<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>BMC Anesthesiology - Most viewed articles</title>
		<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcanesthesiol/mostviewed/</link>
		<description>Most viewed articles in last 30 days from BMC Anesthesiology (ISSN 1471-2253) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
         <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/4/8"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/1"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/6"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/3"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/2"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/4"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/4"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/9"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/3/4"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/7"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/4/8">
            
            <title>Endotracheal tube cuff pressure in three hospitals, and the volume required to produce an appropriate cuff pressure</title>
			<description>Background:
Cuff pressure in endotracheal tubes should be in the range of 20-30 cm H2O. We tested the hypothesis that the tube cuff is inadequately inflated when manometers are not used. 
Methods:
With IRB approval, we studied 93 patients under general anesthesia with an ET tube in place in one teaching and two private hospitals. Anesthetists were blinded to study purpose. Cuff pressure in tube sizes 7.0 to 8.5 mm was evaluated 60 min after induction of general anesthesia using a manometer connected to the cuff pilot balloon. Nitrous oxide was disallowed. After deflating the cuff, we reinflated it in 0.5-ml increments until pressure was 20 cmH2O.
Results:
Neither patient morphometrics, institution, experience of anesthesia provider, nor tube size influenced measured cuff pressure (35.3 +/- 21.6 cmH2O). Only 27% of pressures were within 20-30 cmH2O; 27% exceeded 40 cmH2O. Although it varied considerably, the amount of air required to achieve a cuff pressure of 20 cmH2O was similar with each tube size.
Conclusion:
We recommend that ET cuff pressure be set and monitored with a manometer.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/4/8</link>		
			<dc:creator>Papiya Sengupta, Daniel I Sessler, Paul Maglinger, Spencer Wells, Alicia Vogt, Jaleel Durrani and Anupama Wadhwa</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2004, 4:8</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 512</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2004-11-29</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-4-8</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2004-11-29</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/1">
            
            <title>A new analgesic method, two-minute sciatic nerve press, for immediate pain relief: a randomized trial</title>
			<description>Background:
Current analgesics have drawbacks such as delays in acquisition, lag-times for effect, and side effects. We recently presented a preliminary report of a new analgesic method involving a two-minute sciatic nerve press, which resulted in immediate short-term relief of pain associated with dental and renal diseases. The present study investigated whether this technique was effective for pain associated with other disease types, and whether the relief was effective for up to one hour.
Methods:
This randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted in four hospitals in Anhui Province, China. Patients with pain were sequentially recruited by participating physicians during clinic visits, and 135 patients aged 15 &#8211; 80 years were enrolled. Dental disease patients included those with acute pulpitis and periapical abscesses. Renal disease patients included those with kidney infections and/or stones. Tumor patients included those with nose, breast, stomach and liver cancers, while Emergency Room patients had various pathologies. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a "sciatic nerve press" in which pressure was applied simultaneously to the sciatic nerves at the back of both thighs, or a "placebo press" in which pressure was applied to a parallel region on the front of the thighs. Each fist applied a pressure of 11 &#8211; 20 kg for 2 minutes. Patients rated their level of pain before and after the procedure.
Results:
The "sciatic nerve press" produced immediate relief of pain in all patient groups. Emergency patients reported a 43.5% reduction in pain (p &lt; 0.001). Significant pain relief for dental, renal and tumor patients lasted for 60 minutes (p &lt; 0.001). The peak pain relief occurred at the 10 &#8211; 20th minutes, and the relief decreased 47% by the 60th minutes.
Conclusion:
Two minutes of pressure on both sciatic nerves produced immediate significant short-term conduction analgesia. This technique is a convenient, safe and powerful method for the short-term treatment of clinical pain associated with a diverse range of pathologies.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ACTRN012606000439549</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/1</link>		
			<dc:creator>Jiman He, Bin Wu, Xianrong Jiang, Fenglin Zhang, Tao Zhao and Wenlon Zhang</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2008, 8:1</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 404</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-01-25</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-8-1</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-01-25</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/6">
            
            <title>Gabapentin and postoperative pain: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review, with focus on procedure</title>
			<description>Background:
Gabapentin is an antiepileptic drug used in a variety of chronic pain conditions. Increasing numbers of randomized trials indicate that gabapentin is effective as a postoperative analgesic. This procedure-specific systematic review aims to analyse the 24-hour postoperative effect of gabapentin on acute pain in adults.
Methods:
Medline, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched for double-blind randomized placebo controlled trials of gabapentin for postoperative pain relief compared with placebo, in adults undergoing a surgical procedure.Qualitative analysis of postoperative effectiveness was evaluated by assessment of significant difference (P &lt; 0.05) in pain relief using consumption of supplemental analgesic and pain scores between study groups.Quantitative analyses of combined data from similar procedures, were performed by calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) of 24-hour cumulated opioid requirements, and the WMD for visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, (early (6 h) and late (24 h) postoperatively), between study groups. Side-effects (nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sedation) were extracted for calculation of their relative risk (RR).
Results:
Twenty-three trials with 1529 patients were included. In 12 of 16 studies with data on postoperative opioid requirement, the reported 24-hour opioid consumption was significantly reduced with gabapentin. Quantitative analysis of five trials in abdominal hysterectomy showed a significant reduction in morphine consumption (WMD &#8211; 13 mg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -19 to -8 mg), and in early pain scores at rest (WMD &#8211; 11 mm on the VAS, 95% CI -12 to -2 mm) and during activity (WMD -8 mm on the VAS; 95% CI -13 to -3 mm), favouring gabapentin. In spinal surgery, (4 trials), analyses demonstrated a significant reduction in morphine consumption (WMD of &#8211; 31 mg (95%CI &#8211; 53 to -10 mg) and pain scores, early (WMD &#8211; 17 mm on the VAS; 95 % CI -31 to -3 mm) and late (WMD -12 mm on the VAS; 95% CI -23 to -1 mm) also favouring gabapentin treatment. Nausea was improved with gabapentin in abdominal hysterectomy (RR 0.7; 95 % CI 0.5 to 0.9). Other side-effects were unaffected.
Conclusion:
Perioperative use of gabapentin has a significant 24-hour opioid sparing effect and improves pain score for both abdominal hysterectomy and spinal surgery. Nausea may be reduced in abdominal hysterectomy.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/6</link>		
			<dc:creator>Ole Mathiesen, Steen M&#248;iniche and J&#248;rgen B Dahl</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2007, 7:6</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 313</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-07-07</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-7-6</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-07-07</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/3">
            
            <title>A prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of pulse power analysis to monitor cardiac output in critically ill patients</title>
			<description>Background:
Intermittent measurement of cardiac output may be performed using a lithium dilution technique (LiDCO). This can then be used to calibrate a pulse power algorithm of the arterial waveform which provides a continuous estimate of this variable. The purpose of this study was to examine the duration of accuracy of the pulse power algorithm in critically ill patients with respect to time when compared to measurements of cardiac output by an independent technique.
Methods:
Pulse power analysis was performed on critically ill patients using a proprietary commercial monitor (PulseCO). All measurements were made using an in-dwelling radial artery line and according to manufacturers instructions. Intermittent measurements of cardiac output were made with LiDCO in order to validate the pulse power measurements. These were made at baseline and then following 1, 2, 4 and 8 hours. The LiDCO measurement was considered the reference for comparison in this study. The two methods of measuring cardiac output were then compared by linear regression and a Bland Altman analysis. An error rate for the limits of agreement (LOA) between the two techniques of less than 30% was defined as being acceptable for this study.
Results:
14 critically ill medical and surgical patients were enrolled over a three month period. At baseline patients showed a wide range of cardiac output (median 7.5 L/min, IQR 5.1 -9.0 L/min). The bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques was deemed acceptable for the first four hours of the study with percentage errors being 29%, 22%, and 285 respectively. The percentage error at eight hours following calibration increased to 36%. The ability of the PulseCo to detect changes in cardiac output was assessed with a similar analysis. The PulseCO tracked the changes in cardiac output with adequate accuracy for the first four hours with percentage errors being 20%, 24% and 25%. However at eight hours the error had increased to 43%.
Conclusion:
The agreement between lithium dilution cardiac output and the pulse power algorithm in the PulseCO monitor remains acceptable for up to four hours in critically ill patients.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/3</link>		
			<dc:creator>Maurizio Cecconi, Jayne Fawcett, R Michael Grounds and Andrew Rhodes</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2008, 8:3</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 304</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-02-18</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-8-3</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-02-18</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/2">
            
            <title>Can modern infrared analyzers replace gas chromatography to measure anesthetic vapor concentrations?</title>
			<description>Background:
Gas chromatography (GC) has often been considered the most accurate method to measure the concentration of inhaled anesthetic vapors. However, infrared (IR) gas analysis has become the clinically preferred monitoring technique because it provides continuous data, is less expensive and more practical, and is readily available. We examined the accuracy of a modern IR analyzer (M-CAiOV compact gas IR analyzer (General Electric, Helsinki, Finland) by comparing its performance with GC.
Methods:
To examine linearity, we analyzed 3 different concentrations of 3 different agents in O2: 0.3, 0.7, and 1.2% isoflurane; 0.5, 1, and 2% sevoflurane; and 1, 3, and 6% desflurane. To examine the effect of carrier gas composition, we prepared mixtures of 1% isoflurane, 1 or 2% sevoflurane, or 6% desflurane in 100% O2 (= O2 group); 30%O2+ 70%N2O (= N2O group), 28%O2 + 66%N2O + 5%CO2 (= CO2 group), or air. To examine consistency between analyzers, four different M-CAiOV analyzers were tested.
Results:
The IR analyzer response in O2 is linear over the concentration range studied: IR isoflurane % = -0.0256 + (1.006 * GC %), R = 0.998; IR sevoflurane % = -0.008 + (0.946 * GC %), R = 0.993; and IR desflurane % = 0.256 + (0.919 * GC %), R = 0.998. The deviation from GC calculated as (100*(IR-GC)/GC), in %) ranged from -11 to 11% for the medium and higher concentrations, and from -20 to +20% for the lowest concentrations. No carrier gas effect could be detected. Individual modules differed in their accuracy (p = 0.004), with differences between analyzers mounting up to 12% of the medium and highest concentrations and up to 25% of the lowest agent concentrations.
Conclusion:
M-CAiOV compact gas IR analyzers are well compensated for carrier gas cross-sensitivity and are linear over the range of concentrations studied. IR and GC cannot be used interchangeably, because the deviations between GC and IR mount up to &#177; 20%, and because individual analyzers differ unpredictably in their performance.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/2</link>		
			<dc:creator>Jan FA Hendrickx, Hendrikus JM Lemmens, Rik Carette, Andre M De Wolf and Lawrence J Saidman</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2008, 8:2</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 270</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-02-08</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-8-2</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-02-08</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/4">
            
            <title>Desflurane consumption during automated closed-circuit delivery is higher than when a conventional anesthesia machine is used with a simple vaporizer-O2-N2O fresh gas flow sequence.</title>
			<description>Background:
The Zeus(Drager, Lubeck, Germany), an automated closed-circuit anesthesia machine, uses high fresh gas flows (FGF) to wash-in the circuit and the lungs, and intermittently flushes the system to remove unwanted N2. We hypothesized this could increase desflurane consumption to such an extent that agent consumption might become higher than with a conventional anesthesia machine (Anesthesia Delivery Unit [ADU], GE, Helsinki, Finland) used with a previously derived desflurane-O2-N2O administration schedule that allows early FGF reduction.
Methods:
Thirty-four ASA PS I or II patients undergoing plastic, urologic, or gynecologic surgery received desflurane in O2/N2O. In the ADU group (n=24), an initial 3 min high FGF of O2 and N2O (2 and 4 L.min-1, respectively) was used, followed by 0.3 L.min-1 O2 + 0.4 L.min-1 N2O. The desflurane vaporizer setting (FD) was 6.5% for the first 15 min, and 5.5 % during the next 25 min. In the Zeus group (n=10), the Zeus was used in automated closed circuit anesthesia mode with a selected end-expired (FA) desflurane target of 4.6%, and O2/N2O as the carrier gases with a target inspired O2 % of 30%. Desflurane FA and consumption during the first 40 min were compared using repeated measures one-way ANOVA.
Results:
Age and weight did not differ between the groups (P > 0.05), but patients in the Zeus group were taller (P = 0.04). In the Zeus group, the desflurane FA was lower during the first 3 min (P &lt; 0.05), identical at 4 min (P > 0.05), and slightly higher after 4 min (P &lt; 0.05). Desflurane consumption was higher in the Zeus group at all times, a difference that persisted after correcting for the small difference in FA between the two groups.
Conclusions:
Agent consumption with an automated closed-circuit anesthesia machine is higher than with a conventional anesthesia machine when the latter is used with a specific vaporizer- FGF sequence. Agent consumption during automated delivery might be further reduced by optimizing the algorithm(s) that manages the initial FGF or by tolerating some N2 in the circuit to minimize the need for intermittent flushing.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/8/4</link>		
			<dc:creator>Sofie De Cooman, Nathalie De Mey, Bram BC Dewulf, Rik Carette, Thierry Deloof, Maurice Sosnowski, Andre M De Wolf and Jan FA Hendrickx</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2008, 8:4</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 225</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-07-17</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-8-4</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-17</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/4">
            
            <title>Immediate and short-term pain relief by acute sciatic nerve press: a randomized controlled trial</title>
			<description>Background:
Despite much research, an immediately available, instantly effective and harmless pain relief technique has not been discovered. This study describes a new manipulation: a "2-minute sciatic nerve press", for rapid short-term relief of pain brought on by various dental and renal diseases.
Methods:
This randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial ran in three hospitals in Anhui Province, China, with an enrollment of 66 out of 111 solicited patients aged 16 to 74 years. Patients were recruited sequentially, by specific participating physicians at their clinic visits to three independent hospitals. The diseases in enrolled dental patients included dental caries, periodontal diseases and dental trauma. Renal diseases in recruits included kidney infections, stones and some other conditions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive the "2-minute sciatic nerve press" or the "placebo press". For the "2-minute sciatic nerve press", pressure was applied simultaneously to the sciatic nerves at the back of the thighs, using the fists while patients lay prone. For the "placebo press", pressure was applied simultaneously to a parallel spot on the front of the thighs, using the fists while patients lay supine. Each fist applied a pressure of 11 to 20 kg for 2 minutes, after which, patients arose to rate pain.
Results:
The "2-minute sciatic nerve press" produced greater pain relief than the "placebo press". Within the first 10 minutes after sciatic pressure, immediate pain relief ratings averaged 66.4% (p &lt; 0.001) for the dental patients, versus pain relief of 20% for the placebo press, and, 52.2% (p &lt; 0.01) for the renal patients, versus relief of 14% for the placebo press, in median. The method worked excellently for dental caries and periodontal diseases, but poorly for dental trauma. Forty percent of renal patients with renal colic did not report any pain relief after the treatment.
Conclusion:
Two minutes of pressure on both sciatic nerves can produce immediate significant conduction analgesia, providing a convenient, safe and powerful way to overcome clinical pain brought on by dental diseases and renal diseases for short term purposes.Trial registrationACTR 12606000439549</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/4</link>		
			<dc:creator>Jiman He, Bin Wu, Wenlong Zhang and Guangping Ten</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2007, 7:4</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 215</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-05-16</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-7-4</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-05-16</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/9">
            
            <title>Evaluation of a new arterial pressure-based cardiac output device requiring no external calibration</title>
			<description>Background:
Several techniques have been discussed as alternatives to the intermittent bolus thermodilution cardiac output (COPAC) measurement by the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). However, these techniques usually require a central venous line, an additional catheter, or a special calibration procedure. A new arterial pressure-based cardiac output (COAP) device (FloTrac&#8482;, Vigileo&#8482;; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) only requires access to the radial or femoral artery using a standard arterial catheter and does not need an external calibration. We validated this technique in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) using COPAC as the method of reference.
Methods:
We studied 20 critically ill patients, aged 16 to 74 years (mean, 55.5 &#177; 18.8 years), who required both arterial and pulmonary artery pressure monitoring. COPAC measurements were performed at least every 4 hours and calculated as the average of 3 measurements, while COAP values were taken immediately at the end of bolus determinations. Accuracy of measurements was assessed by calculating the bias and limits of agreement using the method described by Bland and Altman.
Results:
A total of 164 coupled measurements were obtained. Absolute values of COPAC ranged from 2.80 to 10.80 l/min (mean 5.93 &#177; 1.55 l/min). The bias and limits of agreement between COPAC and COAP for unequal numbers of replicates was 0.02 &#177; 2.92 l/min. The percentage error between COPAC and COAP was 49.3%. The bias between percentage changes in COPAC (&#916;COPAC) and percentage changes in COAP (&#916;COAP) for consecutive measurements was -0.70% &#177; 32.28%. COPAC and COAP showed a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.58 (p &lt; 0.01), while the correlation coefficient between &#916;COPAC and &#916;COAP was 0.46 (p &lt; 0.01).
Conclusion:
Although the COAP algorithm shows a minimal bias with COPAC over a wide range of values in an inhomogeneous group of critically ill patients, the scattering of the data remains relative wide. Therefore, the used algorithm (V 1.03) failed to demonstrate an acceptable accuracy in comparison to the clinical standard of cardiac output determination.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/9</link>		
			<dc:creator>Christopher Prasser, Sylvia Bele, Cornelius Keyl, Stefan Schweiger, Benedikt Trabold, Matthias Amann, Julia Welnhofer and Christoph Wiesenack</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2007, 7:9</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 200</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-11-09</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-7-9</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>9</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-11-09</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/3/4">
            
            <title>Single-dose oral naproxen for acute postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review</title>
			<description>Background:
Naproxen and naproxen sodium are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in a variety of painful conditions, including the treatment of postoperative pain. This review aims to assess the efficacy, safety and duration of action of a single oral dose of naproxen/naproxen sodium for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain in adults, compared with placebo.
Methods:
The Cochrane Library (issue 4 2002), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE and an in-house database were searched for randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trials of a single dose of orally administered naproxen or naproxen sodium in adults with acute postoperative pain. Pain relief or pain intensity data were extracted and converted into dichotomous information to give the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat were then calculated. The percentage of patients with any adverse event, number-needed-to-harm, and time to remedication were also calculated.
Results:
Ten trials with 996 patients in met the inclusion criteria. Six trials compared naproxen sodium 550 mg (252 patients) with placebo (248 patients); the NNT for at least 50% pain relief over six hours was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 3.2). There was no significant difference between the number of patients experiencing any adverse event on treatment compared with placebo. Weighted mean time to remedication was 7.6 hours for naproxen sodium 550 mg (206 patients) and 2.6 hours for placebo (205 patients). Four other trials used lower doses.
Conclusion:
A single oral dose of naproxen sodium 550 mg is an effective analgesic in the treatment of acute postoperative pain. A low incidence of adverse events was found, although these were not reported consistently.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/3/4</link>		
			<dc:creator>Lorna Mason, Jayne E Edwards, R Andrew Moore and Henry J McQuay</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2003, 3:4</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 191</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2003-09-10</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-3-4</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2003-09-10</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/7">
            
            <title>Increased permeability-oedema and atelectasis in pulmonary dysfunction after trauma and surgery: a prospective cohort study</title>
			<description>Background:
Trauma and surgery may be complicated by pulmonary dysfunction, acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the mechanisms are incompletely understood.
Methods:
We evaluated lung capillary protein permeability non-invasively with help of the 67Ga-transferrin pulmonary leak index (PLI) technique and extravascular lung water (EVLW) by the transpulmonary thermal-dye dilution technique in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit within 24 h of direct, blunt thoracic trauma (n = 5, 2 with ARDS), and within 12 h of indirect trauma by transhiatal oesophagectomy (n = 8), abdominal surgery for cancer (n = 6) and bone surgery (n = 4). We studied transfusion history, haemodynamics, oxygenation and mechanics of the lungs. The lung injury score (LIS, 0&#8211;4) was calculated. Plain radiography was also done to judge densities and atelectasis.
Results:
The PLI and EVLW were elevated above normal in 61 and 30% of patients, respectively, and the PLI directly related to the number of red cell concentrates given (rs = 0.69, P &lt; 0.001), without group differences. Oxygenation, lung mechanics, radiographic densities and thus the LIS (1.0 [0.25&#8211;3.5]) did not relate to PLI and EVLW. However, groups differed in oxygenation and airway pressures and impaired oxygenation related to the number of radiographic quadrants with densities (rs = 0.55, P = 0.007). Thoracic trauma patients had a worse oxygenation requiring higher airway pressures and thus higher LIS than the other patient groups, unrelated to PLI and EVLW but attributable to a higher cardiac output and thereby venous admixture. Finally, patients with radiographic signs of atelectasis had more impaired oxygenation and more densities than those without.
Conclusion:
The oxygenation defect and radiographic densities in mechanically ventilated patients with pulmonary dysfunction and ALI/ARDS after trauma and surgery are likely caused by atelectasis rather than by increased permeability-oedema related to red cell transfusion.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2253/7/7</link>		
			<dc:creator>AB Johan Groeneveld</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Anesthesiology 2007, 7:7</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 174</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-07-09</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1471-2253-7-7</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Anesthesiology</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1471-2253</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-07-09</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
	<cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
