Search

Background: Spinal Anesthesia is a common type of anesthesia used during many surgical procedures. This regional technique can be accomplished by administering an intrathecal dose of hyperbaric local anesthetic solution. The local anesthetic within the subarachnoid space can block sensory, motor and sympathetic pathways. Objectives: The Purpose of this study was to find out the effectiveness of prophylactic administration of intravenous ondansetron for attenuation of spinal anesthesia induced hypotension in non-obstetric spinal anesthesia surgeries. Patients and Methods: Therefore, A prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study was found to be the most suitable design in order to achieve the study objectives. A total of 90 patients males & females included in the study, aged 20-40 years, and were divided equally into two groups: Group A received 8mg ondansetron diluted in volume of 10cm normal saline 5 minutes prior to spinal anesthesia. Group B received a placebo of 10cm normal saline 5 minutes prior to spinal anesthesia. Results: There was no statistically significant difference found between the two studied groups regarding demographic data, anthropometric measures, ASA score and total time of surgery. There was statistically significant increase in the incidence of hypotension immediately after spinal and at 5 min in placebo group than ondansetron group with p-value = 0.026 and 0.014 respectively. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that, among patients who received spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine for elective for surgeries below umbilicus, prophylactic intravenous ondansetron 8mg iv 5 mins prior to spinal anesthesia reduced spinal anesthesia induced hypotension decreases in SBP, MAP, and heart rate. Ondansetron did not have a significant effect on DBP. Ondansetron did not have a significant effect on DBP. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower following the administration of ondansetron, and vasopressor use and dosages were reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sfress Ulceration was an important cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Early active treatment reduces the risk of clinically significant bleeding, ulcer prophylaxis therefore became a standard of care in all critically ill patients. Objective: The overall aims of the Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patients is to determine the benefits and risks of stress ulcer prophylaxis stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in intensive care unit Materials and Methods: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. In the our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Medline via PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar from March 1977 till August 2019. The search retrieved 2289 unique records. We then obtained 237 final results for full-text screening. At last, 28 recorded studies were involved in our in the present study. Results: 23 included studies reported the rates of clinically important GI bleeding. The overall effect estimates favored SUP over control for decreasing the hazards of clinically significant GI hemorrhage (P value <0.001, OR— 0.55, CI of 95%[0.35 0.86]). The overall effect estimates did not favor SUP over control for reducing the rate of death (P value ¼0.24, OR 1.21, 95% CI [0.87 — 1.69]). 23 studies reported the rates of pneumonia. The overall effect estimates showed that the SUP was not related to elevated hazards of nosocomial pneumonia over control (P value —0.15, OR —1.5, CI of 95% [0.83 3.02]). The analysis showed that only Cimetidine 900mg was effective in reducing the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding (OR 0.45 [0.24, 0.82], p *0.009). In contrary, none of the included PPIs (pantoprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole), ranitidine, or sucralfate were effective in reducing the incidence of clinically important GI bleeding. Conclusion: SUP is associated with lower risk of GI bleeding in critically ill patients; however, the current published literature shows significant inconsistency. Our analysis showed that, no significant difference between H2RA and PPI in term of incidence of clinically important GI bleeding, H2RAs (mainly cimetidine) more effective than other classes of SUP which significantly reduced the risk of overt GI hemorrhage, and none of the drug classes was effective in reducing the mortality rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]