Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthésie
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Ultrasound guidance versus direct palpation for radial artery catheterization by expert operators: a randomized trial among Canadian cardiac anesthesiologists.
The use of ultrasound (US) for radial arterial catheterization has been reported to result in faster insertion times with fewer complications when compared with traditional direct palpation (DP). We sought to determine if this applies to expert operators and tested the hypothesis that, among cardiac anesthesiologists, US-guided insertion similarly results in faster insertion times as well as fewer re-directs, attempts, and complications. ⋯ Among experienced cardiac anesthesiologists, the use of US to facilitate radial arterial catheterization did not affect insertion times, the number of re-directs, or the number of attempts when compared with DP. Ultrasound use had no significant effects on the rates of success on first attempt, failure, or hematoma formation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02118441.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Prophylactic intravenous ephedrine to minimize fetal bradycardia after combined spinal-epidural labour analgesia: a randomized controlled study.
The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique for relief of labour pain offers both rapid onset and superior first-stage analgesia. Nevertheless, the known increased risk for early profound fetal bradycardia (EPFB) following CSE continues to be a concern that often limits its use. The purpose of this study was to determine if giving prophylactic intravenous ephedrine at the time of CSE administration would reduce EPFB. ⋯ We conclude that prophylactic intravenous ephedrine administration at the time of CSE during labour was ineffective at reducing the risk for EPFB associated with CSE. Nevertheless, a lower than expected rate of EPFB resulted in the trial being underpowered. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02062801.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomized controlled trial of light versus deep propofol sedation for elective outpatient colonoscopy: recall, procedural conditions, and recovery.
This study aimed to determine if the incidence of recall was equivalent between light and deep sedation for colonoscopy. Secondary analysis included complications, patient clinical recovery, and post-procedure cognitive impairment. ⋯ Light sedation was not equivalent to deep sedation for procedural recall, the spectrum of complications, or recovery times. This study provides evidence to inform discussions with patients about sedation for colonoscopy. This trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number 12611000320954.