Anatomy-based drug dosing strategies for surgical patients

Zahra Bari; Noor Fatima; Fatima Naeem; Inam Ullah; Fatima Imtiaz; Zarvish Gull; Khursheed Anwar; Sofia Jadoon

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v7nS1.14278

Authors

Zahra Bari
Zarabari97@gmail.com
M. Phil, Microbiology Department, Quaid e Azam university
Noor Fatima Demonstrator, Bakhtawar Amin Medical and Dental College, Multan, Pakistan
Fatima Naeem Women Medical Officer, Multan surgical hospital Multan
Inam-u-llah Lecturer, Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of Haripur, KPK, Pakistan
Fatima Imtiaz Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of Haripur, KPK, Pakistan
Zarvish Gull Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of Haripur KPK, Pakistan
Khursheed Anwar Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of Haripur, KPK, Pakistan
Sofia Jadoon Senior lecturer Abbottabad international medical college Abbottabad, Anatomy department

Keywords:

Anatomy-based drug dosing, personalized medicine, surgical patients, adverse drug reactions, pain management, postoperative recovery

Abstract

Introduction: Anatomy-based drug dosing strategies have emerged as a personalized approach to medication administration in surgical patients. In a sample of 150 patients who had major abdominal surgery, the purpose of this research was to assess the efficacy of this strategy. Methods: The anatomy-based dosage group and the control group were separated into two groups of patients. In the anatomy-based dosing group, medication doses were calculated based on individual body composition and organ function, while in the control group, medication doses were calculated based on standard weight-based dosing. The primary outcomes evaluated were the incidence of adverse drug reactions, pain scores, and time to postoperative recovery. Results: When compared to the control group's rate of adverse medication responses (30%), the incidence in the anatomy-based dosage group was much lower (14.3%). With a mean score of 3.8 compared to 4.4 in the control group, pain levels were also considerably lower in the anatomy-based dosage group. The mean postoperative recovery time was 8.2 days for the anatomy-based dosage group and 8.5 days for the control group, which is comparable between the two groups.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ceelie, I., De Wildt, S. N., Van Dijk, M., van den Berg, M. M., Van Den Bosch, G. E., Duivenvoorden, H. J., ... & Tibboel, D. (2013). Effect of intravenous paracetamol on postoperative morphine requirements in neonates and infants undergoing major noncardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Jama, 309(2), 149-154.

Fanti, L., Agostoni, M., Arcidiacono, P. G., Albertin, A., Strini, G., Carrara, S., ... & Testoni, P. A. (2007). Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS: Propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol: A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial. Digestive and liver disease, 39(1), 81-86.

Gan, T. J. (2017). Poorly controlled postoperative pain: prevalence, consequences, and prevention. Journal of pain research, 2287-2298.

Lobo, D. N., Bostock, K. A., Neal, K. R., Perkins, A. C., Rowlands, B. J., & Allison, S. P. (2002). Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 359(9320), 1812-1818.

Machovec, K. A., Taicher, B., Jaquiss, R. D., & Hill, K. D. (2017). Images in anesthesiology: anomalous single coronary artery from the pulmonary artery. Anesthesiology, 126(6), 1169-1169.

Miller, T. E., Thacker, J. K., & Gan, T. J. (2015). ERAS: Enhancing Recovery One Evidence-Based Step at a Time Response. ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 120(1), 256-257.

Payton, E., Khubchandani, J., Thompson, A., & Price, J. H. (2017). Parents’ expectations of high schools in firearm violence prevention. Journal of community health, 42, 1118-1126.

Sparrelid, E., Jonas, E., Tzortzakakis, A., Dahlén, U., Murquist, G., Brismar, T., ... & Isaksson, B. (2017). Dynamic evaluation of liver volume and function in associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 21, 967-974.

Struys, M. M., De Smet, T., Glen, J. I. B., Vereecke, H. E., Absalom, A. R., & Schnider, T. W. (2016). The history of target-controlled infusion. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 122(1), 56-69.

Vissers, K. C. P., Besse, K., Hans, G., Devulder, J., & Morlion, B. (2010). Opioid rotation in the management of chronic pain: where is the evidence?. Pain practice, 10(2), 85-93.

Vos, J. J., Kalmar, A. F., Struys, M. M., Wietasch, J. G., Hendriks, H. G., & Scheeren, T. W. (2013). Comparison of arterial pressure and plethysmographic waveform-based dynamic preload variables in assessing fluid responsiveness and dynamic arterial tone in patients undergoing major hepatic resection. British journal of anaesthesia, 110(6), 940-946.

Wahl, R. L., Herman, J. M., & Ford, E. (2011, April). The promise and pitfalls of positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography molecular imaging–guided radiation therapy. In Seminars in radiation oncology (Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 88-100). WB Saunders.

Yokoyama, Y., Ebata, T., Igami, T., Sugawara, G., Mizuno, T., Yamaguchi, J., & Nagino, M. (2016). The predictive value of indocyanine green clearance in future liver remnant for posthepatectomy liver failure following hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection. World journal of surgery, 40, 1440-1447.