No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: The authors performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial with emergency department (ED) patients requiring procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for repair of deep traumatic lacerations and reduction of bone fractures, to compare the ketamine ⁄ propofol (ketofol) combination with the midazolam ⁄ fentanyl (MF) combination.Methods: Sixty-two patients scheduled for PSA who presented between January 2009 and June 2009 were enrolled prospectively. Thirty-one were randomly assigned to the ketofol group, and 31 were assigned to the MF group.Results: The median starting doses were 0.75 mg ⁄ kg of both ketamine and propofol (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.75 to 1.5 mg ⁄ kg), 0.04 mg ⁄ kg midazolam (IQR = 0.04 to 0.06 mg ⁄ kg), and 2 lg ⁄ kg fentanyl (IQR = 2 to 3 lg ⁄ kg). There were no significant differences in sedation time between the groups. There were no differences in physician satisfaction (p = 0.065). Perceived pain in the ketofol group, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was significantly lower than in the MF group (median ketofol = 0, IQR = 0-1 vs. median MF = 3, IQR = 1-6; p < 0.001). Only one patient in each group required bag-mask ventilation, and neither of them were intubated. Conclusions:The ketamine ⁄ propofol combination provides adequate sedation and analgesia for painful procedures and appears to be a safe and useful technique in the ED.

Preemptive administration of IV ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) can reduce incidence and severity of CRBD in the early postoperative period.

The TMHT appears to be a more accurate predictor of difficult laryngoscopy than the existing anatomical measurements.

Intra-articular injection of lidocaine before closed reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation produces the same pain relief as intravenous meperidine and diazepam.

GlideScope facilitates NGT insertion and reduces the duration of the procedure.

Background: We aimed to ascertain risk indicators of in-hospital mortality and severity as well as to provide a comprehensive systematic review and metaanalysis to investigate the prognostic significance of the prognostic nutrition index (PNI) as a predictor of adverse outcomes in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we studied patients with COVID-19 who were referred to our hospital from February 16 to November 1, 2020. Patients with either a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test that was positive for COVID-19 or high clinical suspicion based on the World Health Organization (WHO) interim guidance were enrolled. A parallel systematic review/meta-analysis (in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed. Results: A total of 504 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included in this study, among which 101 (20.04%) patients died during hospitalization, and 372