4.4 Article

Intravenous hypertonic saline to reduce intraocular pressure: the effect of splitting the bolus

Journal

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA
Volume 100, Issue 8, Pages E1606-E1610

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aos.15139

Keywords

glaucoma; intraocular pressure; intravenous hypertonic saline; surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the effects of single versus split bolus of intravenous hypertonic saline on intraocular pressure and pain, finding that splitting the bolus did not reduce pain associated with IVHTS. Therefore, a single bolus is recommended.
Purpose To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) and pain after a single versus split bolus of intravenous hypertonic saline (IVHTS). Methods In a prospective, randomized, interventional trial, we enrolled patients with an IOP of 22-34 mmHg. Twenty patients in Group 1 received IVHTS as a single bolus of 1 mmol/kg 23.4% sodium chloride, and 13 patients in Group 2 received two boli of 0.5 mmol/kg separated by 10 min. They graded pain at the infusion site. We measured IOP, heart rate and blood pressure before and 10 and 20 min after IVHTS. Results Eighteen patients (90%) in Group 1 felt pain (median, 6.5; range, 0-10). In Group 2, 11 patients (85%) felt pain after the first bolus (median, 6.0; range, 0-8) and 12 (92%) after the second one (median, 8; range, 0-10). We found no difference in pain grade between the groups after their first bolus (p = 0.33) or between the first bolus of Group 1 and the second bolus of Group 2 (p = 0.47). The median IOP reduction in Group 1 was 6.5 mmHg (range, 2-16) at 10 min and 7.0 mmHg (range, 4-16) at 20 min (p < 0.001 for both). In Group 2, the corresponding reductions after the second bolus were 9.0 mmHg (range, 4-10; p = 0.002) and 8.0 mmHg (range, 6-11; p = 0.002). The IOP reduction at 10 and 20 min was comparable between groups (p = 0.094 and p = 0.41, respectively). Conclusion Splitting the bolus did not reduce pain associated with IVHTS. Single bolus is consequently recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available