Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Comparative StudyA comparison of awake versus paralyzed tracheal intubation for infants with pyloric stenosis.
This prospective, nonrandomized, observational study of 76 infants with pyloric stenosis was conducted at an academic children's hospital and compared awake versus paralyzed tracheal intubation in terms of successful first attempt rate, intubation time, heart rate (HR) and arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) changes, and complications. Three groups were determined by intubation method: awake (A) with an oxygen-insufflating laryngoscope, after rapid-sequence induction (R), or after modified rapid-sequence induction (M) including ventilation through cricoid pressure. Successful first attempt intubation rate was 64% for Group A versus 87% for paralyzed Groups R and M (P = 0.028). Median intubation time was 63 s in Group A versus 34 s in Groups R and M (P = 0.004). Transient, mild decreases in mean HR and SpO2 and incidences of significant bradycardia and decreased SpO2 did not vary by group. Complications, including bronchial or esophageal intubation, emesis, and oropharyngeal trauma, were few. Senior anesthesiologists intervened in four tracheal intubations. We advocate anesthetized, paralyzed tracheal intubation because struggling with conscious infants takes longer, often requires multiple attempts, and prevents neither bradycardia nor decreased SpO2. After induction, additional mask ventilation with O2 confers no advantage over immediate tracheal intubation in preserving SpO2. ⋯ In our children's hospital, awake tracheal intubation was not superior to anesthetized, paralyzed intubation in maintaining adequate oxygenation and heart rate or in reducing complications, and should be abandoned in favor of the latter technique for routine anesthetic management of otherwise healthy infants with pyloric stenosis.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Tests to evaluate intravenous placement of epidural catheters in laboring women: a prospective clinical study.
We prospectively evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of an epinephrine-containing epidural test dose (EpiTD) as a marker of intravascular injection in 209 unmedicated laboring women. Maternal heart rate (MHR) was continuously monitored and recorded on a strip chart. A tocodynamometer monitored uterine activity. A lumbar epidural catheter was placed and aspirated. If aspiration was positive for blood or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the catheter was replaced. In uterine diastole and with stable MHR, 198 patients received an EpiTD (epinephrine 15 microg plus lidocaine 45 mg) via the catheter. MHR and the generated HR strip were observed. A positive EpiTD was defined as a sudden increase in MHR of 10 bpm more than the resting MHR, within one minute after the injection, with a fast acceleratory phase of more than 1 bpm. Absence of a tachycardiac response suggested a negative EpiTD. If the tachycardiac response was deemed equivocal or a uterine contraction followed the EpiTD injection within 1 min, the EpiTD was invalidated and repeated. Catheter aspiration was repeated, and the catheter was removed if aspiration was positive. All patients with negative EpiTD and aspiration received 6-12 mL of epidural bupivacaine 0.25% with or without fentanyl 50 microg. Absence of analgesia without signs or symptoms of systemic toxicity after a maximum of bupivacaine 30 mg defined failed epidural analgesia. All patients with positive EpiTD and negative aspiration received 5 mL of lidocaine 2% epidurally as a second test dose (Lido100TD). The presence of tinnitus and/or metallic taste defined a positive Lido100TD. There were 176 true negatives, 0 false negatives, 14 true positives, and 8 false positives. The sensitivity of EpiTD was 100%, the specificity 96%, the negative predictive value 100%, and the positive predictive value 63%. The prevalence of negative tests was 88%, and the prevalence of positive tests was 12%. The overall accuracy of an EpiTD was 95.5%. We conclude that EpiTD is a reliable test to identify i.v. catheters during the performance of lumbar epidural analgesia in laboring patients. ⋯ Catheters inserted for epidural analgesia in laboring patients may accidentally enter a blood vessel. Local anesthetics injected through these catheters may cause seizures and cardiac arrest. In this study, we concluded that injecting a small amount of epinephrine before injecting a local anesthetic frequently helps to identify these misplaced catheters. Few catheters may actually be in the correct place even after responses to epinephrine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Hydroxyethyl starch antibodies in humans: incidence and clinical relevance.
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a plasma expander used for perioperative i.v. fluid management, as well as for resuscitation from trauma and shock. HES is very well tolerated, and the incidence of anaphylactic reactions is lower than with dextran or gelatin. Dextran anaphylaxis is caused by circulating dextran-reactive antibodies (ABs) of the immunoglobin G (IgG) class found in most adults. Histamine release from mast cells induces adverse reactions after gelatin infusion. The cause of adverse reactions due to HES is not yet clear. To investigate AB formation due to HES, we collected sera of 1004 patients at least 14 days after starch administration. Using a highly sensitive enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay technique, we found one patient with a low 1:10 titer of HES-reactive ABs (immunoglobin M [IgM] class). Despite repeated HES infusions, no clinical reaction could be detected in this patient. On the basis of a binomial distribution, a one-tailed confidence interval (99%) was used to calculate the percentage of the occurrence of ABs in general with maximum of 33 in 10,000 persons (IgM) and 23 in 10,000 persons (IgG). We suggest that HES-reactive ABs are extremely rare and that they do not necessarily induce anaphylaxis. Other mechanisms may be responsible for adverse reactions due to HES. ⋯ The frequency of antibody formation due to hydroxyethyl starch, a commonly used plasma expander, was prospectively investigated in 1004 patients. Only one patient showed transient antibody formation, which was not harmful to the patient. This low antigenicity could explain the excellent tolerance of hydroxyethyl starch compared with other plasma expanders.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of varied doses of epinephrine on duration of lidocaine spinal anesthesia in the thoracic and lumbosacral dermatomes.
The efficacy of epinephrine in prolonging spinal analgesia has recently been confirmed in the lumbosacral but not in the thoracic, segments. Most previous studies used doses of epinephrine smaller than 0.3 mg. We studied the effects of 0.2, 0.4, or 0.6 mg of epinephrine added to hyperbaric lidocaine 60 mg in 7.5% dextrose solution for spinal anesthesia. Eighty patients were randomly divided into four groups: Group A received lidocaine without epinephrine, Group B received lidocaine plus 0.2 mL (0.2 mg) of epinephrine 1:1000 solution, Group C received lidocaine plus 0.4 mL (0.4 mg) of epinephrine, and Group D received lidocaine plus 0.6 mL (0.6 mg) of epinephrine. The maximal cephalad sensory level was between T2 and T3 for all groups. The median times for analgesia to regress two and four segments were significantly prolonged in Group D, but not in either Group B or C, compared with those in Group A. Times for regression to T12 and L3 were significantly prolonged in Groups B, C, and D compared with Group A. We conclude that the dose-dependent relationship of spinal analgesia can be applied to epinephrine, and that larger doses prolong lidocaine spinal anesthesia in the thoracic as well as the lumbosacral dermatomes. ⋯ Prolongation of lidocaine spinal analgesia by intrathecal epinephrine is established in the lumbosacral, but not in the thoracic, dermatomes. Three doses of epinephrine--0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 mg--were compared. A dose-dependent response and significant prolongation with the 0.6-mg dose in the thoracic dermatomes were confirmed.