Explore the vast range of titles available.

To compare the efficacy of anaesthetic depth control using Closed Loop Anaesthesia Delivery System (CLADS) and Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) in patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVSD). Randomized control trial. Forty ASA III/IV adult patients with moderate to severe LVSD scheduled for open heart surgery. Propofol was administered using CLADS or TCI for maintaining BIS of 50. Induction and maintenance doses were controlled automatically in CLADS. Dixon's up and down method was used to estimate the plasma concentration needed for induction in TCI. Percentage of total anaesthesia time (“valid CLADS time”) for which BIS remained within ±10 of target (BIS=50). BIS remained within ±10 of the target for a significantly longer duration of time in CLADS group (p=0.001). Performance parameters like Median Performance Error (MDPE), p=0.024; Median Absolute Performance Error (MDAPE), p=0.0212; and global score p=0.017 were significantly better in CLADS group. Total propofol consumption was significantly less in CLADS group (p=0.014). Mean value (95% CI) of EC50 and EC95 for target plasma propofol concentration for induction was 1.62 (1.45–1.79) μgml−1 and 1.87 (1.73–2.96) μgml−1 respectively using probit analysis. Closed loop delivery of propofol using CLADS performed significantly better than TCI in this subset of patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT02645994 •Closed loop anesthesia delivery system has not been previously studied in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.•This study compares CLADS a closed loop anesthesia system with target controlled infusion system (Marsh model) using BIS for anaesthesia depth control in patients with low EF.•CLADS performed more efficiently than TCI in these patients.

The development of electroencephalographic indices of anaesthetic depth has in turn generated interest in automated anaesthesia delivery systems using these as the input variable. In this paper, one patented closed loop anaesthesia delivery system (CLADS) (502/DEL/2003) is compared to manual control of propofol delivery titrated to the bispectral index (BIS™). Forty ASA I-II patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were enrolled in the study. The study participants were randomised using computer generated random numbers to two equal groups. One group received propofol titrated by the CLADS while in the other group (control), anaesthetic delivery was manually titrated to BIS™. Closed loop anaesthetic delivery using our patented system led to lower induction doses of propofol (P<0.05) and less overshoot of the target BIS (P<0.05). The closed loop system maintained BIS to within ±10 of target for a significantly longer time during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia (P <0.01). Smaller amounts of anaesthetic agent were required (P <0.01) and there was faster postoperative recovery (P <0.05). Manual delivery of propofol required the infusion rate to be changed a median of 30 times (IQR 12-45), which required considerable time and attention by the anaesthetist. In conclusion, automated delivery of propofol adjusted to the bispectral index using our CLADS was both effective and efficient as compared to manual control.

The newly developed supralaryngeal airway Streamlined Liner of the Pharynx Airway (SLIPA™) has been compared successfully to the LMA™, but the haemodynamic response to its insertion has not been evaluated in a randomised study. We compared haemodynamic and Bispectral index(BIS) responses to insertion of the SLIPA™ with classic LMA™ after standardising the anaesthetic technique using BIS to monitor and control the anaesthetic depth. One hundred patients were randomised to receive either a classic LMA™ or SLIPA™ following induction with fentanyl and propofol titrated to a target BIS of 40 and compared heart rate, mean arterial pressure and BIS responses to insertion. There was a significant rise in mean arterial pressure from the pre-stimulus value (73.8 [10.6] mmHg, mean ± SD) at two and three minutes (P <0.05) following insertion of the LMA™ with maximum rise (80.8 [11.5] mmHg) seen at two minutes. There was a significant rise in mean arterial pressure from the pre-stimulus value (73.2 [12.6] mmHg) atone, two, three, four and five minutes (P <0.05) following insertion of the SLIPA™ with maximum rise (86.9 [15.1] mmHg) observed at three minutes. Mean arterial pressure was significantly higher (P <0.05) with SLIPA™ at two, three, four and five minutes. BIS increased significantly (P <0.05) at one, two, three, four and five minutes following insertion of both the devices, but there was no significant difference between the groups. There was a significantly higher (P=0.001) incidence of blood on the device with the SLIPA™ (20/50 vs. 6/50 with LMA™). Thus, insertion of SLIPA™ causes significantly higher blood-pressure response but similar BIS response compared to the LMA™.

Background & objectives: The safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine is a cause of concern for many who have been vaccinated. The people have multiple concerns and fear regarding the adverse events of the vaccine. Thus, this study was undertaken to establish the safety profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) among the healthcare professionals. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. After taking clearance from the institutional ethics committee 1500 healthcare professionals, who had their vaccination in the past two weeks were selected. They were provided with an online survey proforma regarding adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of COVID-19 vaccine developed using google forms with an informed consent form affixed to it. Results: A total of 1036 individuals participated in the study. The mean and median (inter quartile range) age of the participants was 37.7 ±11.25 and 35 (29-46) yr, respectively. Of these, 52.1 per cent were female, 29.3 per cent were doctors, 33.4 per cent were nurses and 9.5 per cent were paramedical staff. Forty six per cent participants experienced one or more minor AEFIs such as pain, tenderness, redness, etc. at the injection site. Fatigue (31.75%), generalized feeling of unwell (28.57%), muscle pain (23.16%) and fever (21.71%) were the most commonly reported systemic AEFIs followed by headache (20.07%), dizziness (10.03%) and joint pains (15.25%). Most of them experienced these AEFIs within 24 h of the first dose of administration. About 42 per cent of the participants took oral antipyretics/analgesics for managing the AEFIs. Interpretation & conclusions: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine was found to be associated with mild local and systemic AEFIs that were more common after the first dose as compared to the second dose. There adverse events could be dealt with oral over-the-counter medications, with no requirement of hospitalization.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is highly heterogeneous and despite treatment advances it remains a life-shortening condition. There have been significant advances in imaging technologies, but despite evidence of their potential clinical utility, practice remains variable, dependent in part on imaging availability and expertise. This statement summarizes current and emerging imaging modalities and their potential role in the diagnosis and assessment of suspected PH. It also includes a review of commonly encountered clinical and radiological scenarios, and imaging and modeling-based biomarkers. An expert panel was formed including clinicians, radiologists, imaging scientists, and computational modelers. Section editors generated a series of summary statements based on a review of the literature and professional experience and, following consensus review, a diagnostic algorithm and 55 statements were agreed. The diagnostic algorithm and summary statements emphasize the key role and added value of imaging in the diagnosis and assessment of PH and highlight areas requiring further research.

The safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine is a cause of concern for many who have been vaccinated. The people have multiple concerns and fear regarding the adverse events of the vaccine. Thus, this study was undertaken to establish the safety profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) among the healthcare professionals. This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. After taking clearance from the institutional ethics committee 1500 healthcare professionals, who had their vaccination in the past two weeks were selected. They were provided with an online survey proforma regarding adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of COVID-19 vaccine developed using google forms with an informed consent form affixed to it. A total of 1036 individuals participated in the study. The mean and median (inter quartile range) age of the participants was 37.7 ±11.25 and 35 (29-46) yr, respectively. Of these, 52.1 per cent were female, 29.3 per cent were doctors, 33.4 per cent were nurses and 9.5 per cent were paramedical staff. Forty six per cent participants experienced one or more minor AEFIs such as pain, tenderness, redness, etc. at the injection site. Fatigue (31.75%), generalized feeling of unwell (28.57%), muscle pain (23.16%) and fever (21.71%) were the most commonly reported systemic AEFIs followed by headache (20.07%), dizziness (10.03%) and joint pains (15.25%). Most of them experienced these AEFIs within 24 h of the first dose of administration. About 42 per cent of the participants took oral antipyretics/analgesics for managing the AEFIs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine was found to be associated with mild local and systemic AEFIs that were more common after the first dose as compared to the second dose. There adverse events could be dealt with oral over-the-counter medications, with no requirement of hospitalization.