INCIDENCE OF POST-OPERATIVE ADR OF ANESTHETICS IN TERTIARY CARE TEACHING HOSPITAL: CLINICAL PHARMACIST PERSPECTIVES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11s4.31732Keywords:
Anesthesia, General surgery, Post-operative, Verbal rating scaleAbstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of anesthetics in various general surgical conditions and to identify the adverse clinical outcomes of anesthetics in post-operative patients using questionnaire and verbal rating scale (VRS) score and to assess the treatment pattern of adverse clinical outcomes of anesthetics.
Methods: A prospective study was carried out in the Inpatient Department of General Surgery and ICU in S.R.M Medical College Hospital and Research Center involving patients up to 65 years of age. A total of 160 patients were recruited for the study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patient demographics, medical history, type of surgery, type of anesthetics, duration of anesthesia, ASA Grade physical status, system examination, general examination, vital signs, and anesthetics drugs were assessed using pro forma. Adverse clinical outcomes of anesthetics were assessed using VRS score. Day of incidence of adverse outcomes was also monitored, and management of post-operative side effects and its effectiveness were assessed.
Results: During the study period, approximately 50% of the patient's undergone general anesthetics reported post-operative pain. The incidence of post-operative nausea/vomiting, sore throat, and cough was highest in patient's undergone general anesthetics. The adverse outcomes were measured by VRS score, showed that mild adverse outcomes were predominated.
Conclusion: Patients who undergone general anesthetics developed high risk of adverse outcomes. The post-operative recovery of the patient
was the main challenge. If an adverse drug reaction is not monitored the patients satisfaction can be weakened in general surgery. Hence, it is
concluded that pharmacists can play a major role in assessing adverse clinical outcomes and its management.
Downloads
References
Aitkenhead AR. Injuries associated with anaesthesia. A global perspective. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:95-109.
Kehlet H, Willmore DW. Multimodal strategies to improvesurgical outcome. Am J Surg 2002;183:630-44.
Kehlet H, Dahl JB. Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperativerecovery. Lancet 2003;362:1921-8.
Fischer SP., Bader AM. Generalanaesthesia versus general anaesthesia for abdominal aorticintensity and risk factors. Anest Analg 2009;101:1643-50.
Fox AJ, Rowbotham DJ. Anaesthesia. BMJ 1999;319:557-60.
Amponsah G. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in Korle Bu teaching hospital. Ghana Med J 2007;41:181-5.
Guillermo A, Vinoles J, Ibanez MV. Predicting recovery at home after ambulatory surgery. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;111:269.
Swan BA, Maislin G, Traber KB. Symptom distress and functionalstatus changes during the first seven days after ambulatorysurgery. Anesth Analg 1998;86:739-45.
Bennett P N, Brown M J. Anaesthesia and Neuromuscular Block. Clinical Pharmacology 9thed. New York: Churchil Livingstone; 2003. p. 355-7.
Bonnet F, Marret E. Influence of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques on outcome after surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:52-8.
Boogaerts JG, Vanacker E, Seidel L, Albert A, Bardiau FM. Assessment of postoperative nausea using a visual analogue scale. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000;44:470-4.
Miller BD. Spinal, Epidural, Caudal Anesthesia, Miller, Anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2010. p. 1611-38.
Casey WF. Spinalanaesthesia a practical guide. Update Anaesth 2000;12:22-7.
Chung F, Ritchie E, Su J. Postoperative pain in ambulatorysurgery. Anaesth Anal 1997;85:808-16.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
