Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialA needle-free jet-injection system with lidocaine for peripheral intravenous cannula insertion: a randomized controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.
Insertion of a peripheral IV cannula is a common, although painful, procedure. We tested the analgesic efficacy, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of a needle-free intradermal drug delivery system (Jet) with lidocaine for the insertion of an IV cannula (18-gauge; dorsum of hand). Four-hundred patients were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (a) no treatment, (b) Jet (J-Tip), National Medical Products Inc, CA; $3.0 per device) with 0.5 mL of saline, (3) Jet with 0.5 mL of lidocaine 1%, and (4) Jet with 0.5 mL of lidocaine 2%. Pain was evaluated using a numerical verbal scale (NVS 0-10). A NVS < or =3 was considered as acceptable in this context. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Without treatment, 42.4% of patients had a NVS < or = 3, 39.3% with saline, 60.7% with 1% lidocaine (relative risk [RR] compared with no treatment, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.93), and 86.7% with 2% lidocaine (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62). Nineteen and one-half percent of patients had a NVS >3 because of Jet treatment, 13.5% had local hyperemia, and 16.9% had minor local bleeding. Of all Jet treatments, 10.5% were technical failures, and there were 17.6% cannula insertion failures (10.1% without treatment [RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.92-3.32]). Compared with no treatment, costs to generate one additional patient with a NVS < or =3 were $23 with lidocaine 1% and $10 with lidocaine 2%. On insertion of an IV cannula on the back of the hand, 58% of patients report at least moderate pain. Lidocaine-Jet is analgesic; there is dose-responsiveness. However, Jet treatment is not painless, and costs incurred to achieve one success compared with doing nothing are not negligible. ⋯ Insertion of an IV cannula is painful. Four-hundred patients were randomly allocated to test the analgesic efficacy, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness of the needle-free intradermal drug delivery system (J-Tip); Jet). Jet with lidocaine is effective, but its application is not painless. Costs to achieve one patient with no more than moderate pain (numerical verbal scale < or =3 of 10) on insertion of an IV cannula are $10.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialAdvancing the tracheal tube over a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope by a sleeve mounted on the insertion cord.
The advancement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) over a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) is often impeded at the glottis. This is attributed to the creation of a cleft by the difference in the outer diameter of the fiberscope and the internal diameter of the tube. We designed a conical-shaped polyvinyl chloride sleeve to fit the insertion cord. This report compares the ease of advancement of the tube over a sleeved versus a nonsleeved bronchoscope. General anesthesia was induced, and one anesthesiologist introduced the FOB (a 3.8-mm Olympus LF2). Patients were randomly assigned to undergo tracheal intubation with the regular bronchoscope (25 patients) or the sleeved bronchoscope (25 patients). The FOB was advanced to approximately 1 cm above the carina. A blinded operator advanced the tube over the bronchoscope. The ETT was successfully advanced over the nonsleeved bronchoscope into the trachea on the first attempt in 64% of the patients, whereas tracheal intubation succeeded from the first attempt in 96% of patients when the sleeved FOB was used (P < 0.05). Advancement of the ETT over the fiberscope can be facilitated by using a conically shaped sleeve mounted on the insertion cord. ⋯ This report shows that a conical sleeve mounted on the insertion cord of a fiberoptic bronchoscope will facilitate advancing the endotracheal tube into the trachea.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of a left-sided Broncho-Cath with the torque control blocker univent and the wire-guided blocker.
Lung isolation can be accomplished in two ways: the first, a double-lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) and the second, a bronchial blocker (Univent or Arndt blocker). Previous studies have found that the DLT and the Univent are comparable when providing lung isolation. A new bronchial blocker, the wire-guided endobronchial blocker (Arndt blocker), has been introduced. However, there is no study to report its effectiveness with lung isolation during elective thoracic surgical cases. Therefore, we designed a prospective, randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of lung isolation among the 3 endotracheal tubes: the left-sided DLT Broncho-Cath Group A (n = 16 patients), the torque control blocker Univent Group B (n = 16 patients), and the wire-guided Arndt blocker Group C (n = 32 patients). The following variables were recorded: 1) time to initially position the assigned tube, 2) frequency of malpositions, 3) frequency of use of fiberoptic bronchoscope, 4) overall surgical exposure, and 5) tube acquisition cost. The Arndt blocker took longer to place (3:34 min/s) compared with the other 2 groups: the DLT group (2:08 min/s) or the Univent group (2:38 min/s) (P < 0.0004). There was no statistical difference in tube malpositions among the three groups: two for the DLT group, four for the Univent group, and nine in the Arndt group. Excluding the time for tube placement, the Arndt group also took longer for the lung to collapse (26:02 min/s), compared with the DLT group (17:54 min/s) or Univent group (19:28 min/s) (P < 0.0060). Furthermore, unlike the other two groups, the majority of the Arndt patients required suction to achieve lung collapse. Once lung isolation was achieved, overall surgical exposure was rated excellent for the three groups. Acquisition cost for the DLT group was $1663.20 (21 tubes opened), $2329.00 for the Univent group (17 tubes opened), and $3567.00 for the Arndt group (33 wire-guided blockers opened). This study demonstrates that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. For elective thoracic surgical cases, once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three tube groups. ⋯ We compared the latest design of double-lumen tubes Broncho-Cath, Univent, and Arndt blockers during lung isolation. Our results show that the Arndt blocker takes longer to position and longer to deflate the isolated lung. Once the lung was isolated, the management seemed to be similar for all three devices.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPropofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia enhances the heart rate response to intravenous isoproterenol infusion.
Heart rate (HR) response to IV atropine is attenuated during propofol-nitrous oxide (N(2)O) anesthesia. We studied the effects of propofol-N(2)O anesthesia on isoproterenol-induced HR changes. The control group (n = 15) received no propofol and no N(2)O. Patients in the propofol-N(2)O group (n = 21) received IV propofol 2.5 mg/kg over 1 min followed by a continuous infusion of propofol 10 mg x kg(-1) x h(-1). After tracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with propofol 5 mg. kg(-1) x h(-1) and 67% N(2)O in oxygen. All patients in both groups received IV isoproterenol at incremental infusion rates (2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, and 17.5 ng x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 2 min at each dose) until HR increased more than 20 bpm from baseline values. At the end of each infusion period, hemodynamic data were collected. The HR response to isoproterenol 7.5 ng. kg(-1) x min(-1) was increased more in the propofol group than in the control group (20 +/- 5 versus 14 +/- 4 bpm; P < 0.05). During the isoproterenol infusion at 10 ng. kg(-1) x min(-1), HR increased by more than 20 bpm in all patients in the propofol group but in only 31% of patients in the control group (P < 0.0001). These results suggest that continuous isoproterenol infusion might be useful when a large dose of atropine is ineffective in restoring normal HR during propofol-N(2)O anesthesia. ⋯ We demonstrated that the heart rate response to IV isoproterenol infusion is enhanced during propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia. This suggests that continuous isoproterenol infusion may be useful when a large dose of atropine is ineffective for restoration of normal heart rate in patients receiving propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2003
Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialLidocaine sprayed down the endotracheal tube attenuates the airway-circulatory reflexes by local anesthesia during emergence and extubation.
To determine whether lidocaine sprayed down the endotracheal tube (ETT) would attenuate airway-circulatory reflexes during emergence, we compared the reflex responses after endotracheal or IV lidocaine (IVL) in 75 patients receiving a standardized anesthetic protocol. At the end of surgery, the patients were divided into 3 groups (n = 25 for each group) and given no drug (Group 1), given 1 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine sprayed down the ETT 5 min before (Group 2), or given the same dose of IVL 3 min before extubation (Group 3). Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded at predetermined time points from 5 min (baseline) before until 5 min after extubation. The number of coughs per patient was continuously monitored during this period. The number (mean +/- SD) of coughs was decreased in Group 2 (4.5 +/- 3.7) compared with the control (10.2 +/- 6.0) (P < 0.01) with no difference for the control versus Group 3 (7.8 +/- 4.6). The increase in blood pressure was only attenuated immediately before extubation (P < 0.05), whereas the increase in heart rate was attenuated (P < 0.05) at all (except baseline) time points (P < 0.05) in Group 2 compared with the control with no difference for the control versus Group 3. The results indicate that lidocaine sprayed down the ETT suppresses the reflexes whereas using the same dose IVL does not, which is probably attributable to the mucosa-anesthetizing effect of lidocaine. ⋯ Lidocaine sprayed down the endotracheal tube suppresses the airway-circulatory reflex responses whereas using the same dose IV lidocaine does not. This effect seems to be from the direct local anesthesia rather than from systemic absorption from the airway.