Browsing by Author "Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on gastric mucosal perfusion in acute respiratory distress syndrome
    (2004) Bruhn, Alejandro; Hernández P., Glenn; Bugedo Tarraza, Guillermo; Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis
    Abstract Introduction Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves oxygenation and can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nevertheless, PEEP can also induce detrimental effects by its influence on the cardiovascular system. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of PEEP on gastric mucosal perfusion while applying a protective ventilatory strategy in patients with ARDS. Methods Eight patients were included. A pressure–volume curve was traced and ideal PEEP, defined as lower inflection point + 2 cmH2O, was determined. Gastric tonometry was measured continuously (Tonocap). After baseline measurements, 10, 15 and 20 cmH2O PEEP and ideal PEEP were applied for 30 min each. By the end of each period, hemodynamic, CO2 gap (gastric minus arterial partial pressures), and ventilatory measurements were performed. Results PEEP had no effect on CO2 gap (median [range], baseline: 19 [2–30] mmHg; PEEP 10: 19 [0–40] mmHg; PEEP 15: 18 [0–39] mmHg; PEEP 20: 17 [4–39] mmHg; ideal PEEP: 19 [9–39] mmHg; P = 0.18). Cardiac index also remained unchanged (baseline: 4.6 [2.5–6.3] l min-1 m-2; PEEP 10: 4.5 [2.5–6.9] l min-1 m-2; PEEP 15: 4.3 [2–6.8] l min-1 m-2; PEEP 20: 4.7 [2.4–6.2] l min-1 m-2; ideal PEEP: 5.1 [2.1–6.3] l min-1 m-2; P = 0.08). One patient did not complete the protocol because of hypotension. Conclusion PEEP of 10–20 cmH2O does not affect gastric mucosal perfusion and is hemodynamically well tolerated in most patients with ARDS, including those receiving adrenergic drugs.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Infarto agudo al miocardio con supradesnivel del ST y terapias de reperfusión
    (Mediterráneo, 2015) Castro Galvez, Pablo Federico; Paredes Cardenas, Freddy Alejandro; Bugedo Tarraza, Guillermo; Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis; Romero Patiño, Carlos
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting
    (1999) Bugedo Tarraza, Guillermo; González Sotomayor, Julio; Asenjo, C.; Cuadra F., Juan Carlos de la; Gajardo, A.; Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis; Muñoz L., Hernán; Dagnino Sepúlveda, Jorge
    We have performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron, droperidol, or both, in preventing postoperative emesis. We studied 242 patients undergoing biliary or gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia. Shortly before induction of anaesthesia, patients received: saline i.v. (group 1, n=62); droperidol 2.5 mg i.v. (group 2, n=60); ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 3, n=57); or droperidol 2.5 mg with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 4, n=63). Nausea occurred in 45%, 37%, 32% and 29% (P=0.234) and vomiting in 23%, 17%, 9% and 5% (P=0.016) of patients in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, during the first 24 h. Groups 2 and 4 had greater sedation scores than group 1 during the first 3 h (P<0.01). We conclude that both droperidol and ondansetron showed a significant antiemetic effect, ondansetron was not significantly better than droperidol, and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron was better than droperidol but no better than ondansetron alone.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting
    (Wiley, 1999) Bugedo Tarraza, Guillermo; González Sotomayor, Julio; Asenjo, C.; Cuadra F., Juan Carlos de la; Gajardo, A.; Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis; Muñoz L., Hernán; Dagnino Sepúlveda, Jorge
    We have performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron, droperidol, or both, in preventing postoperative emesis. We studied 242 patients undergoing biliary or gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia. Shortly before induction of anaesthesia, patients received: saline i.v. (group 1, n=62); droperidol 2.5 mg i.v. (group 2, n=60); ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 3, n=57); or droperidol 2.5 mg with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 4, n=63). Nausea occurred in 45%, 37%, 32% and 29% (P=0.234) and vomiting in 23%, 17%, 9% and 5% (P=0.016) of patients in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, during the first 24 h. Groups 2 and 4 had greater sedation scores than group 1 during the first 3 h (P<0.01). We conclude that both droperidol and ondansetron showed a significant antiemetic effect, ondansetron was not significantly better than droperidol, and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron was better than droperidol but no better than ondansetron alone.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Therapeutic Hypothermia as a bridge to transplantation in patients with fulminant hepatic failure
    (2015) Castillo Fuenzalida, Luis; Bugedo Tarraza, Guillermo; Rovegno Echavarria, Maxiliano