AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIn the telephone questionnaire, no hospital admissions were reported.Conclusion: Oral hydration just before discharge is safe, and fasting children after discharge for a period of time is unnecessary for patients sedated with thiopental.Key words: Sedation, oral intake, postoperative nausea and vomiting
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: While there are suggestions for oral hydration times after general anesthesia, there is no published study with regard to sedation. The aim of this prospective study was to determine a safe time for oral intake after pediatric sedation and its association with nausea and vomiting after discharge.Methods: A total of 180 children (aged 1 month to 13 years) sedated for magnetic resonance imaging were randomly assigned into three groups. All patients fasted for 6 hours and were allowed to take clear fluids until 2 hours before sedation with thiopental (3 mg/kg). After the patients were transported to the recovery room, we allowed the patients to drink as much clear fluids as they wanted prior to discharge in group I, 1 hour after the patients met the discharge criteria for group II, and 2 hours after the patients met the discharge criteria for group III. All patients were assessed for vomiting in the recovery room until 1 hour after their first oral hydration. The parents were then telephoned the next day and questioned regarding nausea/vomiting and any unanticipated hospital admission.Results: There were no statistically significant intergroup differences with respect to age, sex, weight, or the ASA status. There was no nausea and vomiting in either the recovery or post discharge period in any group. In the telephone questionnaire, no hospital admissions were reported.Conclusion: Oral hydration just before discharge is safe, and fasting children after discharge for a period of time is unnecessary for patients sedated with thiopental.Key words: Sedation, oral intake, postoperative nausea and vomiting
Özet
Objective: Because of its poor prognosis and high mortality rate, early diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a challenge. The value of serum markers in the diagnosis of AMI is limited and the studies related with the D-dimer test carried out in recent years. In this prospective study we investigated the value of the level of plasma D-dimer in the diagnosis of AMI and the differential diagnosis from acute pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis.Methods: We included 89 patients who admitted to our emergency department with abdominal pain. The number and the diagnosis of the patients were 17 AMI, 42 acute pancreatitis and 30 acute cholecystitis, respectively. We measured the levels of plasma D-dimer of all patients by using a latex agglutination ‘immunoassay’ method. Eventually we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of D-dimer test in the diagnosis of AMI.Results: We determined the specificity of the D-dimer test in the differential diagnosis of AMI as 50% from acute pancreatitis, 70% from acute cholecystitis, 58.3% from all the control group and the sensitivity was 100%.Conclusion: The measurement of plasma D-dimer concentration may be useful in the differential diagnosis of AMI from acute pancreatitis and acute cholecystitis. However, to reveal the diagnostic value of D-dimer test more clearly, further studies with larger series are needed, where cut-off value is highly defined, and other patients with acute abdominal pain are added into the control group.Key words: Acute mesenteric ischemia, diagnosis, D-dimer