Journal of clinical anesthesia
-
Observational Study
A prospective, observational validation of HRAD±, a novel pediatric affect and cooperation scale.
HRAD± was developed to quickly assess pediatric perioperative affect and cooperation. HRAD± represents: Happy, Relaxed, Anxious, Distressed, with a yes/no answer to cooperativity. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the clinical utility of HRAD± as an affect and cooperation assessment tool for inhalational mask induction. Secondary aims examined inter-rater reliability (IRR) of HRAD± and predictive validity of induction HRAD± with emergence delirium. ⋯ HRAD± is a clinically useful and simple scale for evaluating pediatric affect and cooperation during inhalational mask induction. Results demonstrate correlation with commonly utilized research assessment scales.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Global neonatal perioperative mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
There are large differences in health care among countries. A higher perioperative mortality rate (POMR) in neonates than in older children and adults has been recognized worldwide. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review of published 24-h and 30-day POMRs in neonates from 2011 to 2022 in countries with different Human Development Index (HDI) levels. ⋯ The review demonstrated very high global POMRs in a surgical population of neonates independent of the country HDI level. We identified differences in 24-h and 30-day POMRs between low-HDI countries and other countries with higher HDI levels.
-
To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL. ⋯ The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. ⋯ Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.