A noninferiority research paradigm may be applied to this methodology to demonstrate that the removal of a health technology does not adversely affect outcomes.

Conclusion: ON-01910 This research design can be applied across multiple fields and will assist determination of whether specific health technologies are clinically effective, cost-effective, and safe. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.”
“Pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization usually need deep sedation. In this study, 60 children

were randomly allocated to receive sedation with either a ketamine-propofol combination (KP group, n = 30) or a ketamine-propofol-dexmedetomidine combination (KPD group,

n = 30). Both groups received 1 mg/kg of ketamine and 1 mg/kg of propofol for induction of sedation, and the KPD group received an additional 1 mu g/kg of dexmedetomidine infusion during Selleck Ilomastat 5 min for induction of sedation and a maintenance infusion of 0.5 mu g/kg/h. In both groups, 0.2 mg/kg of propofol was administered as a bolus to maintain a Ramsey sedation score (RSS) greater than 4 throughout the procedure. None of the patients in either group required intubation. In the KP group, one patient required mask ventilation. The chin-lift maneuver needed to be performed for eight patients in the KP group and one patient in the KPD group (p < 0.05). Adding dexmedetomidine to the ketamine-propofol combination decreased movement during the procedures. The heart rate in the KPD group was significantly lower after induction of sedation and throughout the procedure (p < 0.05). No significant differences in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, or respiration rates were found between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean recovery Cl-amidine datasheet time was longer in the KP group (5.86 vs 3.13 min; p < 0.05). Adding dexmedetomidine to a ketamine-propofol combination led

to a reduced need for airway intervention and to decreased movement during local anesthetic infiltration and throughout the procedure. The recovery time was shorter and hemodynamic stability good in the KPD group.”
“BACKGROUND: Reverse flow reactors are widely used for the treatment of gaseous emissions containing different hydrocarbons. However, most of the reported studies are focused on the combustion of a given hydrocarbon over a given catalyst. Consequently, any conclusions are difficult to extrapolate to other systems due to the wide range of variation of the chemical properties in these systems (reactivity, concentrations, combustion enthalpy, etc.).

RESULTS: A new generalized approach for the design of reverse flow reactors (RFR) for the catalytic combustion of lean hydrocarbon-air mixtures is proposed in this work.