RESUMO
Objective: This study aimed to assess and compare the effects of intranasal administration of lidocaine and remifentanil on the condition of LMA insertion and cardiovascular response. Methods: From March 2019 to March 2020, this double-blind randomized clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients, who underwent general anesthesia with LMA insertion at Faiz Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. After induction of anesthesia and before placing the laryngeal mask, the first group received remifentanil 1 µg/Kg, the second group received lidocaine 2% 1 mg/Kg, and the third group received normal saline with the same volume intranasally. The conditions of LMA insertion and hemodynamic changes that occurred during its insertion were investigated. Results: In terms of demographics characteristics (p>0.05), success in placing the LMA on the first try (p=0.73), number of attempts to insert LMA (p=0.61), performance of LMA (p=0.73), need for additional propofol (p=0.53), frequency of gagging (p=0.53), cough (p=0.15) p), and laryngospasm (p=0.99) did not differ significantly. In the remifentanil group, the cardiovascular response to LMA injection was less than that of the lidocaine group. Moreover, both groups were lower than the saline group, but no significant difference was observed. Conclusion: In facilitating LMA insertion, the effect of intranasal remifentanil was comparable to intranasal lidocaine. Intranasal remifentanil was somewhat more effective than intranasal lidocaine in weakening the cardiovascular response to LMA insertion, but it did not outperform lidocaine.
RESUMO
Background: Oral care plays a significant role in reducing the incidence of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of three oral care protocols on the incidence of VAP in Mechanically-Ventilated (MV) patients hospitalized in ICUs. Materials and Methods: This parallel randomized clinical trial was performed in 2019 on 71 MV adult patients with endotracheal intubation hospitalized in ICUs. The patients were divided into three groups: a 7-day oral care by using swab (group 1), two-times-brushing group (group 2), and four-times-brushing group (group 3) by using chlorhexidine. The data related to the incidence of pneumonia were analyzed during several days using Chi-square and ANOVA tests. Results: The incidence of pneumonia on the fourth day of the intervention in the first group (35.00%) was significantly higher than that of the two intervention groups (10.00%) (χ 2 = 5.86, df = 2, p = 0.03)). The mean score of modified clinical pulmonary infection in the third group was significantly lower seven days after the intervention than before the intervention (p = 0.04) and the fourth day of intervention (p = 0.003). In the first group, this score was significantly higher in the fourth day of the intervention than the seventh day (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Based on the results, the oral care protocol, including four-times-brushing, reduced the risk of VAP more than two times brushing. Therefore, the use of this protocol is recommended to provide a minimum level of oral care and reduce the risk of VAP in MV patients.
