Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPeripheral antihyperalgesic effect of morphine to heat, but not mechanical, stimulation in healthy volunteers after ultraviolet-B irradiation.
The objective of this study was to evaluate direct peripheral analgesic effects of morphine using a peripheral model of hyperalgesia and the technique of IV regional anesthesia (IVRA), thus allowing the differentiation between central and peripheral mechanisms of action. Two spots on the ventral sides of both forearms in 12 volunteers were irradiated with ultraviolet (UV)-B to induce thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia. One day after the induction of the inflammatory reaction, 40 mL of morphine hydrochloride 0.01% was administered via IVRA. Calibrated heat and phasic mechanical stimuli were applied to differentially determine impairments of tactile and nociceptive perception. Touch and phasic mechanical stimuli of noxious intensity to normal skin did not reveal altered responsiveness caused by morphine. In contrast, the administration of morphine significantly increased heat pain thresholds in the UV-B-pretreated skin areas. The peripheral antihyperalgesic effects of morphine were demonstrated only in inflamed skin areas. Direct central analgesic effects were ruled out by the lack of measurable plasma concentrations of morphine and its metabolites. Morphine 0.01% significantly diminished thermal, but not mechanical, hyperalgesia by a peripheral mode of action, which suggests inhibition of effector pathways leading to heat, but not mechanical, sensitization. ⋯ The peripheral analgesic effects of morphine were studied using modified IV regional anesthesia. When administered 1 day after the induction of dermal inflammation, morphine 0.01% diminished heat, but not primary mechanical, hyperalgesia. Therefore, suppression of mechanical hyperalgesia seen in previous studies could be predominantly due to inhibition of secondary (central) mechanical hyperalgesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe safety and effectiveness of remifentanil as an adjunct sedative for regional anesthesia.
We assessed the sedative potential of continuous infusions of remifentanil with a validated composite alertness scale in 160 patients (ASA physical status I or II) undergoing hip replacement surgery with spinal block (n = 61) or hand surgery using brachial plexus block (n = 93). They were randomized to receive one of the following initial dose regimens in double-blinded fashion: placebo or 0.04, 0.07, or 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) remifentanil subsequently titrated to effect. Additional midazolam IV was allowed for adequate sedation as required. The combined analysis of both surgery groups revealed a dose-related increase in achievement of sedation level > or =2 within 15 min of the start of the study drug infusion; all remifentanil dose comparisons with placebo reached significance (P < 0.001). The remifentanil 50% effective dose for a composite sedation level > or =2 within 15 min of the start of drug infusion was estimated as 0.043 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.059). The requirement for midazolam decreased with increasing remifentanil dose compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The median time to return to alertness after the end of infusion was 10-12 min in the remifentanil groups and 5 min in the placebo group. Significant incidences of nausea, pruritus, sweating, and respiratory depression were reported during remifentanil infusions compared with placebo. The data suggest that remifentanil may be useful for supplementation of regional anesthesia, provided that ventilation is carefully monitored. ⋯ In this dose-finding, placebo-controlled study, remifentanil infusions were used to provide sedation during spinal and brachial plexus regional anesthesia. The 50% effective dose for achievement of sedation was 0.043 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Return to alertness occurred after 10-12 min (median time). Remifentanil infusions can be used to supplement regional anesthesia, but this requires careful monitoring of ventilation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effects on resting ventilation of intravenous infusions of morphine or sameridine, a novel molecule with both local anesthetic and opioid properties.
Sameridine has both local anesthetic and partial mu-opioid receptor agonistic properties. The aim of this single-blinded, randomized, three-way cross-over study of 12 subjects was to investigate the effects on resting ventilation of two doses of sameridine: 0.15 mg/kg (S-Small) and 0.73 mg/kg (S-Large) compared with 0.10 mg/kg morphine. Each drug was infused IV over 20 min. Ventilation was measured by pneumotachography and in-line capnography, and sedation was rated by the subjects using a visual analog scale (VAS). Plasma was collected and analyzed for sameridine and morphine. At the end of drug infusion, minute ventilation (VE) and tidal volume (VT) were reduced in the S-Large group, and VE was reduced in the morphine group. End-tidal CO2 increased in both groups (P < 0.05), but respiratory rates remained unchanged. In the S-Small group, no ventilatory changes were recorded. In the S-Large group, the median sedation score was 6.8 cm with corresponding values in the morphine and S-Small groups of 3.3 and 2.5 cm, respectively. There was a relationship between the plasma concentration of sameridine and the depression of ventilation. We conclude that sameridine influences resting ventilation and that this effect is directly related to plasma concentrations of sameridine. From a ventilatory aspect, a clinical dose of sameridine with both local anesthetic and opioid properties seems safe. ⋯ Sameridine, a molecule with both local anesthetic and analgesic properties, impaired resting ventilation after a large IV dose (0.73 mg/kg), more so than 0.10 mg/kg IV morphine. A clinical dose of sameridine (0.15 mg/kg) did not have any effects on ventilation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialFiberoptic-guided airway exchange of the esophageal-tracheal Combitube in spontaneously breathing versus mechanically ventilated patients.
The aim of this study was to compare fiberoptic-guided airway exchange of the esophageal-tracheal Combitube (ETC, Kendall-Sheridan Catheter Corp., Argyle, NY) with an endotracheal tube in spontaneously breathing versus mechanically ventilated patients. Forty patients with Mallampati score III and IV scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 20 each): nonparalyzed, spontaneously breathing or paralyzed, mechanically ventilated patients. After anesthetic induction and insertion of the ETC, a fiberoptic bronchoscope threaded into an armored endotracheal tube was passed transnasally into the larynx. Endotracheal intubation was successful in 18 spontaneously breathing patients and in 15 patients during controlled ventilation. Successful airway exchange was completed in significantly less time (P < 0.05) in spontaneously breathing patients (9+/-3 min; mean +/- SD) than in mechanically ventilated patients (13+/-4 min). Both methods allowed for continuous airway control and maintenance of ventilation and oxygenation. The described method is a means of replacing the ETC with an endotracheal tube without interruption of airway control or ventilation. Replacing the ETC with an endotracheal tube using this method is more readily accomplished during spontaneous ventilation than during controlled ventilation. ⋯ We describe the replacement of the Combitube by an endotracheal tube by the aid of fiberoptic bronchoscopy and without interruption of airway control or ventilation. The performance of this technique was facilitated by spontaneous ventilation compared with mechanical ventilation.