RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Arrhythmia occurring during and after surgery is one of the major complications in open-heart surgery. Dexmedetomidine is an intravenous alpha-2 agonist and very specific short-acting drug to protect the various organs against ischemic injuries and blood reflow. However, the effect of dexmedetomidine for preventing intraoperative heart arrhythmias has not been recognized. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the effect of dexmedetomidine on the incidence rate of heart arrhythmias and anesthetic required in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients who were candidates for off-pump coronary artery bypass referring to Imam Reza Hospital of Mashhad, Iran, from July 2016 through January 2017. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups of intervention (infusion of 0.5 mcg/kg/h dexmedetomidine together with induction followed by infusion of 0.5 mcg/kg/h by the end of the surgery) or control (saline infusion). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were measured before induction, during surgery operation and ICU admission. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 18 using Chi Square and independent-samples t-test. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients with a mean age of 59.8 ± 8.2 years (in two groups of 38) were studied. The two groups had no statistically significant difference in terms of background variables. The MAP and HR values before induction, during surgery and ICU admission were significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group (p=0.001). Out of the studied arrhythmias, the values of PAC (55.2% vs. 15.7%), PVC (81.5% vs. 21.0%), AF (26.3% vs. 7.8%), VTAC (21.0% vs. 2.6%) were significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: It seems that dexmedetomidine administration during induction and surgery can cause significant reduction in most of the common arrhythmias in off-pump coronary bypass surgery. The use of dexmedetomidine maintains MAP and HR at significantly lower values, and changes compared to the control group as well as reduces the need for anesthetic compounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study has been registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (www.IRCT.IR) with a code of IRCT2016072413159N9 before starting the study. FOUNDING: This study was fully sponsored by the Research Deputy at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran (grant number 941413).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Central venous cannulation is a current and important procedure used in the operating room and intensive care unit. Some studies have shown that the application of ultrasound-guided cannulation can improve the success rate of surgery, save time, reduce the number of required needlesticks, and mitigate many complications compared to anatomical landmark-guided cannulation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to draw a comparison between central venous cannulation of the internal jugular vein using ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 321 patients scheduled for cardiac surgery in the surgical ward of a general hospital were randomly treated with central venous cannulation using either anatomical landmarks (150 patients) or ultrasound guidance (170 patients). The demographic data of patients, the success rate of cannulation, the execution time, and the number of attempts for successful cannulation as well as the complications were recorded and subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: The success rate of cannulation was 98.7% in the anatomical landmark-guided group and 99.4% in the ultrasound-guided group. The average operation times were 46.05 and 45.46 seconds in the anatomical landmark and ultrasound-guided groups, respectively. The two groups were not significantly different in terms of the success rates of treatment, the number of attempts, the time required for successful cannulation, or the prevalence of complications (P > 0.05) other than carotid artery puncture (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In our conditions, the use of an anatomical landmark-guided procedure was the preferred treatment method due to limited resources and a lack of adequate training.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Central venous catheter placement is a routine procedure for the management of critically ill patients; however, it is important to ensure its proper placement. A central venous catheter malposition may cause various complications, some of which can be fatal. CASE PRESENTATION: We report an unexpected malposition of a catheter in the left internal jugular vein, where it entered into the left internal mammary vein. CONCLUSIONS: We think one of the influential factors for leading a guidewire and catheter into a nominated vein may be the left sided bevel of the needle at the time of internal jugular vein needle and catheter insertion. We were required to continue going towards the subclavian vein and accidentally turned into the left internal mammary vein.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Selection of anesthetic approach for lower extremity operations is often a controversial issue for anesthesiologists. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of back pain between general and spinal anesthesia, and to find effective factors in developing postoperative back pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized clinical trail, 148 patients with elective lower extremity surgeries were randomly allocated into two groups of 74. The first group received general anesthesia and the second group underwent spinal anesthesia. The incidence of back pain was observed and documented. The severity of back pain was assessed at the first, fourth and eighth postoperative weeks by visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The mean of patients' age was 35.50 ± 13.34 years. The incidence and mean of back pain severity among all participants were respectively 35.80% and 15.95% at the first week, 7.40% and 2.43% at the fourth week, and 1.4% and 0.27% at the eighth postoperative week. The incidence and mean of back pain severity in spinal group were respectively 39.2% and 18.11% at the first, 12.2% and 3.92% at the fourth, and 2.7% and 0.54% eighth postoperative weeks. In general anesthesia group, these figures were respectively 32.4% and 13.78% at the first week and 2.7% and 0.95% at the fourth postoperative week. No back pain was reported at the eighth postoperative week. The incidence and severity of back pain in the first week showed significant difference between the two groups, while the mean severity of back pain showed significant difference at the fourth week after operation. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia could be probably considered as the sole effective factor in the development of back pain after operation.
