Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe impact of saline flush of the epidural catheter on resolution of epidural anesthesia in volunteers: a dose-response study.
We evaluated the effect of 1, 20, and 40 mL of epidural saline flush on recovery from lidocaine epidural anesthesia. Eight volunteers were studied for three study periods, each separated by 72 h. The volume of saline was randomized, and a new catheter was inserted for each study period. A standardized dose of 20 mL of 2% plain lidocaine was injected for 10 min, followed by an epidural saline flush 30 min later. Sensory block was assessed by pinprick and transcutaneous electrical stimulation and motor block by a modified Bromage scale and isometric maximal force contraction. Times to void and ambulate independently before discharge were recorded. Peak plasma lidocaine concentrations and time to peak concentration were determined. Results from six volunteers showed that epidural saline, 40 mL, significantly altered anesthetic resolution, accelerating the time of complete sensory and motor block regression (P < 0.05). Median peak levels of sensory and motor block and times to void and ambulate were similar among treatment groups. Peak plasma lidocaine concentrations were similar in all treatment groups. Our data suggest that a 40-mL epidural saline injection 30 min after the induction facilitates regression of epidural lidocaine anesthesia, but a 20-mL bolus does not. Epidural saline injection does not affect vascular absorption of epidural lidocaine. ⋯ Epidural catheter flushing with 40 mL of saline, after establishment of epidural lidocaine anesthesia, can facilitate sensory and motor block recovery. However, this does not affect vascular absorption of epidural lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of the sedation and recovery profiles of Ro 48-6791, a new benzodiazepine, and midazolam in combination with meperidine for outpatient endoscopic procedures.
In this randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the onset and recovery characteristics of an investigational benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791 (when administered alone or combined with meperidine), a midazolam-meperidine combination for sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Ninety consenting outpatients scheduled for upper or lower GI procedures were randomly assigned as follows: Group I received midazolam 1 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; Group II received Ro 48-6791 0.5 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; or Group III received Ro 48-6791 1.0 mg IV alone. If the level of sedation did not achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 4 (where 5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep) in < or = 2 min, a second bolus dose, equal to half of the original dose of midazolam or Ro 48-6791, was administered. The onset time was defined as the time to achieve an OAA/S score of 4. During the procedure, a bolus dose equal to half of the total induction dose was given to maintain an OAA/S score of 4. The induction and maintenance dosages, as well as recovery times to an OAA/S score of 5, were recorded. A heel-toe line walk (HTLW) test used to determine the time to "fitness for discharge." Although the onset times were similar in all three groups, the induction dosages were significantly reduced in Group II compared with Groups I and III. There were significantly more patients requiring supplemental sedative boluses and "rescue" analgesia with Ro 48-6791 than with midazolam. The Ro 48-6791 groups also experienced more dizziness after the procedures. Ro 48-6791 was associated with a higher incidence of inadequate sedation (18% vs 3%) without the opioid. The time for the HTLW test to return to baseline values after the procedure was similar among the three groups. However, the Ro 48-6791 groups had significantly reduced times to return to an OAA/S score of 5 and to achieve the baseline HTLW value after the last dose of the benzodiazepine. In conclusion, compared with midazolam, Ro 48-6791 is more potent and may be associated with a more rapid early recovery after endoscopic GI procedures. However, sedation with Ro 48-6791 required more supplemental bolus doses and "rescue" analgesic medication and was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness. ⋯ The investigational water-soluble benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791, is a more potent sedative than midazolam, which appears to have a slightly shorter duration of action. Unfortunately, use of Ro 48-6791 increased the requirement for supplemental doses of the sedative medication and the need for "rescue" analgesics during the procedure and was associated with more dizziness after the procedure.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialDetermination of the effective therapeutic dose of intrathecal sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Intrathecal (IT) sufentanil provides effective analgesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. However, the optimal dose of sufentanil has not been established. We designed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to determine the optimal dose of IT sufentanil. Sixty men were randomized to receive 12.5,15,17.5, or 20 microg of IT sufentanil (n = 15 for each group) via a combined spinal epidural technique. Inadequate analgesia was treated with IV propofol, and the epidural was activated for a pain score greater than 6 on a 10-point verbal analog pain scale. Intraoperative and postoperative visual analog pain scale scores were significantly higher in the 12.5-microg group compared with 20-microg group (3.2 +/- 1.6 vs 1.6 +/- 1.2, P < 0.05, and 1.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 0.5 +/- 0.4, P < 0.05, respectively). The smaller-dosage groups of IT sufentanil required significantly more supplemental boluses of propofol compared with the 20-microg group (67%, 53%, and 40% vs 6%, respectively, P < 0.05). However, pruritus was significantly diminished in the smaller-dosage groups compared with the 20-microg group (55%, 60%, and 67% vs 100%, P < 0.05). The time to discharge was significantly shorter in the 15-microg group compared with the 20-microg group (84 +/- 40 min vs 126 +/- 48 min, P < 0.05). These results suggest that 15 microg of IT sufentanil may be the optimal IT dose for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. ⋯ Many anesthetic techniques are used for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). We have previously shown that intrathecal sufentanil was effective for ESWL, but was associated with a high incidence of itching. We tested 60 patients in four spinal sufentanil dose groups and found that doses of 15 and 17.5 microg provided the most effective analgesia with the fewest side effects for ESWL, with only mild itching.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialVideotape increases parental knowledge about pediatric pain management.
Pediatric pain management often depends on parents recognition and assessment of their child's pain and their beliefs as to whether the pain should be treated. Parental misconceptions concerning pain assessment and pain management may therefore result in inadequate pain treatment, particularly in patients who are too young or too developmentally handicapped to self-report their pain. We hypothesized that viewing a concise, educational videotape would provide parents with instructive information that could correct misconceptions concerning pain and pain management in children. To do this, we evaluated the impact of an educational videotape on parental responses to a questionnaire about pediatric pain management. Parents of children scheduled for inpatient, postoperative hospital care were studied. After answering 30 questions, parents were randomly assigned to either view (Group 1) or not view (Group 2) a 19-min educational videotape. Immediately after viewing the videotape (Group 1), or 30 min after taking the first test (Group 2), parents were asked to answer the same questionnaire a second time. The effect of seeing the videotape was assessed by comparing post-pre test score differences using paired t-test. One-hundred parents were studied. Randomization was effective in assigning equitable groups. Initial scores of percent answers correct in each group were not different ([mean +/- SD] Group 1 [n = 50]: 68.7% +/- 18.8% vs Group 2 [n = 50]: 61.5% +/- 22.7%; P = 0.09). Viewing the videotape effectively increased test scores: paired t-test within groups demonstrated a significant difference in Group 1 (22.4% +/- 16.5%, P < 0.0001), whereas Group 2 scores changed to a much lesser degree (2.7% +/- 8.3%, P = 0.0271). All parents who viewed the videotape stated that it was informative regarding their understanding of their child's pain management. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of an educational videotape in changing parental knowledge concerning postoperative pediatric pain. This effective and efficient teaching medium may be useful in improving pain management in postoperative pediatric surgical patients. ⋯ Pediatric pain management often depends on parents recognition and assessment of their child's pain and their beliefs as to whether the pain should be treated. This prospective, randomized, controlled study demonstrated the effectiveness of an educational videotape in changing parental knowledge concerning postoperative pediatric pain. This effective and efficient teaching medium may be useful in preventing inadequate pain management in postoperative pediatric surgical patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
ReviewDesign of appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics to minimize patient waiting times: a review of computer simulation and patient survey studies.
Anesthesiologists can use the science of clinic scheduling to design appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics. The principal reasons reported for inappropriately [or arguably unethically] long patient waiting times are provider tardiness, lack of patient punctuality, patient no-shows, and improperly designed appointment systems. However, the fundamental reason why anesthesia clinics have such long patient waiting times is because of their relatively long mean (and consequently standard deviation) of consultation times. ⋯ Substantial provider idle time should be expected. Appropriate values for breaks, appointment intervals, and percentage no-shows should be determined by computer simulation, using parameters appropriate for each provider and anesthesia clinic. Finally, traditional efforts at making waiting for a consultation tolerable should be made.