Biomedical subjects

S A Syverud

Publications and source records attributed to S A Syverud.

40 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Threshold, enzymatic, and pathologic changes associated with prolonged transcutaneous pacing in a chronic heart block model.

Previous studies have shown that 30 minutes of transcutaneous cardiac pacing (TCP) can induce mild, clinically insignificant myocardial damage. Longer use of TCP may cause more severe cardiac damage which might result in an increase in the capture threshold for subsequent transvenous cardiac pacing (TVP). To assess this possibility, we examined changes induced by TCP in a canine chronic heart block model. Heart block was induced in conditioned dogs (n = 8) by His bundle ablation. Seven to 10 days after induction of heart block, six animals were paced. Cardiac enzymes were drawn before pacing and at 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours after pacing. Although there was a significant rise in CK at 4 and 24 hours (P less than 0.05), there was no detectable rise in the MB fraction in any of the paced animals. There was no elevation of LDH after pacing, although three animals did develop an LDH1/LDH2 isoenzyme flip indicative of myocardial damage. Animals were sacrificed 72 hours after pacing and their hearts were examined for gross and microscopic changes. The hearts of the paced animals revealed subendocardial, subepicardial, and perivascular areas of basophilic degeneration involving less than 1% of the myocardium in four of six animals. No evidence of such damage was seen in two heart-blocked control animals not undergoing pacing. TVP and TCP capture thresholds assessed before and after a 60-minute TCP pacing period showed no significant change. Hence, use of TCP for a 60-minute period prior to TVP appears to be a safe emergency pacing technique.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Technical considerations in the selection of a personal emergency response system.

It is the purpose of this report to provide an internal review of the personal response system (PRS) in our hospital. Our system is coordinated by volunteers without emergency physician supervision. It uses antiquated equipment in the client's homes and emergency response center. Calls are answered by individuals who have not been trained as dispatchers, and who do not record pertinent performance data. The technical considerations involved in the selection and operation of an ideal PRS system are described.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A comparative study of the percutaneous versus intraoral technique for mental nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: Mental nerve block is frequently used to aid repair of facial lacerations; both percutaneous and intraoral approaches to blocking this nerve are used, but have never been compared. The authors compared the two techniques for pain of administration and effectiveness of anesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study was conducted using ten healthy volunteers aged 22 to 33 years. Patients having prior experience with mental nerve blocks, lidocaine allergy, active oral/facial infection, or previous facial fractures were excluded. Bilateral mental nerve blocks were done using intraoral technique on one side and percutaneous technique on the other. Both techniques were used by the same investigator and were carried out with 27-gauge needles and 2.5 mL of 2% buffered lidocaine at room temperature injected over 20 seconds. The oral mucosa was topically anesthetized with viscous lidocaine for 1 minute prior to intraoral injection. The orders of the blocks and sides of the face anesthetized were randomized. Subjective and objective pain (visual-analog scale), efficacy (anesthesia of lower lip), time to onset, and duration of anesthesia were evaluated. RESULTS: The intraoral technique was subjectively less painful than the percutaneous approach in nine of ten subjects (p = 0.02). Scores on the visual-analog pain scale were significantly lower for the intraoral technique (p = 0.03). Intraoral injection produced lower-lip anesthesia in 10/10 subjects versus 7/10 for percutaneous (p = 0.25). Times to onset (approximately 1-2 minutes) and durations of anesthesia (approximately one hour) were similar for the two techniques. CONCLUSION: The intraoral approach to the mental nerve block with adjunctive topical anesthesia was subjectively and objectively less painful than the percutaneous approach without adjunctive anesthesia. While the intraoral approach had a greater efficacy of lower-lip anesthesia and a longer duration of action, these differences were not statistically significant.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of intraoral and percutaneous approaches for infraorbital nerve block.

OBJECTIVE: The infraorbital nerve block is frequently used during repair of facial lacerations; both percutaneous and intraoral approaches are used. The authors compared the two techniques for pain of administration and anesthetic effectiveness. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study was conducted using 12 healthy volunteers, aged 25-41 years. No patient had prior experience with infraorbital nerve anesthesia, lidocaine allergy, active oral/facial infection, or previous facial fractures. Bilateral infraorbital nerve blocks were done using the intraoral technique on one side and the percutaneous technique on the other. Both techniques were used by the same investigator and were carried out with 27-gauge needles and 2.5 mL of 2% buffered lidocaine at room temperature injected over 20 seconds. The oral mucosa was topically anesthetized with viscous lidocaine for 1 minute prior to intraoral injection. The orders of the blocks and sides of the face anesthetized were randomized. Pain of injection, anesthetic efficacy (anesthesia of upper lip), time to anesthetic onset, and duration of anesthesia were evaluated. RESULTS: By visual-analog pain scale scores, there was less pain by the intraoral approach, although this difference did not achieve significance (p = 0.08). Overall, nine of the 12 subjects considered the intraoral technique less painful than the percutaneous approach (p = 0.14). The intraoral approach produced upper-lip anesthesia in 12 of 12 subjects, versus nine of 12 for the percutaneous technique (p = 0.25). The duration of anesthesia was longer with the intraoral approach (1.6 +/- 0.8 hours versus 0.9 +/- 0.4 hours) than with the percutaneous approach (p = 0.04). The two techniques were similar in times to anesthetic onset. CONCLUSION: The intraoral approach to the infraorbital nerve block after adjunctive topical anesthesia appeared at least as effective in producing upper-lip anesthesia as the percutaneous approach without adjunctive topical anesthesia. Although the volunteers subjectively preferred the intraoral approach and visual-analog pain scores were lower for this approach, these differences did not achieve statistical significance. The intraoral approach was associated with a longer duration of upper-lip anesthesia.

Adult↗