In this large, propensity-matched ICU population, patients treated with propofol had a reduced risk of mortality and had both an increased likelihood of earlier ICU discharge and earlier discontinuation of mechanical ventilation.

Weight-based dosing with enoxaparin in morbidly obese SICU patients was effective in achieving anti-factor Xa levels within the appropriate prophylactic range. This regimen reduced the rate of VTE below expected levels and no additional adverse effects were reported.

These cases suggest that prompt recognition of CPM and initiation of PP and IVIG may help modulate its progress and improve long-term neurologic outcome.

Background. Evidence-based data on optimal approach for prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in bariatric operations is discussed. Using antithrombotic prophylaxis weight adjusted the risk of VTE and its complications have to be balanced with the increased bleeding risk. Methods. Since 2005 the current situation for bariatric surgery has been examined by quality assurance study in Germany. As a prospective multicenter observational study, data on the type, regimen, and time course of VTE prophylaxis were documented. The incidences of clinically diagnosed VTE or PE were derived during the in-hospital course and follow up. Results. Overall, 11,835 bariatric procedures were performed between January 2005 and December 2010. Most performed procedures were 2730 gastric banding (GB); 4901 Roux-en-Y-gastric bypass (RYGBP) procedures, and 3026 sleeve gastrectomies (SG). Study collective includes 72.5% (mean BMI 48.1 kg/m2) female and 27.5% (mean BMI 50.5 kg/m2) male patients. Incidence of VTE was 0.06% and of PE 0.08%. Conclusion. VTE prophylaxis regimen depends on BMI and the type of procedure. Despite the low incidence of VTE and PE there is a lack of evidence. Therefore, prospective randomized studies are necessary to determine the optimal VTE prophylaxis for bariatric surgical patients.

Dexmedetomidine, a sedative administered by continuous infusion, is used to facilitate mechanical ventilation through alpha(2)-receptor activation. The drug's most common adverse reactions include hypotension, hypertension, nausea, bradycardia, and dry mouth. However, to our knowledge, no reports of dermatologic allergic reactions from dexmedetomidine use have been published. We describe a 22-year-old man who was intubated after being injured in a motor vehicle collision. He had been receiving propofol and fentanyl infusions for sedation during mechanical ventilation and was transitioning to dexmedetomidine. Within 4 hours of receiving dexmedetomidine 0.2 microg/kg/hour, the patient developed a wheal-and-flare rash encompassing 60% of his body surface area. The infusion was immediately discontinued; over the next 24 hours most of the rash receded, and within 48 hours of drug discontinuation the rash had completely resolved. According to the Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale, the likelihood that this rash was induced by dexmedetomidine was probable. Clinicians should be aware of this potential dermatologic adverse effect from dexmedetomidine, and patients receiving the drug should be closely monitored.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract