[Department of anesthesia, resuscitation and critical care]. / Departamento de anestesia, reanimación y cuidados intensivos.

The present study describes the impact on the Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Critical Care of treating the victims of the 11 March terrorist attack, both on the day of the attack and on subsequent days. Of the 182 victims who were hospitalized, 61 had a poor prognosis, 24 had a very poor prognosis, 2 were already dead, and a further 2 died that day. Twenty-seven patients were admitted to the critical care unit. Patients with suspected severe injuries were sent to postanesthesia recovery units, where a second level of triage was performed, allowing patients to be appropriately transferred according to their severity and the necessary interventions to be performed.

Departamento de Anestesia, Reanimación y Cuidados Intensivos / Department of Anesthesia, Resuscitation and Critical Care

El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo dar a conocer el impacto que supuso para el Departamento de Anestesia, Reanimación y Cuidados Intensivos la asistencia el 11 de marzo a las víctimas del atentado, tanto ese día como en los sucesivos. De los 182 pacientes procedentes del atentado que ingresaron, 61 fueron calificados con pronóstico grave, 24 como muy grave, 2 ingresos eran cadáveres y 2 pacientes murieron a lo largo del día. Un total de 27 pacientes ingresaron en las Unidades de Cuidados Críticos. A los pacientes con sospecha de gravedad se les trasladó a las Unidades de Recuperación Postanestésica, donde se estableció otro segundo paso de triage, lo que permitió ubicar de forma adecuada a los pacientes en función de su gravedad y realizar de forma progresiva cuantas intervenciones fueron necesarias (AU)

The present study describes the impact on the Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Critical Care of treating the victims of the 11 March terrorist attack, both on the day of the attack and on subsequent days. Of the 182 victims who were hospitalized, 61 had a poor prognosis, 24 had a very poor prognosis, 2 were already dead, and a further 2 died that day. Twenty-seven patients were admitted to the critical care unit. Patients with suspected severe injuries were sent to postanesthesia recovery units, where a second level of triage was performed, allowing patients to be appropriately transferred according to their severity and the necessary interventions to be performed (AU)

A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal and Classic laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients.

BACKGROUND: The laryngeal mask airway ProSeal (PLMA), a new laryngeal mask device, was compared with the laryngeal mask airway Classic (LMA) with respect to: (1) insertion success rates and times; (2) efficacy of seal; (3) fiberoptically determined anatomic position; (4) orogastric tube insertion success rates and times; (5) total intraoperative complications; and (6) postoperative sore throat in nonparalyzed adult patients undergoing general anesthesia, hypothesizing that these would be different. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-four nonparalyzed anesthetized adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) were randomly allocated to the PLMA or LMA for airway management. In addition, 50% of patients were randomized for orogastric tube placement. Unblinded observers collected intraoperative data, and blinded observers collected postoperative data. RESULTS: First-attempt insertion success rates (91 vs. 82%, P = 0.015) were higher for the LMA, but after three attempts success rates were similar (LMA, 100%; PLMA, 98%). Less time was required to achieve an effective airway with the LMA (31 +/- 30 vs. 41 +/- 49 s; P = 0.02). The PLMA formed a more effective seal (27 +/- 7 vs. 22 +/- 6 cm H2O; P < 0.0001). Fiberoptically determined anatomic position was better with the LMA (P < 0.0001). Orogastric tube insertion was more successful after two attempts (88 vs. 55%; P < 0.0001) and quicker (22 +/- 18 vs. 38 +/- 56 s) with the PLMA. During maintenance, the PLMA failed twice (leak, stridor) and the LMA failed once (laryngospasm). Total intraoperative complications were similar for both groups. The incidence of postoperative sore throat was similar. CONCLUSION: In anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients, the LMA is easier and quicker to insert, but the PLMA forms a better seal and facilitates easier and quicker orogastric tube placement. The incidence of total intraoperative complications and postoperative sore throat are similar.