Anesthesia and analgesia
-
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.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of spinal, epidural, and general anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy.
We compared general, epidural, and spinal anesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy (excluding anterior cruciate ligament repairs). Forty-eight patients (ASA physical status I-III) were randomized to receive either propofol-nitrous oxide general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway with anesthetic depth titrated to a bispectral index level of 40-60, 15-20 mL of 3% 2-chloroprocaine epidural, or 75 mg of subarachnoid procaine with 20 microg fentanyl. All patients were premedicated with <0.035 mg/kg midazolam and <1 microg/kg fentanyl and received intraarticular bupivacaine and 15-30 mg of IV ketorolac during the procedure. Recovery times, operating room turnover times, and patient satisfaction were recorded by an observer using an objective scale for recovery assessment and a verbal rating scale for satisfaction. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance and chi(2). Postanesthesia care unit discharge times for the general and epidural groups were similar (general = 104+/-31 min, epidural = 92+/-18 min), whereas the spinal group had a longer recovery time (146+/-52 min) (P = 0.0003). Patient satisfaction was equally good in all three groups (P = 0.34). Room turnover times did not differ among groups (P = 0.16). There were no anesthetic failures or serious adverse events in any group. Pruritus was more frequent in the spinal group (7 of 16 required treatment) than in the general or epidural groups (no pruritus) (P<0.001). We conclude that epidural anesthesia with 2-chloroprocaine provides comparable recovery and discharge times to general anesthesia provided with propofol and nitrous oxide. Spinal anesthesia with procaine and fentanyl is an effective alternative and is associated with a longer discharge time and increased side effects. ⋯ For outpatient knee arthroscopy, anesthesia can be provided adequately with regional or general anesthesia. Epidural and general anesthesia provide equal recovery times and patient satisfaction, whereas spinal anesthesia may prolong recovery and have increased side effects. The choice of anesthesia may depend primarily on the patient's interest in being alert or asleep during the procedure.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Meta AnalysisThe good, the bad, and the ugly: should we completely banish human albumin from our intensive care units?
Human albumin is still widely used in critically ill patients for volume replacement therapy or for correcting hypoproteinemia. Most meta-analyses on the value of albumin administration are over 15 yr old and raise more questions than they answer. With the help of a MEDLINE analysis, we examined more recent studies in humans using albumin. Most of these studies have recommended a very cautious use of albumin in critically ill patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialHyaluronidase as an adjuvant in bupivacaine-lidocaine mixture for retrobulbar/peribulbar block.
Hyaluronidase 7.5 IU/mL added to the local anesthetic improves peribulbar block, but smaller concentrations have not been shown to be effective. In this prospective, double-blinded study, 714 consecutive ocular surgery patients were randomized into three groups: no hyaluronidase (n = 241), hyaluronidase 3.75 IU/mL (n = 244), and hyaluronidase 7.5 IU/mL (n = 229). Retrobulbar/peribulbar block was performed with two injections of a 1:1 mixture of bupivacaine 0.75% and lidocaine 2%, 6-8 mL. Patient data were collected on demographics, initial volume of local anesthetic, need for supplementary block, and akinesia of the anesthetized eye. When hyaluronidase was used (3.75 or 7.5 IU/mL), the initial block was sufficient and the anesthetized eye was akinetic significantly more often than in the group without hyaluronidase. The hyaluronidase groups (3.75 and 7.5 IU/mL) did not differ significantly in any respect. We conclude that the addition of hyaluronidase 3.75 or 7.5 IU/mL improved the success of the initial retrobulbar/peribulbar block and akinesia and reduced the need for supplementary block. ⋯ We conclude that the addition of hyaluronidase 3.75 or 7.5 IU/mL improved the success of the initial retrobulbar/peribulbar block and akinesia and reduced the need for supplementary block.