Background: The serratus plane block is an effective technique for providing analgesia to patients undergoing breast surgery. Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized study enrolled 60 female patients scheduled for unilateral mastectomy and axillary clearance. The patients received either a superficial serratus plane block or deep serratus plane block. Dermatomal spread was recorded 30 minutes after block administration. Postoperatively, pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores were documented at recovery (time 0), at 30 minutes; and in the ward hourly for 4 hours, and 4-hourly until 24 hours postoperatively. The time to first analgesic rescue and cumulative morphine consumption using patient-controlled analgesia morphine (PCAM) were recorded. Results: The results showed lower VAS scores at rest (at 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours postoperatively), and during movement (at 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 24 hours postoperatively) in the superficial serratus plane block group, P < .005. Similarly, cumulative morphine usage was lower in the superficial serratus plane group, P < .005. The time to the first rescue analgesic was also significantly longer in the superficial group, P < .001. More patients in the superficial serratus plane group achieved greater dermatomal spread at T2 and T7 than those in the deep group. Conclusions: Superficial serratus plane block provides better analgesic efficacy than deep serratus plane block in mastectomy and axillary clearance.

Background: Shivering is described as an involuntary, repetitive activity of the skeletal muscles that can have deleterious effects on anaesthetized patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of phenylephrine infusion in preventing perioperative shivering in patients undergoing lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia and to observe the change in the patient’s core temperature between the study and control groups. Methods: A total of 118 patients scheduled for elective lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were recruited for this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study. The patients were randomized into 2 groups with 59 patients per group. The phenylephrine Group received phenylephrine infusion at a rate of 0.5 mcg/kg/minutes, while the Control Group received normal saline at an equivalent rate. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, core temperature, and the presence and intensity of shivering were recorded before induction and every 15 minutes intraoperatively and postoperatively. Results: The incidence of intraoperative shivering was significantly lower in the Phenylephrine Group compared to control group (29.1% vs 47.5% respectively; P = .044). Postoperatively, the Phenylephrine Group also had a lower incidence of shivering (34.5% vs 42.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P value = 0.391). There were no significant differences in the intensity of shivering between the 2 groups perioperatively, as well as in the systolic and diastolic blood pressure and core temperature. The phenylephrine Group showed a significantly lower heart rate at 15, 30, and 45 minutes after spinal block (P value = .005, .000, and .008, respectively), and at 0 and 30 minutes (P value = .004 and .020 respectively) in the recovery room. There were no significant differences in perioperative adverse events such as hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia. Conclusion: Phenylephrine infusion reduces the incidence of perioperative shivering in lower segment cesarean sections under spinal anesthesia.

Candidemia is associated with high mortality in critically ill patients. Early diagnosis of candidemia is imperative for starting treatment. Therefore, this study was designed to externally validate the candidemia risk prediction scores. This single-center, retrospective observational study included all critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit at a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to December 2023. The risks and patient outcomes were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate regression analysis. A total of 500 patients were analyzed with 2 dropouts due to incomplete data. Candidemia incidence was 8.86%, with parenteral nutrition and candida colonization identified as independent risk factors. Compared to an established risk prediction score, this study demonstrated a sensitivity of 75.0% [59.7–86.8], a specificity of 65.4% [60.8–69.8], a negative predictive value of 96.4% [94.2–97.8], and a positive predictive value of 17.3% [14.5–20.5]. The candidemia group had a significantly higher mean SOFA score, longer time in ICU, longer hospital length of stay, and higher rates of both ICU and in-hospital mortality. This study shows that the risk prediction score is more effective as a tool for excluding rather than predicting candidemia. We recommend against using it as the sole diagnostic guide.

Background and Objective: Many previous studies assessing the completeness of perioperative documentation of surgical patients were reported to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative anesthetic record (PAR) at our tertiary care institution to a standard guideline and have an audit of its completeness. Methodology: It was a prospective, observational study, done in the general operating theater of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC). We compared our PAR to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) policy statement on documentation of anesthesia care. We audited the completeness of PAR documentation of 358 patients by using a self-generated checklist which was created in accordance to the PAR parameters. A total of 44 parameters were studied covering three phases; preoperative, peroperative and post-operative phases. Results: Although the UKMMC PAR varied from the ASA guidelines, various salient parameters were identical in both. None of the perioperative forms were completely filled throughout the three perioperative phases. Out of 44 parameters studied, only 2 parameters were completely filled, which were medications administered and fluid therapy. Conclusion: Parameters given in the UKMMC PAR varied with the ASA guidelines and the documentation was found to be only partially complete. Hence, necessary modification of the current PAR in our institution, and the stress on filling it completely is needed to improve the quality of perioperative anesthetic documentation. Keywords: Audit; Completeness; Perioperative; Anesthetic record; Documentation Citation: Bolhan HA, Yahya N, Izaham A, Mat WRW, Rahman RA, Musthafa QA. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2020;24(6):--- Received: 23 April 2020, Reviewed: 17 August 2020, Revised: 18 October 2020, Accepted: 27 October 2020

Background: Advanced haemodynamic monitoring has been recommended for use in high-risk surgeries and high-risk patients undergoing surgery. This study aims to assess the current practices of haemodynamic monitoring in high-risk surgical patients among Malaysian anaesthesiologists. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional survey among Malaysian anaesthesiologists, following approval from the institution’s Medical Research Ethics Committee and the National Medical Research Register. The survey utilised a questionnaire developed by Cannesson et al. to gather demographic data, practice information, and haemodynamic monitoring practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, and results were presented as the mean, median, or frequency as appropriate. Results: A total of 366 participants responded to the questionnaire, and 2 dropped out due to an incomplete form. This study found differences in the frequency of haemodynamic optimisation and monitoring techniques used in different healthcare settings. Written protocols or statements concerning haemodynamic management in high-risk surgical cases were only available to 15.7% of participants in the institution. The overall utilisation rate of cardiac output monitoring was found to be 31.1%, with a significant majority of the usage observed in university hospitals (p < 0.001). Central venous pressure was more commonly used in university hospitals and private hospitals compared to public hospitals (p < 0.001). The usage of advanced parameters such as stroke volume variation, cardiac index, and systemic vascular resistance was significantly higher in university hospitals, with a p value < 0.001. Transthoracic echocardiography was the most common tool used for high-risk surgical patients. The primary reasons for participants not utilising cardiac output monitoring include the lack of availability of such monitoring in their respective settings, which constitutes 66.9% of the respondents. The overwhelming majority of participants, namely 98%, expressed the belief that there is room for improvement in their present haemodynamic care. Conclusions: This study offers significant insights into the prevailing haemodynamic monitoring practices employed by Malaysian anaesthesiologists in the context of high-risk surgical patients. The findings have the potential to contribute to future educational initiatives and establish practice standards for haemodynamic monitoring in high-risk surgical procedures.