Knowledge, attitude, and practice towards basic life support among graduating class health science and medical students at Dilla University; a cross sectional study.

Introduction: Basic Life Support is a level of medical care Applied to victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries before professional help is provided. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice toward Basic Life support in Graduating class of health science and medical students at Dilla university referral hospital. Method: ology: A cross-sectional study was conducted on graduating class students of Dilla University, college of medicine and health science from September 10/2021 to December 13/2021. A total of 167 participants were selected by a systematic random sampling technique. A bi-variable and multi-variable logistic regression analysis were carried out. Result: Among the study participants, 95 (56.9%) and 86(51.5%) have good knowledge and good practice towards basic life support respectively. Being trained for basic life support and advanced life support, exposure with the person in need of basic life support were found more knowledgeable with odd ratio of [AOR = 13.8, 95% CI (6.3-30.1)], [AOR = 27.7, 95% CI (6.4-119)] and [AOR = 15.7, 95% CI (6.6-37.5)]. Learning anesthesia increases knowledge about basic life support nearly two times [AOR = 1.8, 95% CI (o.4-9.5)] when compared to medicine. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that nearly half of health science students in our hospital lack adequate knowledge and skills in BLS. Training on basic life support and advanced life support, learning in anesthesia and medicine departments, and exposure to the person in need of basic life support were significantly associated with high knowledge. To increase knowledge of BLS standardized Training and assessments are recommended.

Hemodynamic and analgesic effect of intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine in patients undergoing elective cesarean section; a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine has side effects such as hypotension, respiratory depression, vomiting, and shivering. The side effects are dose-dependent, therefore different approaches have been attempted to avoid spinal-induced complications including lowering the dose of local anesthetic and mixing it with additives like Neuraxial opioids. OBJECTIVE: To compare the Hemodynamic and analgesic effects of intrathecal fentanyl as an adjuvant with low and conventional doses of bupivacaine in patients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. METHODOLOGY: An institutional-based prospective cohort study was conducted on 90 patients. Data was collected with chart review, intraoperative observation, and postoperatively patient interview. Data was entered into EPI INFO and transport to SPSS version 23 for analysis of variables using one-way ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis H rank test, and chi-square. RESULT: Hypotension but not bradycardia, was significantly frequent in a conventional dose of bupivacaine alone (CB) group and a conventional dose of bupivacaine with fentanyl (CBF) groups than that of the lower dose of bupivacaine with fentanyl (LBF) groups. Duration of analgesia was significantly longer in LBF (248± 35.6 minutes) and in CBF groups (260.3±40.3 minutes) than in CB group (167.10 ± 31.45 minutes). Time for the first analgesic request was significantly later in LBF (304±47.8 minutes) and CBF (294.6±99.5 minutes) groups than that in CB group (177±25.88 minutes). CONCLUSION: The Lower dose of bupivacaine is associated with less risk of hypotension and faster recovery. Adding fentanyl with the lower dose of bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section could provide comparable anesthesia with the lower risk of hypotension and longer postoperative analgesia.

Global burden of acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence showed that there is a strong correlation between acute myocardial Injury and COVID-19 infection. However, the link between acute myocardial infection and COVID-19, the prevalence, reliability of diagnostic modalities, independent predictors, and clinical outcomes are still uncertain and a topic of debate. The current study was designed to determine the prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of acute myocardial injury based on a systematic review and meta-analysis the global published peer-reviewed works of literature. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline; Science direct, CINHAL, and LILACS from December 2019 to May 2021. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of AMI were included while case reports and reviews were excluded. The data were extracted with two independent authors in a customized format. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa appraisal tool. RESULTS: A total of 397 articles were identified from different databases. Thirty-seven Articles with 21, 204 participants were included while seven studies were excluded. The meta-analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of myocardial injury during the COVID-19 pandemic was 22.33 % (95 % CI: 17.86 to 26.81, 37). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that mortality among patients with an acute myocardial injury during COVID-19 was more than four times more likely as compared to those without AMI. This necessitates a mitigating strategy to prevent and manage before its clinical outcomes getting worse.