No abstract

To the Editor,The new coronavirus infection has been rapidly spreading across the globe since December 2019. The first case in Iran was documented on February 19 in Qom province. The major transmission route of this novel coronavirus is through respiratory droplets. 1 But there are other ways to transmit the virus, some of which may not yet be known. In some of the recently published experiences, anesthesiologists believed that regional techniques are preferable to general anesthesia in this group of patients. 2 According to the interesting findings of Baig et al., new evidence has emerged that the COVID-19 virus is targeting the central nervous system. 3 Although the preexisting central nervous system disorders should not be considered an absolute contraindication to spinal anesthesia, 4 caution in this regard seems to be reasonable to give preference to regional particularly spinal over general anesthesia. It seems that the recommendation of a specific anesthesia technique in these patients needs further studies and until then general anesthesia may be considered a safer method.

BACKGROUND Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are widely used for diagnostic and therapeutic measures. Analgesia and sedation/anesthesia are inseparable parts of these studies and their related complications are inevitable.METHODS In a retrograde descriptive study in Shahid Beheshti Hospital, affiliated to Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran from March 2013 to March 2017, we gathered information regarding common anesthesia related complications and analyzed them.RESULTS 44659 procedures were performed during the study period and records of 21342 men (47.79%) and 23317 women (52.21%) were evaluated. Hemodynamic instability (9998; 22.39%), dysrhythmia (1600; 3.58%), desaturation (608; 1.36%), prolonged apnea (34; 0.08%), aspiration (43; 0.10%), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (636; 1.42%), headache (106; 0.24%), delirium (51; 0.11%), aphasia (1; 0.00%), masseter muscle spasm (1; 0.01%), myocardial infarction (2; 0.00%), and death (5; 0.01%) were seen in the patients.CONCLUSION Sedation/anesthesia is enough safe in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures to enhance the patients’ satisfaction and cooperation. If anesthesia with spontaneous breathing and unsecure airway is selected for this purpose, vigilance of anesthesia provider will be the key element of uneventful and safe procedure.

Background: Endoscopy provides valuable diagnostic informationand intervention therapies for gastroenterologists. Therefore, various drugs have been used to induce sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy, whereas none have been considered definitely preferred by endoscopists. In the current study, we decided to use the combination of magnesium sulfate, ketamine, and their synergistic effects for creating partial analgesia to increase the satisfaction of endoscopists and patients. Methods: This study is a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial that investigates the sedative effect of ketamine, magnesium sulfate, and propofol in endoscopy. Patients were selected from individuals over 12 years old and with American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status I or II. The study was performed on 210 patients classified as ASA (I have no underlying disease) or II (with underlying controlled disease). The whole group was relieved of pain during injection, sedation according to Ramsay criteria, satisfaction with the operation, duration, recovery, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, and decreased oxygen saturation were compared. Results: A total of 155 patients were enrolled in our study, including 51 patients (midazolam and propofol), 55 patients (midazolam and ketamine), and 49 patients (midazolam and ketamine and magnesium). The results showed that preoperative heart rate, intraoperative systolic blood pressure, intraoperative diastolic blood pressure, postoperative heart rate, postoperative systolic blood pressure, and postoperative heart rate were significantly different between the groups. Conclusion: The satisfaction of the endoscopic was achieved to a great extent, mainly in the group receiving midazolam and propofol and in the group receiving midazolam and ketamine. In most cases, the satisfaction of the endoscopic was acceptable, and the low satisfaction of the endoscopic was more in the group receiving midazolam. Ketamine and magnesium were observed. The two compounds midazolam-ketamine, and midazolam-propofol, have a more favorable effect than the combination of midazolam, ketamine, and magnesium.

Background: In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine [DK] with propofol and fentanyl [PF] for sedation in colonoscopy patients. Methods: In this study, 64 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized into two groups: 1) A, which received PF, and 2) B, which received DK for sedation. Among 64 patients, 31 patients were included in PF, and 33 patients were included in the DK group. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics. Patients’ sedation score (based on Ramsay sedation scale) and vital signs were recorded at 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Complications including apnea, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea, and vomiting, along with gastroenterologist satisfaction and patients’ pain score (based on Wong-Baker faces pain assessment scale), were recorded by a checklist. Data were analyzed by SPSS v.18 software, using chi-square, independent t-tests, and repeated measures analysis with p<0.05 as the criterion for significant differences. Results: The mean score of sedation was 4.82±0.49 in the DK group and 5.22±0.45 in the PF group [p value=0.001]. Serious complications, including hypotension [p value=0.005] and apnea [p value=0.10] were significantly higher in the PF group. Satisfaction of gastroenterologist [p value= 0.400] and patients’ pain score [p value = 0.900] were similar among groups. Conclusion: Combination of DK provides sufficient sedation with fewer complications in comparison with PF in colonoscopy patients.