Background: Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is common in patients with a urinary catheter and is a risk factor for emergence agitation (EA). The mainstay of CRBD management is anticholinergics. Dexamethasone inhibits acetylcholine release. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of dexamethasone on postoperative CRBD and EA. Methods: In this prospective study, 90 patients undergoing urological surgery requiring urinary catheterization were allocated randomly to one of two groups (each n = 45). Before induction of anesthesia, the dexamethasone group received 10 mg (2 ml) of dexamethasone intravenously, while the control group received 2 ml of saline in the same manner. The incidence and severity of CRBD were assessed 0, 1, 2, and 6 h after the patient arrived in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) as the primary outcomes. The incidence and severity of EA were also compared during emergence and recovery from anesthesia as secondary outcomes. Results: The incidences of CRBD in the control group and dexamethasone group at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively were 28.9% and 15.6%, 55.6% and 55.6%, 57.8% and 46.7%, and 53.3% and 51.1%, respectively. The incidence and severity of CRBD assessed at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively did not show intergroup differences. The incidence and severity of EA in the operating room and PACU also showed no difference between the groups. Conclusions Dexamethasone (10 mg) administered before induction of anesthesia did not further reduce the incidence or severity of CRBD or EA in patients undergoing urological surgery.

Remifentanil and sufentanil are potent short-acting synthetic opioid analgesics. The administration of remifentanil has been associated with the incidence of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia may be alleviated when opioids, such as morphine, are switched to sufentanil. Therefore, this retrospective observational study aimed to compare the effects of remifentanil and sufentanil on postoperative pain in patients undergoing robotic gynecological surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent elective robotic gynecological surgery between January 2016 and February 2021. The patients were classified into sufentanil (n = 159) or remifentanil (n = 359) groups according to the opioids administered continuously during anesthesia. The primary outcome assessed in this study was the postoperative pain score measured using the numeric rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes assessed included the recovery time (from discontinuation of opioid infusion to extubation) and frequency of rescue analgesic administration in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Results: The recovery time did not differ significantly between the two groups. The NRS score for pain (median [1Q, 3Q]) in the PACU was significantly lower in the sufentanil group than in the remifentanil group (2 [2, 3] vs. 4 [3, 7], P < 0.001). The frequency of rescue analgesic administration in the PACU was 6.3% and 35.4% in the sufentanil and remifentanil groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Sufentanil, as an adjunct to sevoflurane anesthesia is more advantageous than remifentanil in terms of postoperative pain control during robotic gynecological surgery.

This study was performed to identify the impact of awareness and educational experiences on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the ability to execute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation among Korean adults. This study used original data of 2014 Community Health Data Survey. 228,712 participants in this survey were resident in South Korea who is aged 19 or older on July 2014. Participants in this survey were sampled an average of 900 residents(target error ± 3 percent) per community health center of Korea. Data were analyzed by using R 3.1.3 employing chi-squared test, fisher's exact analysis, and logistic regression analysis. Ability to execute CPR was significantly higher in males(3.34 time), higher the education level (1.61 times), the white color occupation (1.14 times), the higher the income level (1.07 times), the higher the education level (0.91 times), non-hypertensive patients (1.12 times), non-diabetic patients (1.16 times), non-dyslipidemic patients (0.86 times), non-stroke patients (0.30 times), CPR education experience group (3.25 times), CPR experience group with manikin-based training (4.30 times), higher subjective health status (1.08 times, 1.16 times) respectively. This study identified that awareness, educational experience, and mannequin-based learning experience of CPR impacted on the ability to execute CPR. Responding to education-related factors could contribute to reducing the rate of out-of-hospital acute cardiac arrest by improving the ability to execute CPR of the general public.
Adult* ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation* ; Community Health Centers ; Diagnostic Self Evaluation ; Education ; Heart Arrest ; Humans ; Korea ; Learning ; Logistic Models ; Occupations

Background: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. Methods: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. Results: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3–4 months. Conclusion We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media.Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.