WOS

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Ozsarac, Murat

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ketamine With and Without Midazolam for Emergency Department Sedation in Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    (MOSBY-ELSEVIER, 2011-01-01) Sener, Serkan; Eken, Cenker; Schultz, Carl H.; Serinken, Mustafa; Ozsarac, Murat
    Study objective: We assess whether midazolam reduces recovery agitation after ketamine administration in adult emergency department (ED) patients and also compared the incidence of adverse events (recovery agitation, respiratory, and nausea/vomiting) by the intravenous (IV) versus intramuscular (IM) route. Methods: This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2x2 factorial trial randomized consecutive ED patients aged 18 to 50 years to 4 groups: receiving either 0.03 mg/kg IV midazolam or placebo, and with ketamine administered either 1.5 mg/kg IV or 4 mg/kg IM. Adverse events and sedation characteristics were recorded. Results: Of the 182 subjects, recovery agitation was less common in the midazolam cohorts (8\% versus 25\%
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The Effect of Cannula Material on The Pain of Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation in the Emergency Department: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study
    (ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV, 2012-01-01) Ozsarac, Murat; Dolek, Meral; Sarsilmaz, Munevver; Sever, Mustafa; Sener, Serkan; Kiyan, Selahattin; Yuruktumen, Aslihan; Yilmaz, Gulbin
    Objectives The present study was undertaken to compare the pain of peripheral IV cannulation (IVC) using a 20-G peripheral biomaterial PEU-Vialon cannula or the 20-G compound FEP-Teflon cannula widely used in clinical practice. Methods A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial was undertaken at the ED of University Hospital. Eighty-nine noncritically ill adult patients who were receiving an IV line as part of their care were enrolled. In each case cannulas were applicated to the antecubital area. Participants rated their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was patients pain score, and the secondary outcome was the provider's perception of safety and satisfaction. Results The two treatment groups did not differ in age, gender or cannulation indication (p>0.05). Mean VAS was 2.80 for PEU and 3.56 for FEP (p=0.061). Mean provider safety scores were 4.84 (4 to 5) in the PEU group and 4.00 (2 to 5) in the FEP group (p=0.0001). Mean provider satisfaction of application scores were 4.65 in the PEU group and 4.56 in the FEP group (p>0.05). Conclusions Althogh provider safety perception is high, perception of pain has not reduced when inserting PEU-Vialon cannula compared with compound of FEP.