Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jamal A Alhashemi

Publications and source records attributed to Jamal A Alhashemi.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Intravenous acetaminophen vs oral ibuprofen in combination with morphine PCIA after Cesarean delivery.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of iv acetaminophen with those of oral ibuprofen with respect to postoperative pain control and morphine requirements in patients receiving morphine patient-controlled iv analgesia (PCIA) after Cesarean delivery. METHODS: Forty-five term patients scheduled for Cesarean delivery were randomized to receive acetaminophen 1 g iv every six hours plus oral placebo (group A) or ibuprofen 400 mg po every six hours plus iv placebo (group I); the first dose of study drug was given 30 min preoperatively. Postoperatively, all patients received PCIA for 48 hr using morphine bolus dose 2 mg iv, lockout interval ten minutes, and no basal infusion. Visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 to 10) at rest and morphine requirements were recorded every hour for four hours then every four hours for a total of 48 hr postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was recorded on a ten-point scale (from 1 to 10) 48 hr postoperatively. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale scores decreased similarly in both groups over time, however, there were no differences between groups at any time during the study period (estimated marginal means: 1.4 +/- SEM 0.2 vs 1.9 +/- SEM 0.2 for groups A and I, respectively, P = 0.124). Cumulative doses of postoperative morphine were 98 +/- 37 vs 93 +/- 33 mg for groups A and I, respectively (P = 0.628). Patient satisfaction with analgesia was high in both groups (9 +/- 1 vs 9 +/- 1, P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen is a reasonable alternative to oral ibuprofen as an adjunct to morphine patient-controlled analgesia after Cesarean delivery.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2006

Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50-150 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 microg.kg(-1), lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 microg.kg(-1) iv and fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 microg.kg(-1) .hr(-1) throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1-7). RESULTS: In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score >/=9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS. CONCLUSION: In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2006

Diagnostic accuracy of a bedside qualitative immunochromatographic test for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a bedside immunochromatographic test (CardioDetect) that identifies human heart-type fatty acid-binding protein in whole blood. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with chest pain had CardioDetect test performed together with serial determination of serum troponin I (TnI) and creatine kinase (CK). CardioDetect results were interpreted twice, 24 hours apart, by 3 independent observers who were blinded to patients' clinical and laboratory data. Acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed by a physician blinded to the results of the CardioDetect test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, and receiver operating characteristic curves were determined for all tests at 4 predefined times. Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were determined. RESULTS: At less than 4 hours after chest pain, CardioDetect had a sensitivity and specificity of 62.5% and 100% compared with 50% and 80% for TnI and 37.5% and 80% for CK, respectively. At more than 4 hours but 12 hours or less in duration, the sensitivity of CardioDetect and TnI was 100%, whereas that of CK was 85.7%. Intraobserver agreement and interobserver reliability were high for CardioDetect (kappa >0.80 [P < .0001] and intraclass correlation coefficient, >0.90, respectively). CONCLUSION: CardioDetect was a reliable point-of-care test for the early diagnosis (<12 hours) of acute myocardial infarction in the ED.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Dexmedetomidine in combination with morphine PCA provides superior analgesia for shockwave lithotripsy.

PURPOSE: To compare the analgesic effects of dexmedetomidine/morphine with those of tramadol/midazolam in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urinary calculi. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine 1 micro g*kg(-1) iv followed by 0.5 micro g*kg(-1)*hr(-1) infusion together with morphine patient-controlled analgesia [(PCA); 2 mg bolus, five minutes lockout, 2 mg*hr(-1) infusion; (Group DEX)], or tramadol 1.5 mg*kg(-1) pre-mixed with midazolam 30 micro g*kg(-1) iv followed by tramadol PCA [20 mg bolus, five minute lockout, 20 mg*hr(-1) infusion; (Group TRA)]. Pain was assessed at baseline and every 15 min thereafter. Patients' and urologist's satisfaction with analgesia and sedation were determined on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Patient's discharge time was also documented. RESULTS: Visual analogue scale scores over time were consistently lower in Group DEX compared with Group TRA (P = 0.001). Patients' satisfaction with analgesia (5 +/- 1 vs 4 +/- 2, P = 0.012) and with sedation (6 +/- 1 vs 5 +/- 1, P = 0.020), and urologist's satisfaction (6 +/- 1 vs 4 +/- 2, P = 0.001) were all higher amongst Group DEX patients compared with Group TRA. There was no difference between discharge times of patients in Group DEX compared with those in Group TRA [85 (60,115) min vs 65 (40,95) min, P = 0.069]. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine in combination with morphine PCA provided better analgesia for ESWL and was associated with higher patients' and urologist's satisfaction when compared with a tramadol/midazolam PCA combination.

Adult↗