a dose-dependent effect.

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Recovery-15 scale (QoR-15) is an easy-to-use score for assessing the quality of post-operative recovery. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the present study was to translate the QoR-15 into the Chinese language and validate it. The secondary aim was to compare it with the Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS). METHODS: The Chinese version of the QoR-15 (QoR-15C) was developed according to the methods adopted by the International Quality of Life Assessment project. A total of 470 patients undergoing surgery and general anesthesia completed the QoR-15C and the PQRS before or on the day of surgery, and on post-operative days (POD)-1, -3, and -30. To validate the QoR-15C, we assessed validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical feasibility and compared them with those of the PQRS. RESULTS: Convergent validity showed the Pearson's r coefficient of the QoR-15C with visual analog scale and the PQRS to be 0.63 and 0.10, respectively. Predictive validity showed it had significant correlations with duration of anesthesia, duration of operation, time in post-anesthesia care unit, time in intensive care unit, and length of hospital stay. Discriminant validity showed it differed between patients who had a good or poor recovery, and decreased with increasing grades (indicating difficulty and complexity) of surgery. The intraclass correlation coefficient, split-half coefficient, and Cronbach's α were 0.99, 0.70, and 0.76, respectively. The standardized effect size ranged from 0.85 to 1.20, and the standardized response mean ranged from 0.93 to 1.27. Compared with the QoR-15C, the PQRS may have inferior convergent validity (0.36 vs. 0.63), and split-half reliability (0.63 vs. 0.70). Furthermore, the PQRS took longer to complete: 4.20 (standard deviation 0.79) versus 1.57 (standard deviation 0.65) min. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the original English version, the QoR-15C reveals satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, it may be a more valid, reliable, and easy-to-use scale than the PQRS.