Search

Objective: To evaluate the effect of supplementary oxygen on heart rate and arterial oxygen saturation during colonoscopy. Design: Controlled study. Setting: Two university hospitals, Denmark. Subjects: 40 patients having colonoscopy. Interventions: 20 patients were given supplementary oxygen through nasal prongs (2 L/min), and 20 patients breathed room air during colonoscopy. All patients were given conscious sedation and were monitored with a pulse oximeter during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Tachycardia (pulse rate >100 min[sup -1]) and arterial oxygen desaturation (SpO[sub 2] < 90%) during colonoscopy. Results: There were no differences in the incidence of tachycardia or mean heart rate during endoscopy between the two groups, and no patient developed symptomatic cardiac arrhythmias or hypotensive episodes. 10 patients in the room air compared with none in the oxygen treatment group (p = 0.0004) had one or more episodes during which arterial oxygen saturation fell below 90% during colonoscopy, and mean oxygen saturation was higher in the oxygen treatment group than in the room air group (p < 0.001). No clinical complications occurred in either group. Conclusion: Hypoxaemia and tachycardia are common during routine colonoscopy. The use of supplemental oxygen prevented hypoxaemia, but had no significant effect on heart rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the effect of occlusive (Comfeel) and conventional (Mepore) dressings on the healing of incisional wounds after abdominal operations. Design: Prospective randomised study. Setting: Laboratory and teaching hospital, Denmark. Subjects: 73 patients who underwent clean operations requiring incisions longer than 5 cm between August 1993 and August 1995 were randomised to have their wounds dressed with either Comfeel or Mepore. Interventions: Comfeel was left on until the sutures were removed, and Mepore was removed 2 days postoperatively. Main outcome measures: Infection, adherence, leakage, and cosmetic appearance three months later. Results: 36 patients were randomised to have Comfeel and 37 to have Mepore. 29 patients were withdrawn from the study (20 having Mepore and 9 having Comfeel) leaving 26, and 17 for analysis, respectively. Wound infections developed in 1 patient in the Comfeel group and 5 in the Mepores group (p = 0.2). There were no differences between the groups regarding the need for dressings to be changed, the incidence of leakage, or loosening of the dressing from the skin. Comfeel adhered securely to the skin and remained more or less transparent until sutures were removed. It remained totally transparent in 23 (64%), and no dressing became totally opaque. There were no differences in cosmetic appearance after three months. We had the impression that patients who had Comfeel were more comfortable and found it easier to mobilise and carry out their daily activities. Conclusion: Occlusive dressings stay in place and stay transparent, and do not increase the risk of wound infection. They may even be more comfortable. they are a reasonable alternative to conventional dressings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]