Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anesth Analg ; 137(4): 859-869, 2023 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37010960

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the preventive and therapeutic efficacy of modified manual chest compression (MMCC), a novel noninvasive and device-independent method, in reducing oxygen desaturation events in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation. METHODS: A total of 584 outpatients who underwent deep sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were enrolled. In the preventive cohort, 440 patients were randomized to the MMCC group (patients received MMCC when their eyelash reflex disappeared, M1 group) or control group (C1 group). In the therapeutic cohort, 144 patients with oxygen desaturation of a Sp o2 < 95% were randomized to MMCC group (patients who subsequently received MMCC, M2 group) or the conventional treatment group (C2 group). The primary outcomes were the incidence of desaturation episodes with an Sp o2 < 95% for the preventive cohort and the time spent below 95% Sp o2 for the therapeutic cohort. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of gastroscopy withdrawal and diaphragmatic pause. RESULTS: In the preventive cohort, MMCC reduced the incidence of desaturation episodes <95% (14.4% vs 26.1%; RR, 0.549; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.815; P = .002), gastroscopy withdrawal (0% vs 2.29%; P = .008), and diaphragmatic pause at 30 seconds after propofol injection (74.5% vs 88.1%; RR, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.772-0.928; P < .001). In the therapeutic cohort, patients who received MMCC had a significantly shorter time spent below 95% Sp o2 (40 [20-69] seconds vs 91 [33-152] seconds, median difference [95% CI], -39 [-57 to -16] seconds, P < .001), a lower incidence of gastroscopy withdrawal (0% vs 10.4%, P = .018), and more enhanced diaphragmatic movement at 30 seconds after Sp o2 <95% (1.11 [0.93-1.4] cm vs 1.03 [0.7-1.24] cm; median difference [95% confidence interval], 0.16 [0.02-0.32] cm; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: MMCC may exert preventive and therapeutic effects against oxygen desaturation events during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.


Assuntos
Sedação Profunda , Propofol , Insuficiência Respiratória , Humanos , Sedação Consciente , Sedação Profunda/efeitos adversos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Gastroscopia/efeitos adversos , Oxigênio
2.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 21(1): 251, 2021 10 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34686149

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The high risk of cross-infection during tracheal intubation has caused excessive occupational anxiety for anaesthesiologists amid the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is no effective way to attenuate their anxiety in clinical practice. We found that anaesthesiologist with better protective equipment might experience decreased levels of anxiety during intubation. METHODS: In this study, 60 patients who underwent intubation and extubation in the operating room were enrolled, and then randomized 1:1 to either wear protective sleeves (protective sleeve group) or not (control group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the anxiety level of anaesthesiologists during intubation. The respiratory droplets of patients on the sleeve, and the anaesthesiologists' perception including the patient's oral malodour, exertion, satisfaction degree, waist discomfort and shoulder discomfort were recorded. The patients' anxiety, oppressed feelings and hypoxia and postoperative complications were all measured and recorded. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the anaesthesiologists in protective sleeve group achieved lower anxiety scores and better satisfaction degrees during the process of intubation and extubation (all P < 0.05). Respiratory droplets were observed only on the inner side, but not the external side, of the protective sleeves (P < 0.001). The incidence of the anaesthesiologists' perception of patients' oral malodour was significantly lower in the protective sleeve group (P = 0.02) and no patients developed hypoxemia or intubation-related complications in the protective sleeve group. CONCLUSION: Using protective devices for intubation might eliminate droplet transmission from patients to anaesthesiologists, while also decreasing their anxiety in a controlled operating room environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial. no. ChiCTR2000030705 . Registry at www.chictr.org.cn on 10/03/2020.


Assuntos
Anestesiologistas/psicologia , Ansiedade/prevenção & controle , Ansiedade/psicologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Anestesiologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , China , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA