Education and Treatment Guideline for Evaluation of Applying Basic Standards of Anesthesia Care in Surgery

Introduction: Applying basic standards of anesthesia care is crucial. Patients’ status should be evaluated based on a standard checklist. In case of mismanagement, logical approaches must be conducted. The main objective of the present study is to develop a checklist for evaluation of implementing anesthesia care standards, and its application by observing the practice of anesthesiologists and their residents in Guilan Medical University hospitals. Methods: At first, different stages of anesthesia from patients’ arrival to the operating room till discharge from the recovery room were determined. In every stage, standard protocols were prepared. Then, the checklist items were developed based on anesthesia reference books and the modifications made according to Guilan anesthesiologists and conditions of university hospitals. After that, the adherence of twenty anesthesiologists and residents to these protocols were insensibly observed and scored for six months. Data were analyzed and frequency distribution was presented. Results: Rate of not-applied standards in descending orders was: 52.5% in preparation of operating room, 42.2% in pre-intubation, 40% in pre-extubation, 34.5% during maintenance of anesthesia,33.3% at discharge from the recovery room, 27.7% after intubation, 27.2% before arrival to the recovery room, 17.1% in recovery room, 13.8% at the time of intubation, 11.3% at arrival to the recovery room, 10% upon admission to the recovery room, 9% upon extubation, and 0% after extubation. Conclusion: This study revealed the necessity of using standard checklist for anesthesia care in operating room to protect the patient and to decrease the risk of anesthesia for them. Based on the results, educational and management interventions should be designed to promote adherence to standards

Intravenous dexamethasone versus ketamine gargle versus intravenous dexamethasone combined with ketamine gargle for evaluation of post-operative sore throat and hoarseness: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind clinical trial

Background: Sore throat and hoarseness are the most frequent subjective complaints after tracheal intubation for general anesthesia. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone plus ketamine gargle for reducing the incidence and severity of post-operative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness. Materials and Methods : 140 patients (aged 16-65 year) scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated into four groups of 35 subjects each: Group K, gargled 40 mg ketamine in 30 ml saline; Group D, were infused 0.2 mg/kg IV dexamethasone; Group KD, gargled 40 mg ketamine in 30 ml saline plus 0.2 mg/kg IV dexamethasone; Group P (placebo) that received saline (gargle and IV). POST was graded at 0, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 24 h after operation on a four-point scale (0-3). Results : The incidence and severity of POST were significantly lower in Group KD, compared with the other groups at all times after tracheal extubation for up to 24 h (P < 0.05). Also the incidence and severity of hoarseness were significantly lower in each Groups of KD and K and D compared with group placebo (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The prophylactic use of 0.2 mg/kg of IV dexamethasone plus ketamine gargle significantly reduced the incidence and severity of POST compared with using each of these drugs alone or using placebo

Prophylactic effects of intrathecal Meperidine and intravenous Ondansetron on shivering in patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia

Objective: Intraoperative hypothermia is a common problem with anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia, the same as general anesthesia, affects the process of temperature regulation. The aim of this study was to compare the prophylactic effect of intravenous (IV) ondansetron with intrathecal (IT) meperidine on prevention of shivering during spinal anesthesia in patients underwent orthopedic surgery of the lower limb. Methods: In this study, 120 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II, between the ages 16 and 65 were randomized into three groups. Group O and Group M were given IV ondansetron 8 mg and IT meperidine 0.2 mg/kg, before spinal anesthesia, respectively. Group C received IV saline 0.9%. The core and ambient temperatures, the incidence and intensity of shivering, blood pressure, heart rate, and maximum level of sensory block were recorded. Findings: Shivering was observed in 15%, 2.5%, and 37.5% of patients in Groups O, M, and C, respectively. There was a significant difference between Group O and M compared to Group C (P = 0.023 for Group O vs. Group C, P < 0.001 for Group M vs. Group C, P = 0.049 for Group M vs. Group O). Shivering incidence and intensity in Group M was significantly lower than Group O (P = 0.049 and P = 0.047, respectively). Twenty-two patients required additional IV meperidine among which 15 patients were from Group C (37.5%), six patients from Group O (15%) and one patient from Group M (2.5%). Conclusion: We concluded that IT meperidine and IV ondansetron comparably can decrease intensity and incidence of shivering compared to control group as well as decreasing the requirement to additional doses of meperidine for shivering the control without any hemodynamic side effect

An evaluation of the efficacy of different doses of ketamine for treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort in patients underwent urologic surgery: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

Background: Urinary catheterization might have catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD). We evaluated the efficacy of different doses of ketamine in comparison to placebo as a treatment of CRBD. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty patients who were candidate for urological surgery requiring catheterization of the urinary bladder were randomly divided into four groups including 30 patients in each. Group I received normal saline, Group II received ketamine 150 μg/kg/iv, Group III received ketamine 200 μg/kg/iv, and Group IV received 250 μg/kg/iv in the equal volume of 2 mL. The patients were observed for each 15 min in the recovery room and in the 1 h, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after discharging from it for severity of CRBD and pain, levels of sedation, and post-operative nausea and vomiting. Results: The severity of CRBD at the recovery room was significantly reduced in Group III and Group IV after 24 h compared with Group I and Group II ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between Group III and Group IV in this respect. The median sedation level was significantly lower in 15 min and 30 min after arrival to the recovery in Group III and Group IV compared with Group I and Group II ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between Group III and Group IV in this regard. Conclusions: Ketamine 200 μg/kg/iv had similar efficacy with ketamine 250 μg/kg/iv in reducing the severity of CRBD without occurring significant side effect

Intrathecal Meperidine versus intrathecal Fentanyl for prevention of shivering in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under spinal anesthesia: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Objective: Shivering is an unpleasant sensation for patients who undergoing spinal anesthesia. This randomized double-blind clinical trial study was designed to compare the effect of intrathecal fentanyl with intrathecal meperidine for prevention of shivering in lower limb orthopedic surgeries under spinal anesthesia. Methods: Ninety patients were randomly recruited to receive either 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 20 μg of fentanyl (Group F), or 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 0.2 mg/kg of meperidine (Group M), or 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus normal saline (Group S). The incidence and intensity of shivering were compared in three groups. Data were analyzed by analysis of variances, Mann-Whitney U-test followed by Chi-square test. Findings: There were not statistically differences in complications and side-effects between three groups. Total incidence of shivering was similar between Groups F and M (16.7% vs. 13.3% respectively, P = 0.72) whereas it was significantly different to Group S (43.3%) (P = 0.025 for Group F vs. S, and P = 0.011 for Group M vs. S). Also the intensity of shivering between Groups F and M was similar (P = 0.66), while it was significantly less in these groups compared to Group S (P = 0.013 and P = 0.004, respectively). Conclusion: Addition of fentanyl 20 μg or meperidine 0.2 mg/kg to 0.5% bupivacaine intrathecally significantly decreased the incidence of shivering in lower limb orthopedic surgeries. There was no significant difference between two drugs with this respect

Comparison of five methods in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: Neck circumference, neck circumference to thyromental distance ratio, the ratio of height to thyromental distance, upper lip bite test and Mallampati test

Background: Preoperative airway assessment tests have been presented to help in anticipating a difficult airway. We conducted this study to compare five methods in prediction of difficult laryngoscopy: Neck circumference (NC), NC to thyromental distance ratio (NC/TMD), the ratio of height to thyromental distance (RHTMD), upper lip bite test (ULBT) and Mallampati test (MMT). These five methods are the most commonly used ones and have different powers for it. It was not clear which of these methods predicts difficult laryngoscopy better. Materials and Methods: Six hundred consecutive patients participated in this study. NC, NC/TMD and RHTMD were measured, and ULBT and MMT were performed and recorded. The laryngoscopy view was graded according to Cormack and Lehane′s scale (CLS) and difficult laryngoscopy was defined as CLS grades 3 and 4. Accuracy of tests in predicting difficult laryngoscopy was assessed using the area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results: The area under the curve in ULBT and RHTMD were significantly larger than that in TMD, NC and MMT. No statistically significant differences were noted between TMD, NC and MMT (all P > 0.05) (ULBT = RHTMD > NC/TMD > TMD = NC = MMT). RHTMD (>22.7 cm) exhibited the highest sensitivity (sensitivity = 64.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 53.9-74.7) and the most specific test was ULBT (specificity = 99.41%, 95% CI: 98.3-99.9). Conclusion: RHTMD and ULBT as simple preoperative bedside tests have a higher level of accuracy compared to NC/TMD, TMD, NC, MMT in predicting a difficult airway

Magnesium sulfate versus Lidocaine pretreatment for prevention of pain on etomidate injection: A randomized, double-blinded placebo controlled trial

Objective: Etomidate is an imidazole derivative and formulated in 35% propylene glycol. When given without a rapid lidocaine injection, etomidate is associated with pain after injection. Magnesium (Mg) is a calcium channel blocker and influences the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor ion channel. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of preemptive injection of magnesium sulfate and lidocaine on pain alleviation on etomidate intravenous injection. Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded trial study, 135 adult patients scheduled for elective outpatient or inpatient surgery were divided into three groups. Group M received 620 mg magnesium sulfate, Group L received 3 ml lidocaine 1% and Group S received normal saline, all in a volume of 5 mL followed by a maximal dose of 0.3 mg/kg of 1% etomidate. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain and 3 = severe pain at the time of pretreatment and etomidate injection. Findings: About 60% of patients in the control group had pain during etomidate injection as compared to 22.2% and 40% in the lidocaine and magnesium sulfate groups, respectively. There was difference in induction pain score between three treatment groups, significantly (P = 0.01) and observed differences in pain scores between "normal saline and lidocaine group" (P < 0.001) and "normal saline and magnesium sulfate groups" were statistically meaningful (P = 0.044). Conclusion: Intravenous magnesium sulfate and lidocaine injection are comparably effective in reducing etomidate-induced pain

COVID-19 vaccines breakthrough infection and adverse reactions in medical students: a nationwide survey in Iran

IntroductionThere are different types of COVID-19 vaccines approved worldwide. Since no national studies focus on vaccine-related adverse reactions and breakthrough cases, this study aimed to investigate the rate of adverse events and COVID-19 infection in medical students in Iran.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included Iranian medical students who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. The medical team gathered the demographic characteristics, comorbidities, type of vaccine, adverse events following vaccination, and history of COVID-19 infection data through a phone interview. The frequency of adverse events and breakthrough infection was stratified by vaccine type (ChAdOx1-S, Gam-COVID-Vac, and BIBP-CorV).ResultsA total of 3,591 medical students enrolled in this study, of which 57.02% were females, with a mean age of 23.31 + 4.87. A PCR-confirmed and suspicious-for-COVID-19 breakthrough infection rate of 4.51 and 7.02% was detected, respectively. There was no significant relation between breakthrough infection and gender, BMI, blood groups, and comorbidities. However, there was a significant difference in breakthrough infection rate among different types of vaccines (p = 0.001) and history of COVID-19 infection (p = 0.001). A total of 16 participants were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection after vaccination for reasons such as dyspnea, abnormal imaging, or decreased oxygen saturation. No severe infection or death was observed in the studied population.ConclusionVaccination prevented severe COVID-19 infection, although a high breakthrough infection rate was evident among Iranian medical students during the Delta variant’s peak. Vaccine effectiveness may be fragile during emerging new variants and in high-exposure settings. Moreover, adverse events are rare, and the benefits of vaccination outweigh the side effects. However, many limitations challenged this study, and the results should be cautious