Radiofrequency ablation for accessory pathways: success and variants.

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is currently being advocated as the first line of therapy for symptomatic and drug refractory arrhythmias mediated by accessory pathways (APs). However, a large database on RFA for APs from India is still lacking. METHODS: Four hundred thirty-four patients (298 males, (69%)), with APs who underwent RF ablation between January, 1998 and May, 2001 were included. The success and variants were evaluated retrospectively from the data. RESULTS: The mean age was 36 +/- 11 years. There were 314 (73%) patients with WPW syndrome while the other 120 (27%) had concealed APs. Documented tachycardia was noted in 406 (91%) patients. Forty-six (11%) patients had associated structural heart disease (Ebstein's anomaly in 18). The procedure was successful in 414 (97%) of 425 patients in whom it was attempted. Of those unsuccessful, five had epicardial APs, four had multiple APs and two had immediate recurrence of APs. RFA was not attempted in nine parahissian pathways. Additional mechanisms were seen in 48 (11%) patients with WPW syndrome (14 (4.4%) AV nodal reentrant tachycardias, 16 (5%) additional concealed APs and 18 (5.7%) multiple APs). Coronary sinus diverticulum were detected in 23 (7.3%) patients, and Mahaim-like APs were diagnosed in 24 (6\8%) patients. The procedural and fluoroscopy time was 96 +/- 41 and 19 +/- 13 minutes, respectively. There were no deaths; three patients developed pericardial tamponade, which was promptly treated by pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency ablation is a safe and effective treatment for AP mediated tachycardia, especially for younger patients and children in whom life-long drug therapy may not be best option.

Laparoscopic telescope with alpha port and aesop to view open surgical procedures.

Laparoscopy has advanced surgery by allowing the surgeon to operate within a patient's abdominal and pelvic cavity with minimal trauma and scarring. The coupling of a video camera to the laparoscopic telescope has had the secondary effect of allowing others to view the surgical field either on color video monitors or by watching the video feed over the Internet at a remote location. These advancements have allowed better teaching and mentoring of operations. Open procedures can benefit from this technology as well but have suffered in the past from inadequate methods to depict the open surgical field. We used the Alpha Port and Aesop robot to position a sterile laparoscopic telescope near the surgical field to view open cholecystectomies performed on five pigs and to send the video feed over the Internet to remote physicians. Viewing the video on the monitor, the surgeons performed the operation in a comfortable ergonomic upright position. Both the surgeons and the remote physicians found the quality of the video to be excellent, and the remote physicians felt comfortable learning and mentoring surgical procedures using this technique.

Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) vs ondansetron (Zofran): a randomized, prospective trial inpatients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) is as effective as the use of ondansetron (Zofran) in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective double-blind randomized study was performed in a tertiary care referral center. METHODS: For this study, 128 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical statuses I, II, and III patients were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) at $17 per dose (group 1) or dimenhydrinate 50 mg IV at $2.50 per dose (group 2) before induction of anesthesia. The end points evaluated were frequency of PONV, need for rescue antiemetics, need for overnight hospitalization secondary to persistent nausea and vomiting, and frequency PONV 24 h after discharge. RESULTS: Chi-square tests and student's t-test were used to determine the significance of differences among groups. Of the 128 patients enrolled in this study, 20 were excluded: 15 patients received an additional antiemetic preoperative; 4 were converted to open cholecystectomies; and 1 procedure was aborted due to carcinomatosis. Of the 108 remaining participants, 50 received ondansetron (group 1) and 58 received dimenhydrinate (group 2). Both groups were well matched for demographics including gender, ASA class, and history of motion sickness. The need for rescue antiemetics occurred in 34% of group 1 and 29% of Group 2 (p = 0.376), postoperative vomiting in 6% of group 1 and 12% of group 2 (p = 0.228), and postoperative nausea in 42% of group 1 and 34% of group 2 (p = 0.422). One group 1 patient and two group 2 patients required overnight hospitalization for persistent nausea, a difference that was not significant. Rates of PONV 24 h after discharge were similar between groups 1 and 2 (10% vs 14%, p = 0.397 and 2% vs 5%, p = 0.375, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate is as effective as the use of ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dimenhydrinate is the preferred drug because it is less expensive. With more than 500, 000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in the United States each year, the potential drug cost savings from the prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate instead of ondansetron exceed $7.25 million per year.