Medicine (Austin & Northern Health) - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
ItemThe haemodynamic effects of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) in healthy volunteers: a double-blind, randomized, triple crossover trial(WILEY, 2016-04)AIM: The haemodynamic effects of intravenous paracetamol have not been systematically investigated. We compared the physiological effects of intravenous mannitol-containing paracetamol, and an equivalent dosage of mannitol, and normal saline 0.9% in healthy volunteers. METHODS: We performed a blinded, triple crossover, randomized trial of 24 adult healthy volunteers. Participants received i.v. paracetamol (1 g paracetamol +3.91 g mannitol 100 ml(-1) ), i.v. mannitol (3.91 g mannitol 100 ml(-1) ) and i.v. normal saline (100 ml). Composite primary end points were changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measured pre-infusion, during a 15 min infusion period and over a 45 min observation period. Systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and cardiac index were measured at the same time points. RESULTS: Infusion of paracetamol induced a transient yet significant decrease in blood pressures from pre-infusion values (MAP -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -2.6, -1.1, SBP -0.54 mmHg, 95% CI -1.7, 0.6 and DBP -1.92 mmHg, 95% CI -2.6, -1.2, P < 0.0001), associated with a transient reduction in SVRI and an increase in cardiac index. Changes were observed, but to a lesser extent with normal saline (MAP -0.15 mmHg, SBP +1.44 mmHg, DBP --0.73 mmHg, P < 0.0001), but not with mannitol (MAP +1.47 mmHg, SBP +4.03 mmHg, DBP +0.48 mmHg, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: I.v. paracetamol caused a transient decrease in blood pressure immediately after infusion. These effects were not seen with mannitol or normal saline. The physiological mechanism was consistent with vasodilatation. This study provides plausible physiological data in a healthy volunteer setting, supporting transient changes in haemodynamic variables with i.v. paracetamol and justifies controlled studies in the peri-operative and critical care setting.
-
ItemThe hemodynamic effects of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) vs normal saline in cardiac surgery patients: A single center placebo controlled randomized study(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2018-04-16)The hemodynamic effects of intravenous (IV) paracetamol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery are unknown. We performed a prospective single center placebo controlled randomized study with parallel group design in adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Participants received paracetamol (1 gram) IV or placebo (an equal volume of 0.9% saline) preoperatively followed by two postoperative doses 6 hours apart. The primary endpoint was the absolute change in systolic (SBP) 30 minutes after the preoperative infusion, analysed using an ANCOVA model. Secondary endpoints included absolute changes in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and diastolic blood pressure (DPB), and other key hemodynamic variables after each infusion. All other endpoints were analysed using random-effect generalized least squares regression modelling with individual patients treated as random effects. Fifty participants were randomly assigned to receive paracetamol (n = 25) or placebo (n = 25). Post preoperative infusion, paracetamol decreased SBP by a mean (SD) of 13 (18) mmHg, p = 0.02, compared to a mean (SD) of 1 (11) mmHg with saline. Paracetamol decreased MAP and DBP by a mean (SD) of 9 (12) mmHg and 8 (9) mmHg (p = 0.01 and 0.02), respectively, compared to a mean (SD) of 1 (8) mmHg and 0 (6) mmHg with placebo. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in pressure or flow based hemodynamic parameters in both groups. This study provides high quality evidence that the administration of IV paracetamol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery causes a transient decrease in preoperative blood pressure when administered before surgery but no adverse hemodynamic effects when administered in the postoperative setting.
-
ItemAssessment of agreement and interchangeability between the TEG5000 and TEG6S thromboelastography haemostasis analysers: a prospective validation study(BMC, 2019-03-30)BACKGROUND: TEG6S® and TEG5000® (Haemonetics Corp, USA) are haemostasis analysers that measure viscoelasticity properties of whole blood. Both use different mechanisms to assess similar components of the coagulation process. The aim of this study was to assess agreement and interchangeability between the TEG6S and TEG5000 analysers. METHODS: 3.5 mL whole blood was collected from 25 adult patients in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU). Analysis was performed using TEG6S and TEG5000 haemostatic platforms. Agreement between platforms was measured using Lin's concordance coefficient (Lin's CC), further validated using intraclass correlation coefficients and reduced major axis regression (RMAR). RESULTS: Sixteen (64%) patients were male; mean (range) age: 59yo (23-86). TEG6S and TEG5000 systems were broadly interchangeable. The majority of TEG variables demonstrated almost perfect or substantial agreement and minimal proportional bias (maximum amplitude demonstrated a fixed bias). LY30%, however, demonstrated poor agreement and a proportional bias. Lin's CC coefficients (95% CI, RMAR slope, intercept) between TEG6S and TEG5000 variables were: R time: 0.78 (0.64-0.92, 0.76, 0.92); K time: 0.82 (0.69-0.94, 1.30, - 0.93); alpha angle: 0.79 (0.64-0.95, 1.04, - 1.43); maximum amplitude (MA): 0.90 (0.83-0.96, 0.99, - 5.0); LY30%: 0.34 (0.1-0.58, 0.43, 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with critical illness demonstrate almost perfect agreement in the R time and MA, substantial agreement in K time and alpha angle, but poor agreement in LY30%, as measured by the TEG6S and TEG5000 analysers. With the exception of LY30%, the TEG6S and TEG5000 platforms appear interchangeable. This has important implications for use in clinical practice and multi-site research programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCRT number: 12617000062325 , registered 12/Jan17. Retrospectively registered.
-
ItemRestrictive intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm improves outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2017-09-07)We aimed to evaluate perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without a cardiac output goal directed therapy (GDT) algorithm. We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial in four high volume hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery centres. We evaluated whether the additional impact of a intraoperative fluid optimisation algorithm would influence the amount of fluid delivered, reduce fluid related complications, and improve length of hospital stay. Fifty-two consecutive adult patients were recruited. The median (IQR) duration of surgery was 8.6 hours (7.1:9.6) in the GDT group vs. 7.8 hours (6.8:9.0) in the usual care group (p = 0.2). Intraoperative fluid balance was 1005mL (475:1873) in the GDT group vs. 3300mL (2474:3874) in the usual care group (p<0.0001). Total volume of fluid administered intraoperatively was also lower in the GDT group: 2050mL (1313:2700) vs. 4088mL (3400:4525), p<0.0001 and vasoactive medications were used more frequently. There were no significant differences in proportions of patients experiencing overall complications (p = 0.179); however, fewer complications occurred in the GDT group: 44 vs. 92 (Incidence Rate Ratio: 0.41; 95%CI 0.24 to 0.69, p = 0.001). Median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 9.5 days (IQR: 7.0, 14.3) in the GDT vs. 12.5 days in the usual care group (IQR: 9.0, 22.3) for an Incidence Rate Ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.85, p = 0.002). In conclusion, using a surgery-specific, patient-specific goal directed restrictive fluid therapy algorithm in this cohort of patients, can justify using enough fluid without causing oedema, yet as little fluid as possible without causing hypovolaemia i.e. "precision" fluid therapy. Our findings support the use of a perioperative haemodynamic optimization plan that prioritizes preservation of cardiac output and organ perfusion pressure by judicious use of fluid therapy, rational use of vasoactive drugs and timely application of inotropic drugs. They also suggest the need for further larger studies to confirm its findings.
-
ItemCurrent ventilation practice during general anaesthesia: a prospective audit in Melbourne, Australia(BMC, 2014-10-01)BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the use of low tidal volume ventilation with the application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may benefit patients at risk of respiratory complications during general anaesthesia. However current Australian practice in this area is unknown. METHODS: To describe current practice of intraoperative ventilation with regard to tidal volume and application of PEEP, we performed a multicentre audit in patients undergoing general anaesthesia across eight teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: We obtained information including demographic characteristics, type of surgery, tidal volume and the use of PEEP in a consecutive cohort of 272 patients. The median age was 56 (IQR 42-69) years; 150 (55%) were male. Most common diagnostic groups were general surgery (31%), orthopaedic surgery (20%) and neurosurgery (9.6%). Mean FiO2 was 0.6 (IQR 0.5-0.7). Median tidal volume was 500 ml (IQR 450-550). PEEP was used in 54% of patients with a median value of 5.0 cmH2O (IQR 4.0-5.0) and median tidal volume corrected for predicted body weight was 9.5 ml/kg (IQR 8.5-10.4). Median peak inspiratory pressure was 18 cmH2O (IQR 15-22). In a cohort of patients considered at risk for respiratory complications, the median tidal volume was still 9.8 ml/kg (IQR 8.6-10.7) and PEEP was applied in 66% of patients with a median value of 5 cmH20 (IQR 4-5). On multivariate analyses positive predictors of tidal volume size included male sex (p < 0.01), height (p = 0.04) and weight (p < 0.001). Positive predictors of the use of PEEP included surgery in a tertiary hospital (OR = 3.11; 95% CI: 1.05 to 9.23) and expected prolonged duration of surgery (OR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.04 to 5.84). CONCLUSION: In mechanically ventilated patients under general anaesthesia, tidal volume was high and PEEP was applied to the majority of patients, but at modest levels. The findings of our study suggest that the control groups of previous randomized controlled trials do not closely reflect the practice of mechanical ventilation in Australia.