The use of indwelling catheters in the Critical Care Units (CCUs) has a major role in determining the incidence and the morbidity as well as mortality from hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs). Instituting evidence-based protocols can significantly reduce both the prevalence of indwelling catheterization as well as the incidence of hospital-acquired UTIs. The prevalence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) in the CCUs is directly linked to the widespread use of indwelling catheters in these settings. CAUTIs result in significant cost escalation for individual hospitals as well as the healthcare system as a whole. A UTI is an inflammatory response to colonization of the urinary tract, most commonly by bacteria or fungi. A UTI should be differentiated from the mere detection of bacteria in the urinary tract. This condition, referred to as asymptomatic bacteriuria, is common and does not require treatment, especially in the patient with an indwelling urinary catheter. A CAUTI occurs when a patient with an indwelling urinary catheter develops 2 or more signs or symptoms of a UTI such as hematuria, fever, suprapubic or flank pain, change in urine character, and altered mental status. CAUTI is classified as a complicated UTI. The current review highlights the important management issues in critical care patients having CAUTI. We performed a MEDLINE search using combinations of keywords such as urinary tract infection, critical care unit and indwelling urinary catheter. We reviewed the relevant publications with regard to CAUTI in patients in CCU.
Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major health problem that is extremely common and has a significant effect on cardiac surgical outcomes. AKI occurs in nearly 30 % of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with about 1-2 % of these ultimately requiring dialysis. The development of AKI predicts a significant increase in morbidity and mortality independent of other risk factors. The pathogenetic mechanisms associated with cardiac surgery-associated AKI include several biochemical pathways, of which the most important are hemodynamic, inflammatory and nephrotoxic factors. Risk factors for AKI have been identified in several models, and these facilitate physicians to prognosticate and develop a strategy for tackling patients predisposed to developing renal dysfunction. Effective therapy of the condition is still suboptimal, and hence the accent has always been on risk factor modification. Thus, strategies for reducing preoperative anemia, perioperative blood transfusions and surgical re-explorations may be effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of this complication.
Background. This study was designed to assess and compare the effect of head and neck position on the oropharyngeal leak pressures and cuff position (employing fibreoptic view of the glottis) and ventilation scores between ProSeal LMA and the I-gel. Material and Methods. After induction of anesthesia, the supraglottic device was inserted and ventilation confirmed. The position of the head was randomly changed from neutral to flexion, extension, and lateral rotation (left). The oropharyngeal leak pressures, fibreoptic view of glottis, ventilation scores, and delivered tidal volumes and end tidal CO2 were noted in all positions. Results. In both groups compared with neutral position, oropharyngeal leak pressures were significantly higher with flexion and lower with extension but similar with rotation of head and neck. However the oropharyngeal leak pressure was significantly higher for ProSeal LMA compared with the I-gel in all positions. Peak airway pressures were significantly higher with flexion in both groups (however this did not affect ventilation), lower with extension in ProSeal group, and comparable in I-gel group but did not change significantly with rotation of head and neck in both groups. Conclusion. Effective ventilation can be done with both ProSeal LMA and I-gel with head in all the above positions. ProSeal LMA has a better margin of safety than I-gel due to better sealing pressures except in flexion where the increase in airway pressure is more with the former. Extreme precaution should be taken in flexion position in ProSeal LMA.
Background and Aims:We conducted a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to examine (1) whether a single preoperative dose of 800 mg gabapentin would be as effective as 2 μg/kg of intravenous (IV) fentanyl in blunting the haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation and (2) whether a combination of both would be more effective in this regard.Methods:Seventy-five patients (American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I), aged 20–50 years were allocated into one of three groups: 2 μg/kg IV fentanyl, 800 mg oral gabapentin or a combination of both. Gabapentin was administered 2 h and fentanyl 5 min before induction of anaesthesia, which was achieved with 5 mg/kg thiopentone, and tracheal intubation facilitated with 0.1 mg/kg vecuronium. Laryngoscopy lasting a maximum of 30 s was attempted 3 min after administration of the induction agents. Serial values of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were compared among the three groups and with the respective preinduction measurements.Results:Patients receiving gabapentin 800 mg alone showed remarkable increases in HR and MAP in response to tracheal intubation (P < 0.05). The increases were similar for the other two regimens. These haemodynamic changes were lesser in patients receiving fentanyl and the combination of gabapentin and fentanyl.Conclusion:Oral gabapentin does not produce significant reduction in laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation induced sympathetic responses as compared to IV fentanyl or the combination of gabapentin and fentanyl.
Hence, premedication with oral gabapentin in these elderly patients undergoing elective intraocular surgery produced intraoperative anxiolysis, decreased sedation, a modest decrease in IOPs and improved postoperative recovery.
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.