Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparative study between a calcium channel blocker (Nicardipine) and a combined alpha-beta-blocker (Labetalol) for the control of emergence hypertension during craniotomy for tumor surgery.
We compared the efficacy of the combination of enalaprilat/labetalol with that of enalaprilat/nicardipine to prevent emergence postcraniotomy hypertension. A prospective, randomized open labeled clinical trial was designed to compare the incidence of breakthrough hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 140 mm Hg) and adverse effects (hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia) between the two drug combinations. Secondarily, the effects of the drugs on SBP, mean blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were evaluated over the course of the study. ⋯ SBP was similarly controlled in both groups. There was a marginally smaller incidence of failures and adverse effects with labetalol. Blood pressure profiles were similar for both groups.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialPercutaneous tracheostomy: ciaglia blue rhino versus the basic ciaglia technique of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy.
Percutaneous dilational tracheostomy (PDT), according to Ciaglia's technique described in 1985, has become the most popular technique for percutaneous tracheostomy and is demonstrably as safe as surgical tracheostomy. In 1999, an extensively modified technique of PDT was introduced, the Ciaglia Blue Rhino (CBR; Cook Critical Care, Bloomington, IL), that consists of one-step dilation by means of a curved dilator with hydrophilic coating. To compare CBR with the basic technique of PDT, we performed a prospective, randomized trial in 50 critically ill adults. Twenty-five of these patients had PDT, and 25 had CBR. Average operating times were <3 min for CBR (range: 50-360 s) and <7 min for PDT (range: 4-20 min; P<0.0001). Tracheostomy was successfully completed in all patients. When CBR was performed, 11 minor, nonlife-threatening complications were noted: nine fractures of tracheal cartilage and two short periods of intraoperative oxygen desaturation. During PDT, seven complications occurred, of which three were potentially life-threatening: two injuries to the posterior tracheal wall, one pneumothorax, two tracheal cartilage fractures (P< 0.05 vs CBR), one case of bleeding, and one short episode of intraoperative oxygen desaturation. Regardless of whether PDT or CBR was performed, oxygenation was not significantly affected, and there was no infection of the tracheostoma. Based on our data, we conclude that new CBR is more practicable than PDT. No life-threatening complications occurred during CBR. ⋯ To assess practicability and safety of the Ciaglia Blue Rhino (Cook Critical Care, Bloomington, IL)-an extensively modified technique of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy-50 critically ill adults on long-term ventilation underwent either new Ciaglia Blue Rhino or percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of superficial versus combined (superficial and deep) cervical plexus block for carotid endarterectomy: a prospective, randomized study.
Carotid endarterectomy may be performed by using cervical plexus blockade with local anesthetic supplementation by the surgeon during surgery. Most practitioners use either a superficial cervical plexus block or a combined (superficial and deep) block, but it is unclear which offers the best operative conditions or greatest patient satisfaction. We compared the two techniques in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. ⋯ The median time to first analgesia in the superficial block group was 150 min, more than in the combined block group (median time 45 min) but this difference, although large, was not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U-test). We found no significant differences between the anesthetic techniques studied. All patients reported satisfaction with the techniques.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialBisulfite-containing propofol: is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan for induction of anesthesia?
Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs. 51%, P<0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia. ⋯ Bisulfite-containing propofol and Diprivan(TM) (AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) were similar with respect to their induction characteristics; however, the generic formulation was associated with a smaller incidence of injection pain. Assuming that the drug costs are similar, these data suggest that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM).
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialRandomized safety studies of intravenous perflubron emulsion. I. Effects on coagulation function in healthy volunteers.
Previous perfluorocarbon (PFC) emulsions have been associated with transient adverse events (i.e., platelet activation, decreased platelet count, febrile responses, changes in hemodynamic function). The Phase I studies described in this report were parallel, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies conducted in 48 healthy volunteers (n = 24 per study) with perflubron emulsion (Oxygent; Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp., San Diego, CA). Because of the decreased platelet counts observed with previous PFC emulsions and the intended use of perflubron emulsion in surgical patients, these studies assessed postdosing coagulation responses and hemostasis. ⋯ A 17% reduction in platelet count was observed 3 days after dosing in the 1.8-g PFC/kg group; levels recovered to baseline by Day 7. The intravascular half-life of perflubron for the first 24 h was dose dependent: 9.4+/-2.2 h and 6.1+/-1.9 h in the 1.8- and 1.2-g PFC/kg groups, respectively. Results indicate that this perflubron emulsion did not affect coagulation function in healthy volunteers.