Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPatient-controlled analgesia with tramadol versus tramadol plus lysine acetyl salicylate.
By using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) delivery system, we compared the clinical advantages and disadvantages of PCA with tramadol and PCA with a mixture of tramadol plus lysine acetyl salicylate (a soluble aspirin). Fifty adult patients who had undergone major orthopedic surgeries were enrolled into a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. The general anesthesia was performed in a standard manner. At the beginning of wound closure, an equal volume dose of either tramadol 2.5 mg/kg (Group 1) or tramadol 1.25 mg/kg + lysine acetyl salicylate 12.5 mg/kg mixture (Group 2) was administered slowly IV. These solutions were continued postoperatively for IV PCA. Pain control, patient satisfaction, vital signs, and adverse effects were assessed for 48 h. Visual Analog Scale =3 could be achieved with either group. Total tramadol consumption was significantly less in Group 2 than in Group 1 (614 +/- 259 mg vs 923 +/- 354 mg) (P: < 0.05). Patients in Group 2 were more alert (P: < 0.05). Blood loss from the surgical drain was similar, 865 +/- 275 mL (Group 1) vs 702 +/- 345 mL (Group 2). We conclude that aspirin can be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to tramadol for PCA after orthopedic surgery. ⋯ Injectable aspirin can be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to tramadol for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in orthopedic patients. The tramadol requirement is therefore reduced. This combination supports the concept that drugs other than opioids can be used for PCA.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the effects of propofol and midazolam on memory during two levels of sedation by using target-controlled infusion.
We examined memory during sedation with target-controlled infusions of propofol and midazolam in a double-blinded five-way, cross-over study in 10 volunteers. Each active drug infusion was targeted to sedation level 1 (asleep) and level 4 (lethargic) as determined with the Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. At the target level of sedation, drug concentration was clamped for 30 min, during which time neutral words were presented. After 2 h, explicit memory was assessed by recall, and implicit memory by using a wordstem completion test. Venous drug concentrations (mean +/- SD) were 1350 ng/mL (+/-332 ng/mL) for propofol and 208 ng/mL (+/-112 ng/mL) for midazolam during Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale level 4; and 1620 ng/mL (+/-357 ng/mL) and 249 ng/mL (+/-82 ng/mL) respectively during level 1. The wordstem completion test frequencies at low level sedation were significantly higher than spontaneous frequencies (8.7% + 2.4%; P: < 0.05 in all cases), and lower than during placebo (33.6% + 23%) (P: < 0.05 in all cases, except P: = 0.076 for propofol at level 4). Clinically distinct levels of sedation were accompanied by small differences in venous propofol or midazolam concentrations. This indicates steep concentration-effect relationships. Neutral information is still memorized during low-level sedation with both drugs. The memory effect of propofol and midazolam did not differ significantly. ⋯ Implicit memory can occur during different states of consciousness and might lead to psychological damage. In 10 volunteers, implicit memory was investigated during sedation with propofol and midazolam in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. To compare the effects of both drugs, they were titrated using a computer-controlled infusion system to produce similar high and low levels of sedation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSmall-dose droperidol effectively reduces nausea in a general surgical adult patient population.
In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we (1) determined whether 0.625 mg of IV droperidol given 30 min before emergence from general anesthesia reduces the incidence of immediate and delayed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a general surgical adult patient population, and (2) compared the efficacy of droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine for the rescue treatment of PONV. One hundred fifty adult patients receiving general anesthesia for >2 h received either droperidol (0.625 mg IV) or a placebo before emergence. Patients requiring treatment for PONV in the postanesthesia care unit were randomized to receive either droperidol (0.625 mg IV), ondansetron (4 mg IV), or promethazine (12. 5 mg IV). Droperidol effectively prevented PONV (6.8% in droperidol-treated patients versus 40.8% in placebo-treated patients, P: < 0.001). Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine were equally effective in treating established PONV, without significant differences in side effects or time to postanesthesia care unit discharge. ⋯ Droperidol 0.625 mg IV before emergence from general anesthesia effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the general surgical population. Our randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study demonstrated a reduction in PONV from 41% to 7%. Droperidol is a safe and inexpensive alternative to ondansetron. Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine are also equally effective in treating PONV in the postanesthesia care unit.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPostoperative analgesic effects of celecoxib or rofecoxib after spinal fusion surgery.
Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are recommended for the multimodal management of postoperative pain and may have a significant opioid-sparing effect after major surgery. The analgesic efficacy of the cyclooxygenase-2 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, celecoxib and rofecoxib, have not been evaluated after major orthopedic surgery. This study was designed to determine whether the administration of a preoperative dose of celecoxib or rofecoxib to patients who have undergone spinal stabilization would decrease patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine use and/or enhance analgesia. We evaluated 60 inpatients undergoing spine stabilization by one surgeon. All patients received PCA morphine. The patients were divided into three groups. Preoperatively, they were given oral celecoxib 200 mg, rofecoxib 50 mg, or placebo. The outcome measures included pain scores and 24-h morphine use at six times during the first 24 postoperative h. The total dose of morphine and the cumulative doses for each of the six time periods were significantly more in the placebo group than in the other two groups. The morphine dose was significantly less in five of the six time intervals in the rofecoxib group compared with the celecoxib group. The pain scores were significantly less in the rofecoxib group than in the other two groups at two of the six intervals, and less than the placebo group in an additional interval. Although both rofecoxib and celecoxib produce similar analgesic effects in the first 4 h after surgery, rofecoxib demonstrated an extended analgesic effect that lasted throughout the 24-h study. We thus recommend that rofecoxib be used as a preoperative component of pain management that includes PCA morphine in patients undergoing spine stabilization surgery. ⋯ The cyclooxygenase-2-specific nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, celecoxib and rofecoxib, both demonstrate an opioid-sparing effect after spinal fusion surgery. Celecoxib resulted in decreased morphine use for the first 8 h after surgery, whereas rofecoxib demonstrated less morphine use throughout the 24-h study period.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Nov 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPart I: propofol, thiopental, sevoflurane, and isoflurane-A randomized, controlled trial of effectiveness.
When compared with thiopental and isoflurane, propofol and sevoflurane are associated with a faster return to wakefulness after anesthesia. Yet their wider usage in inpatient surgery has been restrained by concerns regarding their acquisition costs and by lack of studies demonstrating improved patient outcome. We randomly allocated 453 adult surgical inpatients to one of four anesthetic regimens (thiopental-isoflurane, propofol-isoflurane, propofol induction and maintenance, or sevoflurane induction and maintenance) and measured their rate and quality of recovery. We found no significant differences in the rate and quality of recovery between groups. Propofol was associated with more pain on injection (P: < 0. 0005), but less cough during induction (P: = 0.003), and less early postoperative nausea and vomiting (P: = 0.003). We could not detect any significant advantages with propofol and sevoflurane, when compared with thiopental and isoflurane in adults undergoing elective inpatient surgery. ⋯ Propofol and sevoflurane do not offer any significant advantages over thiopental and isoflurane in adults undergoing elective inpatient surgery.