Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEltanolone as an alternative to propofol for ambulatory anesthesia.
The intravenous (i.v.) steroid anesthetic, eltanolone, compares favorably to propofol with respect to its induction characteristics. This double-blind investigation was designed to compare the induction and recovery profile of eltanolone (versus propofol) when it was used for both induction and maintenance of ambulatory anesthesia. Eighty-three consenting ASA physical status I-III outpatients undergoing minor gynecologic or urologic procedures lasting 10-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups. All patients received midazolam, 2 mg i.v., and fentanyl, 50 micrograms i.v., before induction of anesthesia. The control group (Group 1) was induced with propofol, 2.4 mg/kg i.v. (18-60 yr or ASA physical status I or II) or 1.6 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), followed by intermittent bolus doses of 0.6 mg/kg i.v. in combination with N2O 67% for maintenance of anesthesia. In Group 2, anesthesia was induced with eltanolone, 0.75 mg/kg i.v., (18-60 yr and/or ASA physical status I or II) or 0.5 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), and maintained with intermittent bolus injections of 0.2 mg/kg i.v. and N2O 67%. Group 3 received eltanolone, 1.0 mg/kg i.v. (18-60 yr and/or ASA physical status I or II), or 0.75 mg/kg i.v. (61-80 yr and/or ASA physical status III), followed by intermittent bolus injections of 0.2 mg/kg i.v. and N2O 67%. In addition to recording the induction and recovery times and side effects, psychomotor testing was performed before and at 30-min intervals after anesthesia. Induction times (57 +/- 23, 67 +/- 26, and 61 +/- 22s, respectively) were similar in all three groups. Although eltanolone produced no pain on injection (versus 52% in the propofol group), 10% of the eltanolone-treated patients (versus none in the propofol group) developed transient cutaneous (rash-like) reactions. The total dose of study medication used during the anesthetic period was 9.2 +/- 3.7 mg.kg-1.h-1 in the propofol group compared with 3.3 +/- 1.4 mg.kg-1.h-1 and 3.3 +/- 1.9 mg.kg-1.h-1 in Groups 2 and 3, respectively. Early recovery times were significantly shorter after propofol anesthesia. However, times to ambulation, micturition, and being judged "fit for discharge," as well as recovery of cognitive function, were similar in all three groups. Although ethanolone seems to be a safe and effective i.v. anesthetic, these data suggest that it is unlikely to replace propofol in the ambulatory setting. ⋯ Eltanolone is an investigational steroid anesthetic that causes less pain on injection and less cardiovascular depression than propofol (the most widely used intravenous anesthetic in the outpatient setting). Unfortunately, emergence from anesthesia after ambulatory surgery is slower with eltanolone compared with propofol. Therefore, it is unlikely that eltanolone will replace propofol for outpatient anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the prophylactic antiemetic effect of ondansetron and droperidol on patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.
We compared ondansetron with droperidol, given prophylactically, in a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of women undergoing outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. One-hundred fifty-eight women received either ondansetron (4 mg) or droperidol (20 micrograms/kg) intravenously during induction of anesthesia. Nausea was measured at three intervals: at admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 1 h after admission to the PACU, and on Postoperative Day 1. The incidence of vomiting was tabulated in the PACU and on Postoperative Day 1. Sedation was assessed 1 h after admission to the PACU. No differences in nausea, sedation, or number of patients vomiting in the PACU were found. More patients in the ondansetron group reported vomiting on Postoperative Day 1 than subjects in the droperidol group (25 vs 11). No difference in opiate use was found among patients who vomited. We conclude that droperidol is equivalent to ondansetron for the prophylactic treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy, and that significant cost savings can be appreciated if droperidol is used. ⋯ Either ondansetron or droperidol, frequently used antiemetics, was given to women before they underwent gynecologic laparoscopy. No difference in the number of women experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting or their level of sedation was found. Equivalent effectiveness and significant cost-savings may be obtained by using droperidol prophylactically for laparoscopic surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effects of dexamethasone on antiemetics in female patients undergoing gynecologic surgery.
This randomized, double-blind study compared the effects of dexamethasone plus either droperidol, metoclopramide, or granisetron with each antiemetic alone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 270 female patients undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either droperidol 1.25 mg (Group D1, n = 45), droperidol 1.25 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group D2, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg (Group M1, n = 45), metoclopramide 10 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group M2, n = 45), granisetron 40 micrograms/kg (Group G1, n = 45), or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (Group G2, n = 45) immediately before the induction of anesthesia. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout the study. Complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication during the first 24 h after anesthesia, was 49% in Group D1, 60% in Group D2 (P = 0.199 versus Group D1), 51% in Group M1, 62% in Group M2 (P = 0.198 versus Group M1), 80% in Group G1, and 96% in Group G2 (P = 0.025 versus Group G1). Our results suggest that dexamethasone enhances the antiemetic efficacy of granisetron but does not potentiate the other antiemetics-droperidol and metoclopramide-in female patients undergoing major gynecological surgery. ⋯ We compared the efficacy of dexamethasone plus three different antiemetics-droperidol, metoclopramide, and granisetron-for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery. The granisetron-dexamethasone combination was the most effective for preventing post-operative emetic symptoms.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSplanchnic and renal deterioration during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison of the carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and the abdominal wall lift method.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum together with an increased intraabdominal pressure (IAP) induces a hemodynamic stress response, diminishes urine output, and may compromise splanchnic perfusion. A new retractor method may be less traumatic. Accordingly, 30 ASA physical status I or II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly allocated to a CO2 pneumoperitoneum (IAP 12-13 mm Hg) (control) or to a gasless abdominal wall lift method (retractor) group. Anesthesia and intravascular fluids were standardized. Direct mean arterial pressure (MAP), urine output, urine-N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (U-NAG), arterial blood gases, gastric mucosal PCO2, and intramucosal pH (pHi) were measured. Normoventilation was instituted in all patients. MAP increased (P < 0.001) only with CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Minute volume of ventilation had to be increased by 35% with CO2 insufflation. PaCO2 was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for 3 h postoperatively in the control group. Diuresis was less (P < 0.01) and U-NAG levels (P < 0.01) higher in the control group. The pHi decreased after induction of pneumoperitoneum up to three hours postoperatively and remained intact in the retractor group. We conclude that the retractor method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy ensures stable hemodynamics, prevents respiratory acidosis, and provides protection against biochemical effects, which reveal the renal and splanchic ischemia caused by CO2 insufflation. ⋯ A mechanical retractor method (gasless) was compared with conventional CO2 pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholestectomy. The gasless method ensured stable hemodynamics, prevented respiratory acidosis, and provided protection against the renal and splanchnic ischemia seen with CO2 pneumoperitoneum.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1997
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialEpidural bolus clonidine/morphine versus epidural patient-controlled bupivacaine/sufentanil: quality of postoperative analgesia and cost-identification analysis.
We compared the costs, quality of analgesia, and side effects of postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with bupivacaine/sufentanil versus an epidural bolus (BOLUS) of clonidine/morphine in 68 patients with pancreatic surgery. Postoperative pain treatment was performed over 4 days: the PCEA pump was filled with bupivacaine 0.25% and sufentanil 2 micrograms/mL and set to 3-mL bolus and 10-min lockout time. BOLUS patients received injections of clonidine 150 micrograms plus morphine 2 mg on demand. Visual analog scale (VAS) score at rest and during coughing, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, duration of intestinal paralysis, hospital treatment, and costs for personnel and material were recorded. VAS scores during coughing (3 +/- 2.5 vs 5 +/- 3, P < 0.001) was higher, and HR (79 +/- 13 vs 89 +/- 15, P < 0.001), and SAP (110 +/- 18 vs 124 +/- 23, P < 0.001) were lower, in the BOLUS compared with the PCEA group. The incidence of hypotension (SAP < 80 mm Hg) was greater (6 vs 0, P < 0.001) in the BOLUS group. The incidence of all other side effects was comparable. The costs of personnel ($204 +/- $40 vs $166 +/- $38, P < 0.001) were higher in the BOLUS group, but the costs of material ($51 +/- $17 vs $87 +/- $18, P < 0.001) were higher in the PCEA group. Total costs ($62 +/- $9 vs $62 +/- $11 per day, P = 0.9) were comparable. We conclude that because of superior analgesia and reduced side effects at analogous costs, PCEA is preferable to the BOLUS technique for the treatment of postoperative pain. ⋯ An epidural clonidine/morphine bolus technique resulted in inferior analgesia, more side effects, and comparable costs compared with a bupivacaine/sufentanil patient-controlled regimen in a randomized controlled trial after abdominal surgery.