• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 07.12.23

Search results

October 2020
Robert Yanko DMD, Valeri Klitinich DMD, Yaron Haviv DMD PhD, David Gozal MD, Doron J. Aframian DMD PhD and Andra Ratman DMD

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the pathogen that causes coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), is thought to be transmitted via droplets and aerosols, and was detected in saliva of infected individuals. These droplets from the upper airway may infect the inhalation sedation mask and tubing. The authors determined the adequate measures needed to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 by nitrous-oxide (N2O) system during inhalation sedation in dentistry and provided evidence on mask and tubing sterilization. Additional measures to protect patients and healthcare workers from COVID-19 that may be transmitted by the inhalation sedation system are discussed. The authors recommend minimal use of a N2O system during inhalation sedation in dentistry. In case of need, the practitioners should have more than one scavenger kit and nasal masks for each N2O/O2 mixer. Biologic barriers should be mounted between the scavenger's tubing and the central evacuation system. Strict cleansing and sterilization should be performed for all parts of the N2O system. The use a disposable scavenger system and nasal mask should be considered as a viable option


December 2018
Ori Samuel Duek MD BSBME, Yeela Ben Naftali MD, Yaron Bar-Lavie MD, Hany Bahouth MD and Yehuda Ullmann MD

Background: Pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in burn patients with inhalation injuries. An increased risk of pneumonia has been demonstrated in trauma and burn patients urgently intubated in the field vs. emergency departments (EDs).

Objectives: To compare intubation setting (field vs. ED) and subsequent development of pneumonia in burn patients and to evaluate the indication for urgent intubation outside the hospital setting.

Methods: A retrospective medical records review was conducted on all intubated patients presenting with thermal (study group, 118 patients) or trauma (control group A, 74 patients) injuries and admitted to the intensive care unit of a level I trauma and burn center at a single institution during a 15 year period. Control group B (50 patients) included non-intubated facial burn patients hospitalized in the plastic surgery department.

Results: Field intubation was less frequent (37% field vs. 63% ED), although it was more frequent in larger burns (total body surface area > 50%; 43% field vs. 27% ED). More field intubated patients developed pneumonia during hospitalization (65% field vs. 36% ED [burns]; 81% field vs. 45% ED [multi-trauma]; 2% non-intubated, P < 0.05), with a significantly higher all-cause mortality (49% field vs. 24% ED, P < 0.05) and dramatically lower rates of extubation within 3 days (7% field vs. 27% ED, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Field intubation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent development of pneumonia in burn and multi-trauma patients and should be applied with caution, only when airway patency is at immediate risk.

January 2011
E. Bar-Yishay, A. Avital, C. Springer and I. Amirav

Background: In infants, small volume nebulizers with a face mask are commonly used to facilitate aerosol therapy. However, infants may be disturbed by mask application, causing poor mask-to-face seal and thus reducing the dose delivered.

Objectives: To compare lung function response to bronchodilator nebulization via two delivery devices: hood versus mask.

Methods: We studied 26 recurrently wheezy infants aged 45.8 weeks (95% confidence interval 39.6–52.0). Inhalations of 0.30 mg/kg salbutamol were administered in two alliqots 30 minutes apart using mask and hood in alternating order (M+H or H+M). Response to inhalations was measured by maximal expiratory flows at functional residual capacity at 5 minute intervals after each dose, and area under the VmaxFRC[1] curve was documented.

Results: A small but significant response to salbutamol was observed following the second inhalation with VmaxFRC, improving by 31.7% (7.2–56.2, P < 0.02) and AUC[2] by 425 %min (-154, 1004; P < 0.02). The improvement following salbutamol was similar by both delivery modalities but with a small but significantly better response when H was used after M (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Nebulized salbutamol induced a variable but positive response in wheezy infants. Salbutamol via hood was as effective as conventional face mask delivery. Since it is simple and patient-friendly, it could replace the face mask method particularly with uncooperative infants.

[1] Vmax FRC = maximal expiratory flow at functional residual capacity

[2] AUC = area under the VmaxFRC curve

July 2008
I. Makarovsky, G. Markel, T. Dushnitsky and A. Eisenkraft
March 2006
G. Tal, K. Cesar, A. Oron, S. Houri, A. Ballin and A. Mandelberg

Background: We recently published preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of hypertonic saline in infants with viral bronchiolitis.

Objective: To further establish the efficacy of nebulized hypertonic saline in these infants

Methods: In a continuing, second-year randomized, double-blind controlled trial, an additional 41 infants (age 2.6 ± 1 months) hospitalized with viral bronchiolitis were recruited during the winter of 2001–2002. The infants received inhalation of 1.5 mg epinephrine dissolved either in 4 ml normal (0.9%) saline (Group I, n=20) or 4 ml hypertonic (3%) saline (Group II, n=22). The therapy was repeated three times daily until discharge. Pooling our 2 years of experience (2000–2002), a total of 93 hospitalized infants with viral bronchiolitis were recruited; 45 were assigned to Group I and 48 to Group II.

Results: The clinical scores at baseline were 7.6 ± 0.7 for Group I vs. 7.4 ± 1.3 for Group II (P = NS). However, the clinical scores at days 1 and 2 after inhalation differed significantly between the two groups, invariably favoring Group II: 7 ± 1 vs. 6.25 ± 1.1 (P < 0.05), 6.45 ± 1 vs. 5.35 ± 1.35 (P < 0.05), respectively. Adding aerosolized 3% saline to 1.5 mg epinephrine reduced the hospitalization stay from 3.5 ± 1.7 days in Group I to 2.6 ± 1.4 in Group II (P < 0.05). The pooled data of both years revealed that adding 3% saline to the inhalation mixture decreased hospitalization stay from 3.6 ± 1.6 to 2.8 ± 1.3 days (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: This second-year experience and our 2 year pooled data analysis strengthen the evidence that the combination of 3% saline/1.5 mg epinephrine benefits hospitalized infants with viral bronchiolitis

January 2003
D. Kohelet

Background: High frequency oscillatory ventilation has proved valuable in recruiting and sustaining lung volume; the combined treatment may augment nitric oxide delivery to target vessels. NO[1] therapy lowers pulmonary resistance and improves oxygenation.

Objective: To retrospectively review data on changes in oxygenation – indicated by arterial/alveolar PO2 ratio, oxygenation index, and outcome – in a cohort of 10 infants with hypoxemic respiratory failure in whom nitric oxide inhalation was instituted in a compassionate-use protocol after deteriorated oxygenation.

Methods: NO inhalation was administered at a range of 0.12–122 days of life using the SensorMedics system in 10 infants who developed hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with a variety of lung diseases while on HFOV[2].

Results: The infants' birthweight was 1,717 ± 1,167 g and their gestational age 31.1 ± 6.5 weeks. Mean exposure to NO inhalation was 14.2 days and ranged from 3–59 days. Oxygenation index decreased from 39.3 ± 13.2 to 12.7 ± 6.9 (P < 0.0002) after NO therapy. Despite an initial prompt response to NO inhalation, two patients died of progressive intractable respiratory failure and one term infant died of extrapulmonary complications (hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy grade III and multiorgan failure).

Conclusion: Our results indicate that the combined treatment of HFOV and NO inhalation is superior to HFOV alone for improving oxygenation in a selected cohort of infants ventilated for a variety of lung diseases.

[1] NO = nitric oxide

[2] HFOV = high frequency oscillatory ventilation

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel