Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of patient-controlled analgesia with lornoxicam versus morphine in patients undergoing lumbar disk surgery.
The analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lornoxicam (Xefo; Nycomed Pharma A/S, Roskilde, Denmark), a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, was compared with that of morphine in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of 96 patients with at least moderate pain after lumbar microsurgical discectomy. Both drugs were administered i.v. via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for up to 24 h postoperatively. Efficacy was assessed by comparing mean hourly pain intensity differences, mean hourly pain relief, and total pain relief (TOTPAR) values derived from a 5-point verbal rating scores of pain intensity and pain relief at several time points over 24 h. Of 79 patients included in a per-protocol analysis, statistically significant equivalence of lornoxicam and morphine was shown by TOTPAR values of 31.6 and 28.9, respectively (P = 0.048). Trends toward slightly faster onset of analgesia with morphine and slightly greater PCA demands with lornoxicam were observed initially, which may partly have been due to a higher baseline pain intensity in the lornoxicam group. Lornoxicam caused fewer adverse events than morphine (21.7% vs 38.0% of patients, respectively), most of which were mild or moderate in severity. These results suggest that lornoxicam is an alternative to morphine when administered by PCA for the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain. ⋯ After surgery for lumbar disk disease, patients obtained statistically equivalent pain relief with lornoxicam and morphine when administered by patient-controlled analgesia. However, lornoxicam was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events. This study suggests that lornoxicam provides an alternative to morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPremedication with fentanyl and midazolam decreases the reliability of intravenous lidocaine test dose.
This study was performed to determine whether premedication with midazolam and fentanyl prevents reliable detection of an i.v. lidocaine test dose. Thirty ASA physical status I or II patients received either 3 mL of saline or 1.5 mg of midazolam (1.5 mL) plus 75 microg of fentanyl (1.5 mL) i.v. in a randomized, double-blind fashion. Five minutes later, lidocaine 1 mg/kg was injected i.v. At 1.5 min before and every minute after lidocaine administration, each subject was questioned regarding the presence of four symptoms of systemic lidocaine toxicity. Any new tinnitus, perioral numbness, metallic taste, or light-headedness within 5 min after lidocaine administration was considered a positive response. All 15 patients in the saline group (100% sensitivity) had a positive response to i.v. lidocaine, but only 9 of 15 patients in the sedation group had a positive response (60% sensitivity; P = 0.017). We conclude that midazolam and fentanyl premedication decreases the reliability of subjective detection of i.v. lidocaine. ⋯ Anesthesiologists often rely on subjective symptoms to prevent local anesthetic toxicity while performing regional anesthesia. Sedatives are often administered during the administration of regional anesthesia. This study demonstrates that typical sedation decreases the reliability of detection of local anesthetic toxicity by subjective symptoms.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of epinephrine on small-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia: clinical implications for ambulatory surgery.
The effect of adding epinephrine to small doses of spinal bupivacaine on the duration of sensory motor block has not been carefully investigated. Twelve volunteers underwent hyperbaric bupivacaine spinal anesthesia (7.5 mg) with and without epinephrine (0.2 mg) in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over fashion. Sensory block was assessed with pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) equivalent to surgical stimulation (at umbilicus, pubis, knee, and ankle), and tolerance of a pneumatic thigh tourniquet. Motor block was assessed with isometric force dynamometry. Discharge criteria were defined as return of pinprick sensation to dermatome S2, ability to ambulate, and ability to urinate. Extent of sensory block to pinprick over time was unaffected by the addition of epinephrine. However, epinephrine prolonged tolerance of TES at the pubis, knee, and ankle (33-48 min, P < 0.05) and of thigh tourniquet (30 min, P < 0.01). Motor block was prolonged by epinephrine at the quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscles (by 23 and 51 min, respectively, P < 0.002). Achievement of discharge criteria was prolonged by 48 min by the addition of epinephrine (P < 0.01). Thus, epinephrine may prolong surgical anesthesia for lower abdominal and lower extremity surgery and delay time until patients achieve discharge criteria. ⋯ Using a cross-over study design, 12 volunteers underwent bupivacaine spinal anesthesia with and without epinephrine. This study suggests that adding epinephrine to bupivacaine may prolong surgical anesthesia and also delay patients' discharge.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPatient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-controlled conscious sedation with propofol for dental treatment in anxious patients.
In a randomized, cross-over study, we prospectively compared the efficacy and quality of two methods to achieve conscious sedation with propofol in 11 unpremedicated, anxious dental patients. Each patient underwent two dental procedures, one that was conducted under target-controlled infusion (TCI) by the anesthesiologist (ACS), and the other that used patient-controlled sedation (PCS). The initial target concentration in the ACS mode was 2.5 microg/mL, which was manipulated in both directions until the desired clinical end point was achieved. In the PCS mode, a 4-mg bolus of propofol (10 mg/mL) was delivered at each activation of the machine, infused over 7 s without a lockout interval. The anxious dental patients could induce and maintain conscious sedation with the PCS settings. The mean (range) venous blood propofol concentrations were not significantly different with either mode: ACS 1.8 (0.8-2.7) microg/mL and PCS 1.2 (0.2-2.5) microg/mL. The level of patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and treatability were not different for either mode of sedation. The intensity of amnesia for intraoperative events was related to the blood concentrations achieved. In the ACS mode, one patient became unresponsive (sedation level 4) immediately after the start of sedation. No adverse cardiorespiratory effects resulted from either mode of propofol sedation. Five patients expressed a strong preference for PCS, and three would prefer ACS in the future. The results of the present study suggest that with these PCS settings, a satisfactory level of conscious sedation and a high level of patient satisfaction was achieved. ⋯ In a randomized, cross-over study, the blood propofol concentrations necessary to achieve conscious sedation in anxious dental patients using a target-controlled infusion conducted by the anesthesiologist versus patient-controlled sedation were not different. With the patient-controlled sedation settings, a satisfactory level of conscious sedation and a high level of patient satisfaction were achieved.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSmall-dose hyperbaric versus plain bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.
In a double-blind, randomized trial, 98 parturients undergoing cesarean section received either hyperbaric or plain bupivacaine 6.6 mg combined with sufentanil 3.3 microg as part of a combined spinal-epidural procedure. To prevent hypotension, 1000 mL of lactated Ringer's solution, 500 mL of hydroxyethyl starch 6%, and ephedrine 5 mg were administered i.v. The height of the block was equal in both groups, but more patients in the plain group had blocks that were either too high or too low (P < 0.01). The number of patients requiring epidural supplementation was equal in both groups. Strict criteria were used to treat hypotension. The overall incidence of systolic blood pressure (<90 mm Hg) was 13%, whereas it was more pronounced in the plain group (21% vs 6% in the hyperbaric group, P < 0.05), which required more ephedrine (P < 0.05) and in which a greater incidence of nausea was noticed (P < 0.05). We conclude that the use of a small dose of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with sufentanil plus our described preloading regimen resulted in a lower incidence of hypotension. Further, we conclude that the use of hyperbaric bupivacaine in this manner provides a more reliable block and a lower incidence of hypotension than plain bupivacaine. ⋯ A small dose of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% combined with sufentanil used intrathecally during cesarean section offered a more reliable cephalad spread of the spinal block than the glucose-free combination, which was reflected in a lower incidence of hypotension and nausea.