Perioperative management of patient with Bombay blood group undergoing mitral valve replacement

Bombay red blood cell phenotype is an extremely rare blood type for which patients can receive only autologous or Bombay phenotype red blood cells. We report a case of stenotic mitral valve with Bombay phenotype who underwent minimal invasive right lateral thoracotomy for the replacement of the mitral valve. A male patient from Bangladesh presented to the hospital with New York Heart Association III symptoms. His medical evaluation revealed severe mitral valve stenosis and mild aortic valve regurgitation. The patient received erythropoietin, intravenous iron succinate and folic acid tablets. Autologous blood transfusion was carried out. The mitral valve was replaced with a prosthetic valve successfully. After weaning off from cardiopulmonary bypass, heparinisation was corrected with protamine. Post-operatively, the patient received autologous red blood cells. The patient recovered after 1-day of inotropic support with adrenaline and milrinone, and diuretics and was discharged on the 5 th post-operative day

Prevention of propofol injection pain: Comparison between lidocaine and ramosetron

Background: Propofol causes a high incidence of pain during intravenous (IV) injection. The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was to determine whether pre-treatment with IV ramosetron, used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), would reduce propofol-induced pain as an equivalent to lidocaine. Materials and Methods: Hundred and twenty American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (ASA) I and II patients were randomly assigned into three groups (40 in each). Group N received 2 ml of 0.9% saline, Group L received 2 ml of lidocaine, and Group R received 2 ml of ramosetron. Mid forearm was occluded manually before injection and released after 1 min and then propofol was injected over 5 s. Patients were observed and questioned 15 s later if they had pain in the arm and pain was scored on a four-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain. Unpaired Student′s t-test and chi-square test/Fisher′ exact test were used to analyze results. Results: The incidence of pain in groups N, L, and R were 65, 35, and 30%, respectively. Pain was reduced significantly in the groups L and R (P < 0.05). Two patients each in Groups L and R (5% each) had moderate and severe pain. This difference in pain was statistically insignificant, but when compared to Group N (25 and 30%, respectively) it was statistically significant. Conclusion: Pretreatment with ramosetron 0.3 mg and lidocaine 40 mg are equally effective in preventing pain from propofol injection

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct in postoperative analgesia following cardiac surgery: A randomized, double-blind study

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine used as a continuous infusion without loading dose in postcardiac surgery patients. Settings and Design: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study in a single tertiary care hospital on patients posted for elective cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Interventions: Sixty-four patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery under general anesthesia were shifted to intensive care unit (ICU) and randomly divided into two groups. Group A (n = 32) received a 12 h infusion of normal saline and group B (n = 32) received a 12 h infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.4 μg/kg/h. Postoperative pain was managed with bolus intravenous fentanyl. Total fentanyl consumption, hemodynamic monitoring, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain ratings, Ramsay Sedation Scale were charted every 6 th hourly for 24 h postoperatively and followed-up till recovery from ICU. Student′s t-test, Chi-square/Fisher′s exact test has been used to find the significance of study parameters between the groups. Results: Dexmedetomidine treated patients had significantly less VAS score at each level (P < 0.001). Total fentanyl consumption in dexmedetomidine group was 128.13 ± 35.78 μg versus 201.56 ± 36.99 μg in saline group (P < 0.001). A statistically significant but clinically unimportant sedation was noted at 6 and 12 h (P < 0.001, and P = 0.046 respectively). Incidence of delirium was less in dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.086+). Hemodynamic parameters were statistically insignificant. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine infusion even without loading dose provides safe, effective adjunct analgesia, reduces narcotic consumption, and showed a reduced trend of delirium incidence without undesirable hemodynamic effects in the cardiac surgery patients

Efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine on propofol injection pain: A randomised, double-blind, prospective study in adult cardiac surgical patients

Background and Aims: Propofol (2, 6-di-isopropylphenol) used for the induction of anaesthesia often causes mild to severe pain or discomfort on injection. We designed this double-blind study to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine in reducing the pain of propofol injection in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Methods: A total of 165 adult patients, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, were divided into three groups: saline (group S, n = 55), lignocaine 20 mg (Group L, n = 55) and methylprednisolone 125 mg diluted into 2 ml of distilled water (Group MP, n = 55). Drugs were administered after tourniquet application and occlusion was released after 1 min and 1/4 th of the total dose of propofol (2 mg/kg) was administered at the rate of 0.5 ml/s. Pain on propofol injection was evaluated by four-point verbal rating scale. Statistical methods used included Student′s t-test and Chi-square test/Fisher′s exact test. Results: The overall incidence of pain was 70.9% in the saline group, 30.9% in the lignocaine group and 36.4% in the methylprednisolone group. The intensity of pain was significantly less in patients receiving methylprednisolone and lignocaine than those receiving saline (P < 0.012). Conclusion: Pre-treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone was found to be as effective as lignocaine in reducing propofol injection-induced pain

Comparison of analgesic effects of pericapsular nerve group block and fascia iliaca compartment block during hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background and Aims: Postoperative pain for patients having hip arthroplasty ranges from moderate to severe. Many regional anaesthesia procedures treat postoperative pain to improve functional ability and quality of life. Evidence comparing the analgesic effects of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) remains unclear. The analgesic efficacies of PENG and FICB in hip arthroplasty were compared to determine which technique is associated with superior analgesia. Methods: The electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Sciences) were searched for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) till 5 April 2023 comparing PENG block vs. FICB following hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome was pain scores [numerical rating scale (NRS) or visual analogue scale (VAS)] between 0 and 10 at rest and during movement at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement within 30 min, at 6 h and 12 h, time to first rescue analgesia and cumulative postoperative opioid use in 24 h. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), the certainty of the evidence was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results: We included 12 RCTs examining 644 patients. Pain scores at rest at 24 h (standardised mean differences (SMDs): 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.90 to 1.23; P = 0.76, moderate certainty) and during movement at 24 h (SMD: -0.58, 95% CI: -1.53 to 0.38, P = 0.24, moderate certainty) were not different in both PENG block and FICB. Pain scores at rest and during movement within 30 min may be lower with PENG block than FICB. However, the pain score at rest and during movement at 6 h and the time to first rescue analgesia were not different between the two treatment arms. The mean opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (mg) in 24 h may be lower with PENG than FICB. Conclusion: We observed no difference between the PENG block and the FICB at 24 h for pain at rest and movement with a moderate degree of certainty. However, PENG block showed improved analgesia within 30 min at rest and during movement, and reduce postoperative opioid consumption in 24 h with moderate certainty of evidence. Further large-scale and high-quality RCTs are required to supplement the present findings