What is the minimum training required for successful cricothyroidotomy?: a study in mannequins.

BACKGROUND: A correctly performed cricothyroidotomy may be lifesaving in a cannot-ventilate, cannot-intubate situation. However, many practicing anesthesiologists do not have experience with cricothyroidotomy. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimum training required to perform cricothyroidotomy in 40 s or less in mannequins. METHODS: After informed consent, participants were shown a demonstration video and asked to perform 10 consecutive cricothyroidotomy procedures on a mannequin using a preassembled percutaneous dilational cricothyroidotomy set. Each attempt was timed from skin palpation to lung insufflation. Cricothyroidotomy was considered successful if it was performed in 40 s or less, and the cricothyroidotomy time was considered to have plateaued when there were no significant reductions in cricothyroidotomy times in three consecutive attempts. RESULTS: One hundred two anesthesiologists participated in the study. There was a significant reduction of cricothyroidotomy times over the 10 attempts (P < 0.0001) and between three consecutive attempts until the fourth attempt (P < 0.03). The cricothyroidotomy times plateaued by the fourth attempt, while the success rate plateaued at the fifth attempt (94, 96, 96, and 96% at the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh attempts, respectively). CONCLUSION: Practice on mannequins leads to reductions in cricothyroidotomy times and improvement in success rates. By the fifth attempt, 96% of participants were able to successfully perform the cricothyroidotomy in 40 s or less. While clinical correlates are not known, the authors recommend that providers of emergency airway management be trained on mannequins for at least five attempts or until their cricothyroidotomy time is 40 s or less. The most appropriate retraining intervals have yet to be determined for optimal cricothyroidotomy skill retention.

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.

Comparative efficacy of acustimulation (ReliefBand) versus ondansetron (Zofran) in combination with droperidol for preventing nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.

Dexamethasone in combination with dolasetron for prophylaxis in the ambulatory setting: effect on outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a common problem despite routine antiemetic prophylaxis. Therefore, the authors investigated the effect of administering 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone as an adjunct to a 5-HT3 antagonist (12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron) with respect to patient outcome. METHODS: Outpatients (N = 140) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, institutional review board-approved protocol involving two antiemetic treatment groups. After induction of anesthesia, the control group received 1 ml intravenous saline, whereas the dexamethasone group received 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone. Both groups received 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron at the time of gallbladder removal. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic episodes, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea score, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores were assessed at 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the early recovery period, the dexamethasone group had a shorter stay in the day-surgery unit (136 +/- 57 vs. 179 +/- 62 min) and more rapidly achieved discharge criteria (161 +/- 32 vs. 209 +/- 39 min). In addition, fewer patients in the dexamethasone group experienced nausea at home within 24 h after discharge (13 vs. 28%, P < 0.05). Finally, the dexamethasone group reported higher quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the adjunctive use of 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone shortened the time to achieve discharge criteria and improved the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores after laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures in outpatients receiving prophylaxis with 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron.

The efficacy of premedication with celecoxib and acetaminophen in preventing pain after otolaryngologic surgery.

UNLABELLED: Non-opioid analgesics are often used to supplement opioids for the management of perioperative pain. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we examined the effects of acetaminophen and a cyclooxygenase type-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination, before elective otolaryngologic surgery in 112 healthy outpatients. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 4 study groups: Group 1, placebo (vitamin C, 500 mg per os [PO]); Group 2, acetaminophen 2000 mg PO; Group 3, celecoxib 200 mg PO; or Group 4, acetaminophen 2000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg PO. All patients received a standardized anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain was assessed using a 10-point verbal rating scale. Recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, side effects, and patient satisfaction scores were also recorded. The combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain. Celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination with acetaminophen, improved patients' satisfaction with their postoperative analgesia. With the combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib, an additional expenditure of $6.16 would be required to obtain complete satisfaction with postoperative pain management in one additional patient who would not have been completely satisfied if he/she had received the placebo. However, oral celecoxib or acetaminophen alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain when administered before surgery. We conclude that oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was highly effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after otolaryngologic surgery. However, acetaminophen (2000 mg) or celecoxib (200 mg) alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain.