Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2000
Meta Analysis Comparative StudySevoflurane versus propofol for anesthetic induction: a meta-analysis.
We performed this meta-analysis to compare the characteristics of sevoflurane and propofol for the induction of routine anesthesia and for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. The variables assessed were 1) time to loss of consciousness, 2) incidence of apnea during induction, 3) induction complications, 4) time for successful LMA insertion, 5) success with LMA insertion on first attempt, 6) patient dissatisfaction, and 7) postoperative nausea and vomiting. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases between January 1992 and October 1999 were reviewed for randomized, controlled trials comparing anesthetic induction between sevoflurane/nitrous oxide and propofol. Data from the 12 randomized, controlled studies were used for the meta-analysis. Sevoflurane induction was associated with a trend toward higher patient dissatisfaction and higher first-time success with LMA. Apnea was less common in the sevoflurane group. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly more frequent in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). This effect was still present when all other variables, except the induction methods, were controlled. The other pooled variables did not show a significant difference between sevoflurane and propofol. Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. ⋯ Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialFast-tracking after immersion lithotripsy: general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care.
Both monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) offer advantages over epidural anesthesia for immersion lithotripsy. We compared propofol-based MAC and desflurane-based GA techniques for outpatient lithotripsy. After receiving midazolam 2 mg IV, 100 subjects were randomly assigned to one of two anesthetic treatment groups. In the MAC group, propofol 50-100 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) IV was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 2-3 (5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep). Remifentanil 0.05 microg.kg(-1). min(-1) IV supplemented with 0.125 microg/kg IV boluses, was administered for pain control. In the GA group, anesthesia was induced with propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV and remifentanil 0.125 microg/kg IV and maintained with desflurane (2%-4% inspired) and nitrous oxide (60%). Tachypnea (respiratory rate >20 breaths/min) was treated with remifentanil 0.125 microg/kg IV boluses. In the GA group, droperidol (0.625 mg IV) was administered as a prophylactic antiemetic. Recovery times and postoperative side effects were assessed up to 24 h after the procedure. Compared with MAC, the use of GA reduced the opioid requirement and decreased movements and episodes of desaturation (<90%) during the procedure. Although the GA group took longer to return to an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 5, discharge times were similar in both groups. We conclude that GA can provide better conditions for outpatient immersion lithotripsy than MAC sedation without delaying discharge. ⋯ A desflurane-based general anesthetic technique using the cuffed oropharyngeal airway device was found to be a highly acceptable alternative to propofol-based monitored anesthesia care sedation for outpatient immersion lithotripsy.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialInterpleural analgesia does not influence postthoracotomy pain.
The management of postthoracotomy pain is a problem and may contribute to atelectasis, leading to hypoxemia, pulmonary infection, and permanent alveolar damage. We sought to determine the efficacy of interpleural analgesia for pain control and to evaluate independent predictors for postoperative pain intensity. Eighty-three patients undergoing elective anterolateral (n = 37) and posterolateral (n = 46) thoracotomy were included in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial. Patients were assigned to receive either 0.5% bupivacaine or saline solution interpleurally every 4 h for 10 doses postoperatively. All patients also received patient-controlled analgesics (PCA) with piritramide as the opioid for additional pain control. Pain was assessed on the basis of PCA requirements and by using a visual analog scale. Visual analog scale scores and PCA requirements were not different between groups. Both interpleural bupivacaine and saline significantly reduced pain scores 30 min after the administration. We concluded that pain reduction by interpleural instillation of bupivacaine reflects a placebo-like effect; however, interpleural analgesia is not effective in patients undergoing lateral thoracotomy. Sex and surgical approach were shown to influence postoperative pain intensity at rest, but not during coughing. The female patients, and those undergoing posterolateral thoracotomy, exhibited higher pain scores. This observation appears to be of only marginal clinical significance. The efficacy of interpleural analgesia to reduce postoperative pain intensity in patients after lateral thoracotomy is controversial. In this study we demonstrated a lack of efficacy of interpleural analgesia. ⋯ The efficacy of interpleural analgesia to reduce postoperative pain intensity in patients after lateral thoracotomy is controversial. In this study, we demonstrated a lack of efficacy of interpleural analgesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialGabapentin enhances the analgesic effect of morphine in healthy volunteers.
The most effective group of drugs for the treatment of severe pain is opioid analgesics. Their use, however, is limited by decreased effects in neuropathic and chronic pain as a result of increased pain and development of tolerance. Gabapentin (GBP) is effective in both experimental models of chronic pain and clinical studies of neuropathic pain. Therefore, we investigated, in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study, the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction of GBP and morphine in 12 healthy male volunteers. Morphine (60 mg, controlled release) or placebo was administered at 8:00 AM, and GBP (600 mg) or placebo was administered at 10:00 AM, thus comparing the analgesic effect of placebo + GBP (600 mg) with placebo + placebo and morphine (60 mg) + GBP in comparison to morphine plus placebo by using the cold pressor test. The duration and intensity of the side effects were assessed by using visual analog scales. The analgesic effect was evaluated by the change in the area under the curve (h x %; 0% baseline before Medication 1) of pain tolerance. Placebo + GBP (18.9% x h, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.5 to 40.3) did not present any significant analgesic effect compared with placebo + placebo (4.7% x h, 95% CI: -16.7 to 26.1). A significant increase in pain tolerance was observed comparing the combination of morphine and GBP (75.5% x h, 95% CI: 54.0-96.9) with morphine + placebo (40.6% x h, 95% CI: 19. 2-62.0). The observed adverse events after placebo + GBP were not significantly different compared with placebo + placebo. Morphine + placebo led to the expected opioid-mediated side effects. They were significantly more pronounced compared with placebo + placebo but did not differ significantly compared with the combination of morphine + GBP. Concerning the pharmacokinetic variables of morphine and its glucuronides, no significant difference between morphine + placebo and morphine + GBP was observed, whereas the area under the curve of GBP (43.9 +/- 5.3 vs 63.4 +/- 16.2 microg. h(-1). mL(-1), P < 0.05) significantly increased, and apparent oral clearance (230.8 +/- 29.4 mL/min vs 178 +/- 97.9 mL/min, P = 0.06) and apparent renal clearance (86.9 +/- 20.6 vs 73.0 +/- 24.2 mL/min, P = 0.067) of GBP decreased when morphine was administered concomitantly. These results suggest two different sites for the pharmacokinetic interaction-one at the level of absorption and the other at the level of elimination. Our study reveals both a pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction between morphine and GBP, leading to an increased analgesic effect of morphine + GBP. These results and the good tolerability of GBP should favor clinical trials investigating the clinical relevance of the combination of morphine and GBP for treating severe pain. ⋯ In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial with 12 healthy volunteers, we studied the interaction of morphine and gabapentin using the cold pressor test. The anticonvulsant gabapentin enhanced the acute analgesic effect of morphine. Furthermore, the plasma concentration of gabapentin was increased when morphine was administered concomitantly. Therefore, the well tolerated combination of gabapentin and morphine may improve pain therapy, especially in pain states, like chronic and neuropathic pain, which respond poorly to opioids.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialNitrous oxide prevents movement during orotracheal intubation without affecting BIS value.
We sought to determine whether the addition of nitrous oxide (N(2)O) to an anesthetic with propofol and remifentanil modifies the bispectral index (BIS) during the induction of anesthesia and orotracheal intubation. Thirty ASA physical status I or II patients were randomly allocated to receive either 50% air in oxygen (control group) or 60%-70% N(2)O in oxygen (N(2)O group) that was commenced via a mask simultaneously with the induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia was performed in all the patients with IV propofol at the target effect compartment site concentration of 4 microg/mL throughout the study. A target-controlled infusion (TCI) of remifentanil was initiated 3 min after the TCI of propofol and maintained at the effect-site concentration of 4 ng/mL until the end of the study. After loss of consciousness, and before the administration of vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg, a tourniquet was applied to one arm and inflated to a value more than the systolic blood pressure. An examiner, blinded to the presence of N(2)O, sought to detect any gross movement within the first minute after tracheal intubation, which was performed 10 min after remifentanil TCI began. Inspired and expired oxygen, N(2)O, and carbon dioxide were continuously monitored. A BIS value was generated every 10 s. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were measured noninvasively every minute. Measures of mean arterial pressure (MAP), HR, and BIS were obtained before the induction, before the start of the remifentanil TCI, before laryngoscopy, and 5 min after intubation. No significant intergroup differences were seen in BIS, HR, and MAP throughout the study. Maximum changes in BIS, HR, and MAP with intubation were significant (P < 0.01) for both groups but comparable. Six patients in the control group and none in the N(2)O group moved after intubation (P < 0.05). ⋯ We demonstrated that 0.6 minimal alveolar concentration of nitrous oxide combined with a potent anesthetic and an opioid prevents movement after orotracheal intubation without affecting the bispectral index. This demonstrates that the bispectral index is not a useful neurophysiologic variable to monitor the level of anesthesia when nitrous oxide is added to a general anesthetic regimen using propofol and remifentanil.