[Deep sedation with midazolam and propofol in children undergoing ambulatory magnetic resonance imaging of the brain].

UNLABELLED: BACKROUND/AIM: Sedation is necessary in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ensure motionless. The success of sedation is typically measured by two factors: safety (lack of adverse events) and effectiveness of the procedure (successful completion of the diagnostic examination). Propofol is frequently used to induce deep sedation in children. However, increased doses of propofol may lead to oversedation and respiratory depression. The aim of the study was to investigate sedation in children using propofol with midazolam in regard to efficacy, adverse events and time to return to presedation functional status. METHODS: We investigated 24 children prospectively. Sedation was introduced with a single bolus of intravenous (iv) midazolam 0.1 mg/kg followed by repeated small iv boluses of propofol until sufficient depth of sedation was obtained. The outcome of sedation was measured by the induction time, sedation time, need for additional sedation, respiratory events, cardiovascular events and sedation failure. RESULTS: Median age of children was 4.72 +/- 3.06 (1.1-12.3) years and their body weight was 21.3 +/- 11.9 (11-60) kg. Average propofol bolus dose for induction was 1.76 +/- 0.9 (0.5-4) mg/kg. The induction time was 8.88 +/- 2.92 (5-15) min, and sedation time 28.39 +/- 8.42 (20-50) min. Additional sedation was necessary in 3 (12.5%) patients. Unsucesfull sedation or significant adverse events were not observed. CONCLUSION: The presented sedation technique for children undergoing ambulatory MRI of the brain is safe and adequate. This sedation regiment provides short induction time, fast recovery, stable cardiorespiratory conditions and rarely demans additional sedation.

[New therapy strategies for treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock in intensive care unit of clinical centre in Kragujevac].

INTRODUCTION: Despite numerous advances in medicine, the mortality rate of severe sepsis and septic shock remains high, 30-50%. New therapy strategies include: early goal-directed therapy, fluid replacement, early and appropriate antimicrobials, source of infection control, use of corticosteroids, vasopressors and inotropic therapy, use of recombinant activated protein C, tight glucose control, low-tidal-volume mechanical ventilation. They have been shown to improve the outcomes. The adequacy and speed of treatment influence the outcome, too. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate if new therapy strategies had been integrated in our routine practice. METHOD: Patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, who were treated in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) over a ten-month period, were analysed retrospectively. The descriptive epidemiological method was applied. Central venous catheterization, central venous pressure, antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, corticosteroids, blood administration, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, glucose control, were evaluated. RESULTS: 27 patients were analysed. Patient characteristics were: age, 49.9 years (18-77) with 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 48.1%. All patients received broad-spectrum antibiotics. Blood cultures were obtained in 85.2% patients. Adequate antimicrobial treatment was applied to 59.3% and 74.1% patients had central venous pressure monitoring. Average central venous pressure was 8.47 +/- 5.6 mm Hg (-2-20). Aggressive fluid therapy was given to 33.3% of the cases and 66.7% of the patients with septic shock received vasoactive drugs while 29.6% received corticosteroids. Red blood cell transfusions were applied in 59.3% of patients. All patients received stress ulcer prophylaxis, and 37% of them deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. The average value of morning glucose was 9.11 +/- 5.03 mmol/l (3.7-22.0). 63% of patients were mechanically ventilated. Blood lactate was not determined. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based clinical guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock have not been implemented in a widespread, systematic way in the ICU of the Clinical Centre, Kragujevac. Institutional acceptance of this protocol, and education of clinicians may improve survivability for patients with sepsis.