Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Diabetes mellitus and difficult laryngoscopy in renal and pancreatic transplant patients.
Limited mobility of the cervical spine or temperomandibular joint may contribute to increased difficulty of laryngoscopy in patients who have severe diabetes mellitus. The frequency of difficult laryngoscopy in diabetics undergoing renal and/or pancreatic transplants has been reported to be as high as 32%. We retrospectively reviewed the anesthetic records of all adult patients who underwent renal and/or pancreatic transplant and endotracheal intubation from January 1, 1985 to October 31, 1995. Characteristics specifically reviewed included the presence of diabetes mellitus, type of organ donor, age, gender, body mass index, previous difficult laryngoscopy, known characteristics potentially related to difficult laryngoscopy, and degree of difficulty with laryngoscopy. Laryngoscopy was graded as easy, minimally to moderately difficult, and moderately to extremely difficult to perform. Factors associated with any degree of difficult intubation were univariately assessed by using Fisher's exact test. Of 725 patients, 15 (2.1%) were identified as having difficult laryngoscopies, although all underwent successful endotracheal intubations. Factors associated with difficult laryngoscopy were diabetes mellitus (P = 0.002) and characteristics known to be related to difficult laryngoscopy (P = 0.02). These findings confirm an increase in the frequency of difficult laryngoscopy in diabetic patients undergoing renal and/or pancreatic transplant, although no laryngoscopies were rated as moderately to extremely difficult. We conclude that the frequency of difficult laryngoscopy in these diabetic patients is much lower than previous reports have suggested. ⋯ Previous studies have suggested that airway management of many diabetic patients may be difficult. Our medical record review of patients with severe diabetes undergoing organ transplants showed that extraordinary techniques were not required to successfully manage their airways.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Propofol sedation produces dose-dependent suppression of lidocaine-induced seizures in rats.
The association of propofol with excitatory motor activity, such as myoclonic jerking and opisthotonus, in humans and in animals suggests that it may aggravate clinical seizure activity in some circumstances, although evidence suggests that under other circumstances, propofol inhibits seizure activity. In the current study, we assessed the effect of sedating doses of propofol on lidocaine-induced seizure activity in spontaneously breathing rats receiving no other anesthetics. Adult Sprague-Dawley male rats, 300-400 g, were divided into a control group and three experimental groups representing three graded levels of propofol sedation. The control rats then received a lidocaine infusion at the rate of 150 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1), resulting in a slow, progressive increase in systemic lidocaine concentrations. At the onset of electroencephalographic (EEG) seizure activity, arterial lidocaine concentrations were obtained. The treated rats received propofol according to three different dose schedules: Dose 1 = 10 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) after a 2.5-mg/kg bolus; Dose 2 = 20 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) after a 5-mg/kg bolus; Dose 3 = 40 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1) after a 10-mg/kg bolus. After 30 min, a steady level of sedation, dependent on the dose of propofol, was achieved. The lidocaine infusion was then started, and systemic lidocaine levels were obtained at the onset of EEG seizure activity. The lidocaine was continued until the onset of death by cardiac arrest. Plasma lidocaine was measured by gas chromatography. Analysis of variance and Dunnett's t-test were used for comparisons with the control values. Continuous propofol sedation increased the seizure dose of lidocaine from 37.7 +/- 3.5 mg/kg (mean +/- SEM) to 52.5 +/- 2.6 mg/kg (Dose 1, P < 0.05) and 67.9 +/- 8.6 mg/kg (Dose 2, P < 0.05), and completely abolished lidocaine seizures at Dose 3. The lethal dose of lidocaine, 89.4 +/- 10.5 mg/kg control versus 108.7 +/- 10.3 mg/kg (Dose 1), 98.3 +/- 10.1 mg/kg (Dose 2), and 93.5 +/- 10.4 mg/kg (Dose 3) did not differ among groups. The lidocaine levels at seizure threshold were increased in the propofol-treated rats: 16.9 +/- 0.5 microg/mL control versus 19.2 +/- 0.7 microg/mL (Dose 1, P = not significant) and 23.7 +/- 1.8 microg/mL (Dose 2, P < 0.05). Continuous propofol sedation in spontaneously breathing rats receiving no other anesthetics exerts a protective effect against lidocaine-induced seizures in a monotonic, dose-dependent fashion. The cardiac arrest dose of lidocaine is unaffected by propofol under these conditions. ⋯ The i.v. anesthetic drug propofol, given to rats to produce sedation, was found to suppress seizure activity caused by overdosage of the local anesthetic lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialTropisetron for treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Tropisetron can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at doses smaller than those used to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In this placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and tolerability of three different doses of tropisetron were compared for the treatment of established PONV after surgical procedures in general anesthesia. Of 1513 patients who satisfied inclusion criteria, 314 experiencing PONV during the first 2 h after recovery from anesthesia were treated with one of three different doses of tropisetron (0.5, 2, or 5 mg) or placebo, administered i.v. as a single dose. Patients were then observed during 24 h for efficacy and tolerability. All three doses of tropisetron were significantly better than placebo in controlling emetic episodes and in reducing the need for rescue treatment. There were no significant differences among the three doses. However, in the subgroup of patients who had previous PONV, and in those randomized for nausea alone, the 2-mg and 5-mg doses controlled emetic episodes better than the 0.5-mg dose. All studied doses of tropisetron were well tolerated and did not affect vital signs. We conclude that a single i.v. administration of tropiestron significantly reduces the recurrence of emetic episodes in patients with established PONV after elective surgery with general anesthesia. Its optimal dose seems to be 2 mg. ⋯ Three hundred-fourteen patients suffering from postoperative nausea and vomiting received different i.v. doses of a new antiemetic drug, tropisetron, to determine the lowest effective dose. We found that a single i.v. administration of tropisetron significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective surgery with general anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialEconomic considerations of the use of new anesthetics: a comparison of propofol, sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane.
Cost control in anesthesia is no longer an option; it is a necessity. New anesthetics have entered the market, but economic differences in comparison to standard anesthetic regimens are not exactly known. Eighty patients undergoing either subtotal thyroidectomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into four groups, with 20 patients in each group. Group 1 received propofol 1%/sufentanil, Group 2 received desflurane/sufentanil, Group 3 received sevoflurane/sufentanil, and Group 4 received isoflurane/sufentanil (standard anesthesia) for anesthesia. A fresh gas flow of 1.5-2 L/min and 60% N2O in oxygen was used for maintenance of anesthesia, and atracurium was given for muscle relaxation. Concentrations of volatile anesthetics, propofol, and sufentanil were varied according to the patient's perceived need. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane consumption was measured by weighing the vaporizers with a precision weighing machine. Biometric data, time of surgery, and time of anesthesia were similar in the four groups. Times for extubation and stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were significantly longer in the isoflurane group. Use of sufentanil and atracurium did not differ among the groups. Propofol patients required fewer additional drugs in the PACU (e.g., antiemetics), and thus showed the lowest additional costs in the PACU. Total (intra- and postoperative) costs were significantly higher in the propofol group ($30.73 per patient; $0.24 per minute of anesthesia). The costs among the inhalational groups did not differ significantly (approximately $0.15 per minute of anesthesia). We conclude that in today's climate of cost savings, a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic approach is needed. Although propofol-based anesthesia was associated with the highest cost, it is doubtful whether the choice of anesthetic regimen will lower the costs of an anesthesia department. ⋯ Cost analysis of anesthetic techniques is necessary in today's economic climate. Consumption of the new inhaled drugs sevoflurane and desflurane was measured in comparison to a standard anesthetic regimen using isoflurane and an IV technique using propofol. Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with the highest costs, whereas the costs of the new inhaled anesthetics sevoflurane and desflurane did not differ from those of a standard, isoflurane-based anesthesia regimen.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPrevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a combination of granisetron and droperidol.
In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared the efficacy and safety of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 150 female patients scheduled for elective major gynecological surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. either granisetron 2.5 mg (Group G), droperidol 1.25 mg (Group D), or granisetron 2.5 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg (Group GD) immediately before the induction of anesthesia (n = 50 in each group). A standard anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. Complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication during the first 24 h after anesthesia, was 84% in Group G, 54% in Group D, and 96% in Group GD (P = 0.046 versus Group G, P = 0.001 versus Group D). No clinically important adverse effects were observed in any group. In conclusion, the combination of granisetron and droperidol is more effective than each antiemetic alone for complete response in patients undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery. ⋯ We compared the efficacy of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after gynecological surgery. The granisetron/droperidol combination was the most effective against these emetic symptoms.