Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Adicionar filtros








Intervalo de ano
1.
World Journal of Emergency Medicine ; (4): 19-26, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | WPRIM | ID: wpr-787585

RESUMO

BACKGROUND@# We aimed to describe the current practice of emergency physicians and anaesthesiologists in the selection of drugs for rapid-sequence induction (RSI) among trauma patients.@*METHODS@# A prospective survey audit was conducted based on a self-administered questionnaire among two intubating specialties. The preferred type and dose of hypnotics, opioids, and muscle relaxants used for RSI in trauma patients were sought in the questionnaire. Data were compared for the use of induction agent, opioid use and muscle relaxant among stable and unstable trauma patients by the intubating specialties.@*RESULTS@#A total of 102 participants were included; 47 were anaesthetists and 55 were emergency physicians. Propofol (74.5%) and Etomidate (50.0%) were the most frequently used induction agents. Significantly higher proportion of anesthesiologist used Propofol whereas, Etomidate was commonly used by emergency physicians in stable patients (P=0.001). Emergency physicians preferred Etomidate (63.6%) and Ketamine (20.0%) in unstable patients. The two groups were comparable for opioid use for stable patients. In unstable patients, use of opioid differed significantly by intubating specialties. The relation between rocuronium and suxamethonium use did change among the anaesthetists. Emergency physicians used more suxamethonium (55.6% vs. 27.7%, P=0.01) in stable as well as unstable (43.4 % vs. 27.7%, P=0.08) patients.@*CONCLUSION@# There is variability in the use of drugs for RSI in trauma patients amongst emergency physicians and anaesthesiologists. There is a need to develop an RSI protocol using standardized types and dose of these agents to deliver an effective airway management for trauma patients.

2.
Ann Card Anaesth ; 2012 Oct; 15(4): 287-295
Artigo em Inglês | IMSEAR | ID: sea-143921

RESUMO

Cardiac injuries are classified as blunt and penetrating injuries. In both the injuries, the major issue is missing the diagnosis and high mortality. Blunt cardiac injuries (BCI) are much more common than penetrating injuries. Aiming at a better understanding of BCI, we searched the literature from January 1847 to January 2012 by using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Using the key word "Blunt Cardiac Injury," we found 1814 articles; out of which 716 articles were relevant. Herein, we review the causes, diagnosis, and management of BCI. In conclusion, traumatic cardiac injury is a major challenge in critical trauma care, but the guidelines are lacking. A high index of suspicion, application of current diagnostic protocols, and prompt and appropriate management is mandatory.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados Factuais , Traumatismos Cardíacos/diagnóstico , Traumatismos Cardíacos/etiologia , Traumatismos Cardíacos/cirurgia , Traumatismos Cardíacos/terapia , Humanos , MEDLINE/estatística & dados numéricos , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Ferramenta de Busca/métodos , Ferimentos e Lesões/complicações , Ferimentos não Penetrantes/complicações
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA