[Mycobacterium bovis tuberculosis in a female patient with AIDS]. / Tuberculosis por Mycobacterium bovis en una mujer con SIDA.

M. bovis, the agent of bovine tuberculosis, was in other times, the main ethiological agent of tuberculosis (TBC) in industrialized countries. At the moment, the human cases have become not very frequent, except in those countries where the illness is even endemic. In patients with immunodeficiency syndrome, it usually presents as a systemic illness. We present the case of a woman with AIDS and disseminated TBC caused by M. bovis. The isolated micobacteria turned out to be resistant to rifampin and pyrazinamide. She was treated with isoniazid, ethambutol and ofloxacin with good clinical evolution. This case turned out to be the first isolation of M. bovis in a patient with AIDS, in Muñiz hospital.

Tuberculosis por Mycobacterium bovis en una mujer con SIDA / [Mycobacterium bovis tuberculosis in a female patient with AIDS]

M. bovis, the agent of bovine tuberculosis, was in other times, the main ethiological agent of tuberculosis (TBC) in industrialized countries. At the moment, the human cases have become not very frequent, except in those countries where the illness is even endemic. In patients with immunodeficiency syndrome, it usually presents as a systemic illness. We present the case of a woman with AIDS and disseminated TBC caused by M. bovis. The isolated micobacteria turned out to be resistant to rifampin and pyrazinamide. She was treated with isoniazid, ethambutol and ofloxacin with good clinical evolution. This case turned out to be the first isolation of M. bovis in a patient with AIDS, in Muñiz hospital.

Tuberculosis por Mycobacterium bovis en una mujer con SIDA. / [Mycobacterium bovis tuberculosis in a female patient with AIDS]

M. bovis, the agent of bovine tuberculosis, was in other times, the main ethiological agent of tuberculosis (TBC) in industrialized countries. At the moment, the human cases have become not very frequent, except in those countries where the illness is even endemic. In patients with immunodeficiency syndrome, it usually presents as a systemic illness. We present the case of a woman with AIDS and disseminated TBC caused by M. bovis. The isolated micobacteria turned out to be resistant to rifampin and pyrazinamide. She was treated with isoniazid, ethambutol and ofloxacin with good clinical evolution. This case turned out to be the first isolation of M. bovis in a patient with AIDS, in Muñiz hospital.

Target-controlled propofol vs. sevoflurane: a double-blind, randomised comparison in day-case anaesthesia.

We compared target-controlled propofol with sevoflurane in a randomised, double-blind study in 61 day-case patients. Anaesthesia was induced with a propofol target of 8 microgram.ml-1 or 8% sevoflurane, reduced to 4 microgram.ml-1 and 3%, respectively, after laryngeal mask insertion and subsequently titrated to clinical signs. Mean (SD) times to unconsciousness and laryngeal mask insertion were significantly shorter with propofol [50 (9) s and 116 (33) s, respectively] than with sevoflurane [73 (14) s and 146 (29) s; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, respectively]; however, these differences were not apparent to the blinded observer. Propofol was associated with a higher incidence of intra-operative movement (55 vs. 10%; p = 0.0003), necessitating more adjustments to the delivered anaesthetic. Emergence was faster after sevoflurane [5.3 (2.2) min vs. 7.1 (3.7) min; p = 0.027], but the inhaled anaesthetic was associated with more nausea and vomiting (30 vs. 3%; p = 0.006), which delayed discharge [258 (102) min vs. 193 (68) min; p = 0.005]. Direct costs were lower with sevoflurane but nausea would have increased indirect costs. Patient satisfaction was high (>/= 90%) with both techniques. In conclusion, both techniques had advantages and disadvantages for day-case anaesthesia.

Rapid sequence induction: a questionnaire survey of its routine conduct and continued management during a failed intubation.

Two hundred and ten obstetric anaesthetists completed a questionnaire assessing how they would perform a rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia for a Caesarean section and their continued management during a failed tracheal intubation. The survey revealed considerable variation in the timing and application of cricoid pressure, the choice and dose of drugs used and the timing of their administration. The management of a difficult intubation also varied. This variability was independent of both grade of anaesthetist and frequency of practice. There appear to be at least two distinct techniques in current practice, characterised by 'fast' or 'slow' rapid sequence induction. Rapid sequence induction is clearly not a standard technique and debate is necessary to clarify the risks and benefits of its components. In particular, the rapidity of the technique and the application of cricoid pressure may contribute to the increased incidence of difficult tracheal intubation in obstetric anaesthesia.

Double-blind comparison of sevofluran vs propofol and succinylcholine for tracheal intubation in children.

We have studied intubating conditions in 64 healthy children, aged 3-10 yr, undergoing adenotonsillectomy, in a double-blind, randomized study. Intubation was performed 150 s after induction using either 8% sevoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen or propofol 3-4 mg kg-1 with succinylcholine 2 mg kg-1. An anaesthetist blinded to the technique performed intubation and scored intubating conditions using Krieg and Copenhagen Consensus Conference (CCC) scores. The trachea was intubated successfully at the first attempt in all patients under clinically acceptable conditions, although scores were significantly better with propofol and succinylcholine. The sevoflurane technique cost 3.62 +/- 0.55 Pounds to completion of tracheal intubation, significantly more (P < 0.001) than the cost of propofol-succinylcholine and isoflurane (2.04 +/- 0.54 Pounds) when based on actual amount of drug used. This cost increased to 4.38 +/- 0.05 Pounds when based on whole ampoules, which is significantly more than the cost of sevoflurane (P < 0.001).

Inhalation induction with sevoflurane: a double-blind comparison with propofol.

We conducted a randomized, double-blind comparison of 8% sevoflurane and propofol as induction agents for day-case cystoscopy in 102 patients. All patients received an i.v. cannula and breathed oxygen 5 litre min-1. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol i.v. or inhalation of 8% sevoflurane and 10% Intralipid (as a placebo) i.v., delivered by a blinded observer. Anaesthesia was maintained in all patients with 2% sevoflurane via a face mask. Induction of anaesthesia with sevoflurane was significantly slower compared with propofol (mean 84 (SD 24) s vs 57 (11) s), but was associated with a lower incidence of apnoea (16% vs 65%) and a shorter time to establish spontaneous ventilation (94 (34) s vs 126 (79) s). Induction complications were uncommon in each group but the transition to maintenance was smoother with sevoflurane and was associated with less hypotension compared with propofol. Emergence from anaesthesia induced with sevoflurane occurred significantly earlier compared with propofol (5.2 (2.2) min vs 7.0 (3.2) min) and anaesthetic induction was also significantly cheaper with sevoflurane. According to a postoperative questionnaire, the majority of patients found both anaesthetic techniques acceptable. Nevertheless, significnatly more patients (14%) rated induction with sevoflurane as unpleasant compared with propofol (0) and significantly more patients (24%) would not choose sevoflurane induction compared with propofol (6%). This phenomenon may have been related to the particular patient population studied, however. Inhalation induction with 8% sevoflurane would appear to offer several objective advantages compared with induction with propofol in day-case patients, although a significant minority may dislike this technique.