J-P Maguès

University of Toulouse, Tolosa de Llenguadoc, Midi-Pyrénées, France

Are you J-P Maguès?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)2.38 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To improve the quality of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) prescription in an orthopaedic department. Prospective professional practice evaluation study. A specific protocol concerning the best practice for using PPI in the perioperative period was established by anaesthesiologists and validated by all prescribers, according to recent recommendations published by French Afssaps. PPI prescription pertinence, mainly using the oral route, was based upon the presence of clearly identified risk factors. PPI mensual consumption and severe gastric complications were analyzed and compared with those obtained from the previous year. Ten months after the beginning of the protocol, the pertinence of PPI prescription was analyzed in 20 randomly selected medical records. Data are expressed in defined daily dose (DDD). After one year, a 35.5% decrease in oral PPI consumption was noted (901 ± 211 before vs 581 ± 235 DDD, after, P<0.05). A similar trend to a decrease in intravenous PPI consumption was observed (40 ± 23 vs 22 ± 26, P=0.06). During the same period, the overall incidence of severe gastric complication remained stable. The PPI prescription was pertinent in 85% of selected medical records. This study confirmed the interest of professional practice evaluation protocols to improve PPI prescription. A strong implication of all medical staff members is mandatory to maintain such benefits over time.
    Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 11/2011; 30(11):814-8. · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the impact of the anxiety level using Spielberger test on axillary block success. Prospective double-blind study. An axillary brachial plexus block was performed with a nerve stimulator for all patients undergoing elective or emergency upper limb surgery. Spielberger test result was blinded for both patient and anaesthesiologist performing the block. Time to perform the block (minutes) was measured. Anxiety and pain scores were assessed, using a numeric scale (NS), at different time. Successful block was defined as complete sensory blockade combined with painless during surgical incision. Data were compared using Spearman test and multivariate logistical regression analysis. Patients (184) were included (elective surgery=62%; emergency=38%). Failure rate was 10%. On multivariate logistical regression analysis, time to perform the block and NS anxiety score before starting the block were associated with block failure. Spielberger score correlated with NS anxiety score before puncture (Rho = 0,586, p<10(-4)). Anxiety level was increased in emergency context. Patient's anxiety level before axillary brachial plexus block is a risk factor of failure, especially in emergency condition. We suggest anesthesiologists to evaluate patient anxiety prior to block performance. A specific anxiolytic treatment may be recommend in some cases.
    Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation 11/2010; 29(11):776-81. · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique 04/2010; 96(2):242-7.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuraxial blockade is usually not recommended in patients with aortic stenosis. However, neuroaxial blockade techniques such as continuous spinal or epidural anaesthesia can be tailored to minimize potentially dramatic consequences of decrease in systemic vascular resistance, often encountered after standard single shot spinal anaesthesia. We report the cases of two severe aortic stenosis patients (aortic valve area<0.5 cm2) that underwent hip surgery under continuous spinal anaesthesia. Small doses of isobaric 0.25% bupivacaine titrated to limit total dose below 5 mg, injected through the intrathecal catheter allowed the control of haemodynamic parameters. No clinical complication occurred in these two patients.
    Annales Françaises d Anesthésie et de Réanimation 05/2006; 25(5):528-31. · 0.84 Impact Factor