Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Warden

Publications and source records attributed to G Warden.

43 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

The search for cost-effective prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the child undergoing reconstructive burn surgery: ondansetron versus dimenhydrinate.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and unpleasant problem for children with burns who are undergoing reconstructive burn surgery. Ondansetron and dimenhydrinate have been found to be effective for the prevention of PONV in other patient populations, but they have not been directly compared in the pediatric population. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate was performed. One hundred patients with a mean age of 11.8 years who were undergoing reconstructive burn surgery with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo, 0.1 mg/kg of ondansetron, or 0.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate. The 3 groups were well matched for all demographic and procedural variables. The study drugs were given twice, first at the end of surgery and again 4 hours later, to ensure adequate blood levels during the 8-hour study period. Postoperatively, on the basis of the presence and amount of PONV experienced, all patients were assigned a PONV score by a blinded investigator. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of PONV in the patients who received ondansetron or dimenhydrinate were found, as compared with the results of patients who received placebo. Postoperative vomiting was reduced from 61% in the placebo group to 29% and 40% in the ondansetron and dimenhydrinate groups, respectively, and PONV was similarly reduced from 69% to 47% and 40%, respectively. The differences between ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were not significant. The average cost to our pharmacy for the prescribed dose of ondansetron was $19.34; the cost for dimenhydrinate was $0.90. In this patient population, dimenhydrinate was as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of PONV and postoperative vomiting, and it was much less expensive.

Adolescent↗

American Burn Association/Shriners Hospitals for Children burn outcomes questionnaire: construction and psychometric properties.

To develop a standardized, practical, self-administered questionnaire to monitor pediatric patients with burns and to evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive pediatric burn management treatments, a group of experts generated a set of items to measure relevant burn outcomes. Children between the ages of 5 and 18 years were assessed in a cross-sectional study. Both parent and adolescent responses were obtained from children 11 to 18 years old. The internal reliability of final scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.93 among parents and from 0.75 to 0.92 among adolescents. Mean differences between parent and adolescent were small; the greatest difference occurred in the appearance subscale. Parental scales showed evidence of validity and potential for sensitivity to change. In an effort to support the construct validity of the new scales, they were compared with the Child Health Questionnaire and related to each other in clinically sensible ways. These burn outcomes scales reliably and validly assess function in patients with burns, and the scales have been developed in such a way that they are likely to be sensitive to change over time.

Activities of Daily Living↗

A prospective, randomized comparison of the Volume Diffusive Respirator vs conventional ventilation for ventilation of burned children. 2001 ABA paper.

UNLABELLED: The Volume Diffusive Respirator (VDR) is a high-frequency time cycled pressure ventilator that can ventilate, oxygenate, and promote secretion removal. The VDR provides ventilation at lower airway pressures than those required for conventional ventilation in the pressure control mode (PCV). A prospective, randomized, institutional review board-approved study was conducted comparing the VDR to PCV in burned children with respiratory failure from all causes. METHODS: Pediatric burn patients requiring ventilation were stratified by presence of inhalation injury and ventilated by VDR or PCV to achieve predefined arterial blood gases. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were prospectively assigned ventilator type; 32 to VDR, 32 to PCV. Data are reported as mean + SEM. Patient age was 7.4 + 0.7 years, TBSA was 56 + 3%, and number of patients with inhalation injuries was 55 (86%). Maximum peak inspiratory pressure with the VDR was significantly less than with PCV (30.9 + 0.8 cm H2O vs 39.5 + 1.8 cm H2O,P < 0.05) and the best PaO2 /FIO2 ratio was significantly higher with the VDR compared with PCV (563 + 15 vs 507 + 13, P < 0.05). No patient in the VDR group had evidence of barotrauma compared with two in the PCV group. Five patients in the PCV group died compared with two in the VDR group. CONCLUSION: Patients ventilated with the VDR required significantly lower peak inspiratory pressure and achieved a significantly higher PaO2 /FIO2 ratio compared with PCV. This demonstrates the VDR is a safe and effective method of ventilation for pediatric burn patients and it offers advantages when compared with conventional ventilation.

Adolescent↗

Leadership diversity.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Health Services Administration↗