Low dose subcutaneous adrenaline to prevent acute adverse reactions to antivenom serum in people bitten by snakes: randomised, placebo controlled trial. Sequential randomised and double blind trial of promethazine prophylaxis against early anaphylactic reactions to antivenom for bothrops snake bites. Implementation of an evidence-based guideline to reduce duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Antiemetic prophylaxis for office-based surgery: are the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists beneficial? Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers. Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection: a trial of preoperative latamoxef against peroperative tetracycline lavage. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A comparison between single and double dose intravenous Timentin for the prophylaxis of wound infection in elective colorectal surgery. Enhancing antiepileptic drug adherence: a randomized controlled trial.
To assess the efficacy and safety of low dose adrenaline injected subcutaneously to prevent acute adverse reactions to polyspecific antivenom serum in patients admitted to hospital after snake bite.
                Prospective, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.
                District general hospital in Sri Lanka.
                105 patients with signs of envenomation after snake bite, randomised to receive either adrenaline (cases) or placebo (controls) immediately before infusion of antivenom serum.
                Adrenaline 0.25 ml (1:1000).
                Development of acute adverse reactions to serum and side effects attributable to adrenaline.
                56 patients (cases) received adrenaline and 49 (controls) received placebo as pretreatment. Six (11%) adrenaline patients and 21 (43%) control patients developed acute adverse reactions to antivenom serum (P=0.0002). Significant reductions in acute adverse reactions to serum were also seen in the adrenaline patients for each category of mild, moderate, and severe reactions. There were no significant adverse effects attributable to adrenaline.
                Use of 0.25 ml of 1:1000 adrenaline given subcutaneously immediately before administration of antivenom serum to patients with envenomation after snake bite reduces the incidence of acute adverse reactions to serum. To investigate the efficacy of the H1 antihistamine promethazine against early anaphylactic reactions to antivenom.
                Sequential randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.
                Public hospital in a venom research institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
                101 patients requiring antivenom treatment after being bitten by bothrops snakes.
                Intramuscular injection of promethazine (25 mg for adults and 0.5/kg for children) or placebo given 15-20 min before starting intravenous infusion of antivenom.
                Incidence and severity of anaphylactic reactions occurring within 24 hours after antivenom.
                Reactions occurred in 12 of 49 patients treated with promethazine (24%) and in 13 of 52 given placebo (25%); most were mild or moderate. Continuous sequential analysis indicated that the study could be interrupted at the 22nd untied pair, without preference for promethazine or placebo.
                Prophylaxis with promethazine does not prevent early reactions. Patients should be observed carefully during antivenom infusion and the subsequent few hours. Patients with pneumonia often remain hospitalized after they are stable clinically, and the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is a rate-limiting step for discharge. The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of an evidence-based guideline would reduce the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay for patients hospitalized with pneumonia.
                In a seven-site, cluster randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 325 control and 283 intervention patients who were admitted by one of 116 physician groups. Within site, physician groups were assigned randomly to receive a practice guideline alone (control arm) or a practice guideline that was implemented using a multifaceted strategy (intervention arm). The effectiveness of guideline implementation was measured by the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and length of stay; differences in the rates of discontinuation and hospital discharge were assessed with proportional hazards models. Medical outcomes were assessed at 30 days.
                Intravenous antibiotic therapy was discontinued somewhat more quickly in the intervention group (hazard ratio [HR] =1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.52; P = 0.06) than in the control group. Intervention patients were discharged more quickly, but the difference was not statistically significant (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.11). Fewer intervention (55% [157/283]) than control (63% [206/325]) patients had medical complications during the index hospitalization (P = 0.04), with no differences in other medical outcomes, including mortality, rehospitalization, and return to usual activities, between treatment arms.
                The multifaceted guideline implementation strategy resulted in a slight reduction in the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy and a nonsignificant reduction in length of stay, without affecting patient outcomes. Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting.
                Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed.
                The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively.
                The addition of dolasetron (12.5 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) failed to improve the antiemetic efficacy of droperidol (0.625 mg intravenous) and dexamethasone (4 mg intravenous) when they were used for routine prophylaxis in the office-based surgery setting. To compare endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe for the treatment of actively bleeding peptic ulcers.
                Randomised prospective study of patients admitted with actively bleeding peptic ulcers.
                One university hospital.
                276 patients with actively bleeding ulcers detected by endoscopy within 24 hours of admission: 136 patients were randomised to endoscopic adrenaline injection alone and 140 to adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment.
                Initial endoscopic haemostasis; clinical rebleeding; requirement for operation; requirement for blood transfusion; hospital stay, ulcer healing at four weeks; and mortality in hospital.
                Initial haemostasis was achieved in 131/134 patients (98%) who received adrenaline injection alone and 135/136 patients (99%) who received additional heat probe treatment (P = 0.33). Outcome as measured by clinical rebleeding (12 v 5), requirement for emergency operation (14 v 8), blood transfusion (2 v 3 units), hospital stay (4 v 4 days), ulcer healing at four weeks (79.1% v 74%), and in hospital mortality (7 v 8) were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of patients with spurting haemorrhage 8/27 (29.6%; 14.5% to 50.3%) patients from the adrenaline injection alone group and 2/31 (6.5%; 1.1% to 22.9%) patients from the dual treatment group required operative intervention. The relative risk of this was lower in the dual treatment group (0.17; 0.03 to 0.87). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the dual treatment group than the adrenaline injection alone group (4 v 6 days, P = 0.01).
                The addition of heat probe treatment after endoscopic adrenaline injection confers an advantage in ulcers with spurting haemorrhage. A randomized controlled clinical trial was undertaken in 542 consecutive emergency and elective abdominal operations, with one group of patients receiving tetracycline peritoneal and wound lavage and the other a single intravenous injection of 1 g latamoxef at induction of anaesthesia. Seventy-five patients were withdrawn because no potentially contaminated hollow viscus was opened, and a further 36 because they could not be assessed for wound infection. Of the remaining 431 patients, 212 received latamoxef resulting in 5 major and 8 minor wound infections in hospital; another 4 minor infections occurred at home (total incidence 8.0%). In the tetracycline group (n = 219) there were 7 major and 19 minor wound infections in hospital and 10 minor infections later (total incidence 16.4%). This is significantly higher than the rate with latamoxef (P = 0.012). Monitoring of operative and postoperative bleeding revealed no evidence (except in one doubtful case) of excessive bleeding associated with the use of a single dose of latamoxef. It is concluded that single-dose preoperative latamoxef is more effective than peroperative tetracycline lavage for the prevention of wound infections after potentially contaminated abdominal operations. Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown.
                We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly.
                Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk.
                Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society A prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled clinical trial was undertaken to determine whether two doses of systemic Timentin provided superior prophylaxis against postoperative sepsis in elective colorectal surgery compared with a single dose of the same antibiotic. Timentin, a combination of ticarcillin and clavulanic acid was administered intravenously (3.1 g) at the commencement of operation to all patients, and this was repeated after 2 hours in those patients randomized to receive a second dose. The wound infection rate was 11 percent in the 143 patients completing follow-up and receiving a single dose, and 13 percent in the 128 patients receiving two doses of Timentin (P greater than 0.05). The rates of postoperative septicemia 3 vs. 4 percent and intra-abdominal abscess 5 vs. 8 percent were similar. Multivariate analysis of the factors likely to affect postoperative would infection rate demonstrated an association with the type of hospital, public or private, wound infection rate 16 and 6 percent, respectively (P less than 0.01), and the surgeon group defined by the number of patients contributed greater than 25 or less than 25, wound infection rate 6 and 18 percent, respectively (P less than 0.05). We concluded that a single dose of intravenous Timentin was as effective as two doses for prophylaxis against surgical infection and that the surgeon group and the hospital in which the operation took place were statistically significant predictors of postoperative wound infection. Suboptimal adherence to antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment is commonplace, and increases the risk of status epilepticus and sudden unexplained death in epilepsy. This randomized controlled trial was designed to demonstrate whether an implementation intention intervention involving the completion of a simple self-administered questionnaire linking the intention of taking medication with a particular time, place, and other activity can improve AED treatment schedule adherence. Of the 81 patients with epilepsy who were randomized, 69 completed a 1-month monitoring period with an objective measure of tablet taking (electronic registration of pill bottle openings, Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]). Intervention participants showed improved adherence relative to controls on all three outcomes: doses taken in total (93.4% vs. 79.1%), days on which correct dose was taken (88.7% vs. 65.3%), and doses taken on schedule (78.8% vs. 55.3%) (P<0.01). The implementation intention intervention may be an easy-to-administer and effective means of promoting AED adherence.
Routine prophylactic adrenaline for polyvalent antivenom known to have high adverse event rates seems sensible, based on this one trial. If clinicians believe local factors do not justify routine adrenaline, then they should test their belief in a randomized trial. Antihistamine appears to be of no obvious benefit in preventing acute reactions from antivenoms.