A comparison of propofol-midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a new, minimally invasive, bronchoscopic technique used in the evaluation of inthrathoracic lymph nodes.Use of sedation drugs before the procedure differs among centres. There is no standardization about sedation before EBUS-TBNA.We used a policy decision to shift from use of propofol with midazolam vs midazolam alone in a large tertiary hospital to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of EBUS-TBNA procedure. METHODS: Files of all the patients who were performed EBUS-TBNA between the dates of September 2010 and May 2014 were surveyed. All the EBUS-TBNA cases were performed under sedation of propofol and midazolam with an accompanying anesthesiologist in the beginning, however, sedation is applied with midazolam without an accompanying anesthesiologist after April 2013 due to changes in sedation policy. The diagnostic yield and complication rates were compared by chi-squared analysis between two groups. RESULTS: The files of 340 EBUS-TBNA performed patients were evaluated. Of the patients 274 eligible patients were analysed. 152 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analysed in propofol-midazolam (P) sedated group and 122 patients were analysed in midazolam (M) group. There is no statistically significant difference between two different sedated groups in terms of age and gender. Diagnostic value was detected as 77.6% in P group and 85.7% in M group and the difference was not statistically significant. No difference between complication rates of both groups was observed. CONCLUSION: Both sedation-types for performing EBUS-TBNA showed similar diagnostic value and complication rates in our study. Propofol with midazolam application requires with an accompanying anaesthesiologist, therefore, it increases cost. EBUS-TBNA procedures had been performed in safe with no decrease in diagnostic yield under moderate sedation.

Predictive value of serum Hs-CRP levels for outcomes of pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic utility of novel biomarkers in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) is still under investigation. While many studies emphasize that high serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) has a moderate relation with PE, few studies show that Hs-CRP can be used to predict the outcome of the treatment. AIMS: In this study, we aimed to determine whether there is a relationship between serum levels of Hs-CRP and reperfusion of pulmonary tissue. As a secondary objective, the correlation between Hs-CRP and subgroups of PE was investigated. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with PE, 38 male (44.7%) and 47 female (55.3%) with an average age of 65.5 ± 13.4, were included in this prospective observational study. Samples of blood were collected before and 48 h after the inception of fibrinolytic therapy. RESULT: The correlation of changes in serum Hs-CRP levels with reperfusion duration was statistically significant (r = 0.548, P = 0.01). Second, we found that some subgroups of PE (massive PE: r = 0.719, P = 0.001, and minor PE: r = 0.529, P = 0.001) had a relation with changes in serum Hs-CRP levels, whereas some had none (submassive PE: r = 0.136, P = 0.215). CONCLUSION: Changes in serum Hs-CRP levels can be a potential predictor of the outcomes for patients with PE. Additionally, this value of change can notify the presence of some subgroups of PE (massive and minor PE).

Is atmospheric pressure change an Independent risk factor for hemoptysis?

OBJECTIVE: Hemoptysis is one of the most important and challenging symptoms in pulmonary medicine. Because of the increased number of patients with hemoptysis in certain periods of the year, we aimed to investigate whether atmospheric changes have an effect on the development of hemoptysis with or without a secondary cause. METHODS: The data of patients presenting with hemoptysis between January 2006 and December 2011 were analyzed. Data on the daily atmospheric pressure (hectopascal, hPa), relative humidity (%), and temperature ((o) C) during that time were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients with hemoptysis, 145 male (62.5%) and 87 female (37.5%) with an average age of 48.1(±17.6), were admitted to our hospital between 2006 and 2011. The highest admission rates were in the spring season, the highest in May (n=37, 15.9%), and the lowest admission rates were in December (n=10, 4.3%). A statistically significant negative correlation was found between the number of hemoptysis cases and mean atmospheric pressure but no relative humidity or outdoor temperature. CONCLUSION: Hemoptysis is very much influenced by weather factors; in particular, low atmospheric pressures significantly affect the development of hemoptysis. Fluctuations in atmospheric pressure may also play a role in hemoptysis.

Two different dosages of nebulized steroid versus parenteral steroid in the management of COPD exacerbations: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nebulized steroid (NS) with systemic corticosteroids (SC) and to determine optimal NS dose in the treatment of patients with COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was a randomized, parallel design trial. Eligible patients (n=86) were randomly allocated to 1 of the 3 treatment groups: parenteral corticosteroid (PS) (n=33), 4 mg (NB) (n=27), or 8 mg NB (n=26). Partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2), carbon dioxide (PaCO2), pH, and oxygen saturation (SaO2) were evaluated at baseline, 24 h, 48 h, and discharge. Airway obstruction (forced vital capacity [FVC] and forced expiratory volume 1 s [FEV1]) was evaluated at admission and discharge. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups for all parameters at all time periods, except for higher FEV1 value in the 8-mg NB group at baseline. In groups, significant differences were determined for FVC, FEV1, PaO2, and SaO2 (p<0.001), but not for PaCO2 and pH, in comparison to their baseline values. As adverse events, hyperglycemia and oral moniliasis were observed in the PS group (n=4) and in the NB groups (n=5), respectively, and treatment change was required in 9 patients (2 patients in the PS group and 7 patients in the NB groups) (p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized budesonide may be used as an alternative to SC because of its equal effectiveness and lesser systemic adverse effects. The choice of optimal dosage needs to be evaluated carefully because adverse effect and dropout rates varied according to dosage. However, there is a need for further studies including more severe cases and evaluating long-term outcomes or relapses comparing the 3 arms.

Low-molecular-weight heparin use with thrombolysis: is it effective and safe? Ten years' clinical experience.

BACKGROUND: There is no data on the use of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (SC LMWH) in cases that require thrombolysis. OBJECTIVE: Having used SC LMWH with thrombolytics for more than 10 years, we aimed to review our data, share our experiences and find out whether the use of SC LMWH with thrombolytics had been effective and safe. METHOD: This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who were diagnosed as acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and received either SC LMWH treatment or SC LMWH with thrombolytics in our hospital (a tertiary hospital) between 2000 and 2010 were included in the study. For both treatments, the rates of mortality and complications were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 392 patients, 210 female (53.5%) and 182 male (46.5%) with an average age of 60 years, ±16 SD, with acute PE, were included in the study. Of these patients, 107 (27.2%) were massive and 285 (72.8%) were nonmassive and were administered SC LMWH plus thrombolytics and only SC LMWH, respectively. The mortality rate was 16.8% (18 of 107) in patients who were massive and 3.5% (10 of 285) for those who were nonmassive (p < 0.001). Major hemorrhage occurred in 3.7% (n = 4) and 0.7% (n = 2) and minor hemorrhage in 12.1% (n = 13) and in 3.8% (n = 11) of the cases who received SC LMWH plus thrombolytics and SC LMWH, respectively. CONCLUSION: SC LMWH use with thrombolytics seems to be feasible and safe. Prospective, large, randomized control trials are still required in order to confirm these results.