When using anaesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic, regional anaesthesia should be the preferable choice over general anaesthesia. As well as numerous advantages in preventing postoperative problems, the proper localised approach may maintain respiratory function and minimise aerosolization and airway instrumentation to prevent virus transmission. When choosing whether or not to provide regional anaesthesia to a patient at this moment, the first step is to check the patient's COVID-19 status (positive, negative, PUI). It's important to remember that as soon as the virus spreads far enough in the population, it's safe to presume that every patient has the new virus. As a result, all patients should wear a surgical mask while being transported around the hospital and throughout the periprocedural time to avoid the spread of droplet. A surgical mask, gown, double-gloves, and shoe coverings should all be worn by healthcare workers in the same way. While N95 masks and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) may be utilised, the danger of transmission during the case, the conservation of PPE for aerosolizing procedures, and the impairment of vision, movement, and team communication should be considered while using them. Obtaining verbal or digital permission is preferable; one-time use plastic covers may be used to safeguard devices when consent is acquired digitally. In the operating room, one suggestion is to evaluate, block, and recover the patient to reduce the risk of cross contamination (OR). As neuraxial anaesthesia does not produce aerosols, it is not contraindicated in the presence of COVID-19 infection. In the early phases of the neuraxial technique planning, look for signs of thrombocytopenia and rule it out. Any pre-procedural sedation should be weighed against the possibility of respiratory function being compromised by the operation, which should be performed by a competent physician. Because of this, epidural blood patches should only be used for the most severe and disabling instances to prevent viremic blood from being injected into the epidural area.
Background: Untreated tricuspid regurgitation during mitral valve surgery may progress to severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation. Concomitant repair may increase the operative risk; however, re-operative tricuspid valve surgery is a high-risk procedure. This study's objective was to identify the predictors of DeVega repair failure in patients with functional tricuspid regurgitation and concomitant mitral valve surgery. Methods: This research is a retrospective comparative study that included 140 patients who underwent tricuspid valve repair concomitant with mitral valve replacement. We divided the patients into two groups; the first group (n=106) included patients with no DeVega failure at six-months follow-up (The sustained repair group). The second group included 34 patients who developed moderate or higher TR after the DeVega and was named the failed repair group. Results: The demographic data and comorbidities were not statistically different between both groups. The preoperative atrial fibrillation (73 (69%) vs. 30 (88%)’ p= 0.027) pulmonary artery pressure (64.8±3.6 vs. 81±6.5 mmHg; p= 0.02), right ventricular dimension (4.85±0.24 vs. 5.23±0.37 cm; p= 0.03), and time between the indication of surgery and operation (8.3 ± 3.1 vs. 14.7 ± 5.4 months; p = 0.003) were higher in patients with failed DeVega repair. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the mean bypass time, cross-clamp time, ICU and hospital stay, and postoperative complications between both groups. Predictors of failure after six months were preoperative heart failure (OR: 15.4 (95% CI: 3- 92.3); p= 0.003), long time between diagnosis and surgery (OR: 12.3 (95% CI: 2.1- 84.7); p= 0.007), and postoperative severe pulmonary hypertension (OR: 24.7 (95% CI: 3.1- 199.6); p= 0.003). Conclusions: DeVega repair is associated with a high failure rate after six months. The study of predictors of failure could change our management plans to reach the best results for repair.
Atelectasis and poorly ventilated lung areas are negative consequences of general anesthesia observed in adult as well as in children. The reported incidence of this anesthesia-induced atelectasis is high and comes from 83 % to almost 100 %. The diagnosis of this entity is difficult to do at the bedside; they are commonly small and mostly invisible to standard chest X-ray images. Several methods have been suggested to reduce the impact of atelectasis during surgery. However, few intraoperative modalities for the diagnosis and monitoring of atelectasis are available. Lung ultrasound imaging is a promising non-invasive, non-radiant, portable and easy to use tool that as yet to be studied in the intraoperative setting. 80 adult patients with different ventilation strategies were divided into four groups, 20 patients were included in the 1 st group conventional ventilation with large tidal volume 10ml/kg, with FiO2 1 with neither PEEP nor recruitment, 20 patients were included in the 2nd group conventional ventilation with large tidal volume 10ml/kg, with FiO2 0.6 with neither PEEP nor recruitment, 20 patients were included in the 3 rd group protective lung ventilation with tidal volume 6ml/kg, with FiO2 1 plus recruitment and PEEP, and 20 patients were included in the 4 th group protective lung ventilation with tidal volume 6ml/kg, with FiO2 0.6 plus recruitment and PEEP comparative study between lung ultrasound atelectasis score (LUS), the median and Interquartile range (IQR) of lung ultrasound score was done. There was statistically significant difference between the four groups of the study at all times except for baseline reading (P<0.001). There might have been noteworthy distinction in the same one assembly viewing the sum lung score readings following incitement from claiming anesthesia in examination with benchmark perusing clinched alongside non initiate Assemblies same time no Contrast to same one assembly correlations for benchmark perusing Previously, initiate one assembly separated starting with T4( T4 vs T0 p<0. 001). Those intend ± standard deviation (SD) for fractional weight of oxygen will portion propelled oxygen (Po2/Fio2) proportion were finished. There might have been statistically huge Contrast between gatherings of the consider with higher P/F proportion On recruitment gathering in the least times but at benchmark (P<0. 001). Additionally there might have been no Contrast in the same bunch correlations in regards P/F proportion readings after incitement about anesthesia in examination with benchmark perusing over both aggregations separated from P/F proportion at T4 which need critical distinction starting with benchmark Previously, both groups( T4 vs T0 bunch a Also aggregation b p<0. 001, P=0. 006). There might have been a negative correspondence between lung ultrasonography score Also P/F proportion with measurable significances toward T1 (r=-0. 61, P<0. 001), In T2 (r=-0. 42, P=0. 006), during T3 (r=-0. 6, P<0. 001) Furthermore In T4(r=-0. 35, P=0. 023), there might have been no noteworthy...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.