Search

Background: There is no significant evidence verifying the efficacy of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy on hemodynamics in patients with sepsis. We investigated how liberal and conservative oxygen therapy influenced stroke volume, cardiac output, and vasopressor needs in patients with sepsis undergoing mechanical ventilation. Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 106 patients with an admission diagnosis of infection, a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of two points or higher and required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 h. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two oxygenation strategies: liberal (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of ≥ 96% or conservative (n = 53) with a target SpO2 of 88–92%. Transthoracic Doppler echocardiography was done twice to measure stroke volume and cardiac output, initially upon enrollment in the trial and then 72 h later. The primary outcome was stroke volume. Secondary outcomes were cardiac output, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and adverse events. Results: Stroke volume and cardiac output measurements did not differ significantly between research groups after 72 h of oxygenation treatment (p = 0.459 and 0.637, respectively). Forty-five patients (84.9%) in the conservative oxygen therapy group needed vasopressors to maintain their mean arterial pressure above 65 mmHg, whereas 35 patients (66.0%) in the liberal group did (p = 0.024). A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the independent variables for vasopressor requirements revealed that patients in the conservative oxygen group were 3.83 times more likely to require vasopressors (AOR = 3.83, 95% CI: 1.31–11.18, p = 0.014) than those in the liberal group. Older patients (AOR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07, p = 0.038) and those with higher SOFA scores (AOR = 1.36, CI: 1.09–1.68, P = 0.005) were significantly more likely to need vasopressors. Conclusions: Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy did not influence stroke volume or cardiac output measurements in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Patients in the conservative oxygen group were more likely to require vasopressors than those in the liberal group. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aswan University Hospital (approval number: Aswu/460/5/20) (registration date: 05/05/2020) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04824703) (03/30/2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to evaluate whether a single dose of ketamine or dexmedetomidine before induction of general anesthesia could reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium (primary outcome) or cognitive dysfunction (secondary outcome) in elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery. Patients and methods: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial included 60 elderly patients who were scheduled for emergency surgery. The patients were randomly assigned into one of three groups (n = 20): group I received 0.9% normal saline, group II received 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, and group III received 1 mg/kg ketamine right before anesthesia induction. Patients were observed for three days after surgery and tested for postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction using the delirium observation screening scale and the mini-mental state examination score, respectively. Results: The dexmedetomidine group had the lowest incidence of delirium (p = 0.001) and cognitive dysfunction (p = 0.006) compared to the ketamine and placebo groups. The multivariate logistic regression model revealed that dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium by 32% compared to placebo (reference) (OR = 0.684, 95% CI: 0.240–0.971, p = 0.025), whereas ketamine increased the risk by threefold (OR = 3.012, 95% CI: 1.185–9.681, p = 0.013). Furthermore, dexmedetomidine reduced the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction by 62% (OR = 0.375, 95% CI: 0.091–0.543, p = 0.012), whereas ketamine increased the risk by 4.5 times (OR = 4.501, 95% CI: 1.161–8.817, p = 0.006). Conclusion: A single pre-anesthetic bolus of dexmedetomidine is a practical choice for preventing postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aswan University Hospital (approval number: aswu/548/7/2021; registration date: 06/07/2021) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05341154) (22/04/2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial compared the efficacy of two dexmedetomidine doses (50 and 100-μg) combined with levobupivacaine on sensory block duration in infraclavicular brachial plexus block. We hypothesized that perineural dexmedetomidine would extend sensory block duration dose-dependently. Methods: The study included 60 patients aged 20 to 60 years of both sex with an ASA I/II undergoing forearm and hand surgery. The patients were randomly assigned into three equal groups (n = 20) for ultrasound-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus block. The L group received 35-mL 0.5% levobupivacaine plus normal saline, the LD50 group received 35-mL 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 50-μg dexmedetomidine, and the LD100 group received 35-mL 0.5% levobupivacaine plus 100-μg dexmedetomidine. Patients were investigated for onset and duration of sensory blockade, time to first postoperative rescue analgesia, and the total 24-h postoperative morphine requirement. Results: The LD100 group had a longer sensory block duration (15.55 ± 1.1 h; 95% confidence interval (CI), 15.04–16.06) than the LD50 group (12.8 ± 1.2 h; 95% CI, 12.24–13.36 h) (p < 0.001) or the L group (9.95 ± 1.05 h; 95% CI, 9.46–10.44 h) (p < 0.001). The LD100 group took longer to request postoperative rescue analgesia and required fewer postoperative morphine doses than the LD50 and L groups (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Sensory block duration was longer with perineural 100-μg dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to levobupivacaine than with 50-μg dexmedetomidine. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Aswan University Hospital (approval number: aswu/125/4/17) (date of registration: 04/04/2017). Furthermore, the trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04729868) with a verification date of January 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]