Evaluation of Perioperative outcomes of Delayed Recovery Cases from GA and their Correlation with Standard Anaesthesia Scoring Systems: An Observational Study

Journal Title: Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 6

Abstract

Context: The critical period for a patient who was given general anaesthesia is the time during immediate recovery from anaesthesia. The PACU is a dynamic entity that greatly benefits the delayed recovery patients from research directed interventions to guide the next level of care for post-operative health status. Aim: The aim of this study is to determine peri-operative risk factors, morbidity and mortality of delayed recovery cases and correlate the outcomes of these patients with ASA physical status and Modified Aldrete’s recovery scores in the Post Anaesthesia Care unit (PACU) Methodology: After institutional ethics committee approval and written, informed consent, 434 adult patients belonging to both genders posted for general surgical elective procedures were included in this observational study. Delayed recovery patients were identified at the end of surgery using Modified Aldrete’s Recovery Score and shifted to PACU for further follow up until their discharge and morbidity and mortality was recorded. Results: Mean intra-operative blood loss and mean duration of surgery were proportionally increased as the ASA physical status is high = 0.000, statistically significant. As the pre-operative ASA physical status grading is increased the percentage of patients that had more than 48 hrs PACU stay also increased and it was statistically significant with p = 0.029. As the ASA grade increases the recovery scores were inversely proportional, p=0.029 statistically significant. Conclusion: Preoperative co-morbid conditions, ASA physical status and Modified Aldrete’s Recovery Scores are good predictors of postoperative outcomes for patients given general anaesthesia.

Authors and Affiliations

Middepogu Yerra Sunkanna

Keywords

Related Articles

Comparative Study of Intrathecal Bupivacaine with Buprenorphine and Bupivacaine with Tramadol

Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the following factors in two groups i.e., Hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and Buprenorphine 60mcg (GROUP B) and Hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and Tramadol 25mg (GROUP T). Patients and Me...

Femoral Nerve Block Versus Intravenous Fentanyl for Positioning During Central Neuraxial Block: A Comparitive Study

Background: Fracture of the femur is a common orthopaedic problem following trauma in patients of all ages. This study was undertaken to compare the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) fentanyl with femoral nerve block (FN...

Preemptive Antiemesis using Intravenous Ondansetron to Control Intrathecal Morphine Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Morphine is an opioid and its intrathecal use for postoperative pain relief is well documented. Nausea and vomiting are the common adverse effects with intrathecal morphine and might be distressing in patients undergoing...

Study of 2-Chlorprocaine 1% with Adjuvants Fentanyl and Buprinorphine in Comparison with Plain 2-Chlorprocaine1% for Subarachnoid Blocks in Perianal Surgeries

Introduction: This study aims at comparing the anaesthesia characteristics between Buprenorphine and Fentanyl when added as an adjuvant to intrathecal 2­Chloprocaine 1% in an attempt to prolong the duration of spinal ana...

A Comparative Study of Efficacy of Bupivacaine and Ropivacaine with Fentanyl in Epidural Labour Analgesia

Introduction: Labour is a highly complex and personal process for every woman. Analgesic intervention is a matter of personal choice for delivery. Local anesthesia given as an epidural injection along with an opioid give...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP541372
  • DOI 10.21088/ijaa.2349.8471.5618.17
  • Views 66
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Middepogu Yerra Sunkanna (2018). Evaluation of Perioperative outcomes of Delayed Recovery Cases from GA and their Correlation with Standard Anaesthesia Scoring Systems: An Observational Study. Indian Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia, 5(6), 984-992. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-541372