Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effect of vecuronium is enhanced by a large rather than a modest dose of gentamicin as compared with no preoperative gentamicin.
We compared the effect of two doses of gentamicin versus no gentamicin (NG) given before surgery on the neuromuscular relaxant effect of vecuronium. Seventy patients (intraabdominal procedures) were randomly allocated to receive preoperative large-dose (4 mg/kg) gentamicin (LD), a modest dose (1.2 mg/kg) of gentamicin (MD), or NG. No more than one dose of gentamicin was given before the vecuronium administration. Serum gentamicin levels, the time for 25% recovery of the first twitch in the train-of-four after a bolus of vecuronium, and the time from cessation of the vecuronium infusion to extubation of the trachea were estimated. Serum gentamicin levels were higher (P < 0.001) for LD than MD. The time for 25% recovery of the first twitch after the vecuronium bolus was slightly longer with LD than MD (P = 0.06) and longer in LD than NG (P = 0.001) (42.9 +/- 23.6 min versus 36.2 +/- 17 min and 27.4 +/- 9 min, respectively). The time to extubation was similar with LD and MD and longer for LD than NG (P = 0.008) (34.7 +/- 19.2 min versus 27.4 +/- 19.3 min and 19.4 +/- 10.1 min, respectively). The differences in these times were insignificant between MD and NG. Gentamicin administered as a LD rather than MD enhanced the neuromuscular blockade of vecuronium as compared with NG given before surgery. ⋯ We demonstrated that the neuromuscular relaxant effect of vecuronium is enhanced by a large (4 mg/kg) rather than a modest (1.2 mg/kg) dose of gentamicin as compared with no gentamicin given before surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialHemodynamic responses among three tracheal intubation devices in normotensive and hypertensive patients.
We compare hemodynamic responses in normotensive and hypertensive anesthetized paralyzed patients among three intubation devices: the Macintosh laryngoscope (LS), the Trachlight lightwand (LW), and the intubating laryngeal mask airway Fastrach (ILM). Seventy-five normotensive and 75 hypertensive patients were randomly assigned to each intubation device (n = 25). Noninvasive systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded immediately preinduction, immediately preintubation, and every minute for the first 5 min after the successful intubation. The number of intubation attempts, the time to successful intubation, and any airway injuries were recorded. Pharyngolaryngeal morbidity was assessed 18-24 h after surgery by a blinded investigator. In all groups, there was a reduction in SBP and DBP but no change in HR immediately preintubation compared with baseline values. In all groups, HR increased, but there were no increases in SBP and DBP other than in DBP in the LS/hypertensive group after intubation compared with baseline values. In normotensive patients, there were no differences in any hemodynamic variables among the three devices. In hypertensive patients, SBP and DBP in the LS group were significantly higher than the ILM and LW groups for 2 min after intubation, but there were no differences in HR among the devices. The number of intubation attempts was similar among groups, but intubation time was longer for the ILM group. The incidence of airway injury was more frequent for the ILM than the LS and LW groups (16% versus 0% versus 0%). There were no differences in pharyngolaryngeal morbidity among groups. We conclude that both the ILM and the LW attenuated the hemodynamic stress response to tracheal intubation compared with the LS in hypertensive, but not in normotensive, anesthetized paralyzed patients. ⋯ Both the intubating laryngeal mask airway Fastrach and the Trachlight lightwand attenuate the hemodynamic stress response to tracheal intubation compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope in hypertensive, but not in normotensive, anesthetized paralyzed patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of hyperbaric 1% and 3% solutions of small-dose lidocaine in spinal anesthesia.
We examined whether the concentration of hyperbaric lidocaine affected the regression of motor block when the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg. We also examined the spread, duration, and regression of sensory block. Sixty-five patients (ASA physical status I or II), scheduled for elective perineum or lower limb surgery, were enrolled in this study. Patients received spinal anesthesia with 1 mL of 3% lidocaine or 3 mL of 1% lidocaine. Adequate level of block was obtained for surgery in 63 of 65 patients. Whereas the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution produced a level of sensory block similar to that produced by the administration of 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution in spinal anesthesia, the administration of 3 mL of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times to full motor recovery and to urination and produced less motor block compared with 1 mL of hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Two patients receiving 1% lidocaine and four patients receiving 3% lidocaine required IV ephedrine because of hypotension. Our results showed the clinical advantages of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine spinal anesthesia compared with hyperbaric 3% lidocaine spinal anesthesia for surgery of short duration. ⋯ When the dose of lidocaine was kept constant at 30 mg, hyperbaric 1% lidocaine solution resulted in shorter times for recovery from motor block and to urination than did hyperbaric 3% lidocaine solution. Levels of sensory block were similar. Therefore, the more dilute lidocaine for spinal anesthesia may be suitable for day-care surgery and short duration surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialModulation of remifentanil-induced analgesia, hyperalgesia, and tolerance by small-dose ketamine in humans.
Adding a small dose of ketamine to opioids may increase the analgesic effect and prevent opioid-induced hyperalgesia and acute tolerance to opioids. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study, we investigated the effect of remifentanil combined with small concentrations of ketamine on different experimental pain models. Pain detection thresholds to single and repeated IM electrical stimulation and to repeated transcutaneous electrical stimulation, pressure pain tolerance threshold, and sedative, respiratory, and cardiovascular side effects were assessed in 14 healthy volunteers. Saline, remifentanil alone, and remifentanil combined with ketamine at target plasma concentrations of 50 or 100 ng/mL were administered in four study sessions. The ketamine infusion was started after baseline testing at a constant target concentration. Remifentanil was started after testing with ketamine alone at an initial target concentration of 1 ng/mL and then increased to 2 ng/mL and decreased to 1 ng/mL. The last test series were started 10 min after discontinuation of remifentanil. Acute remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia and tolerance were detected only by the pressure pain test and were not suppressed by ketamine. Remifentanil alone induced significant analgesia with all pain tests. Ketamine further increased the remifentanil effect only on IM electrical pain. Remifentanil at a 2 ng/mL target concentration induced a slight respiratory depression that was antagonized by ketamine. We conclude that ketamine effects on opioid analgesia are pain-modality specific. ⋯ Coadministration of ketamine and morphine for pain relief is still controversial. Our experimental pain study with volunteers showed that ketamine enhances opioid analgesia without increasing sedation and reduces respiratory depression. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia and tolerance were not affected by ketamine and depended on the type of nociceptive stimulus. This may explain the conflicting results on opioid tolerance in previous studies.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialContinuous epidural infusion of large concentration/small volume versus small concentration/large volume of levobupivacaine for postoperative analgesia.
In this randomized study, we evaluated the quality of postoperative analgesia and the incidence of side effects of continuous thoracic epidural levobupivacaine 15 mg/h in 2 different concentrations: 0.5%, 3 mL/h (n = 33) or 0.15%, 10 mL/h (n = 27). The following variables were registered within 48 h: sensory block, pain scores, rescue morphine consumption, motor blockade, hemodynamics, sedation, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. The two groups were similar with regard to demographics, cephalad level of sensory block, quality of analgesia, morphine consumption, side effects, and high satisfaction rate. Motor blockade was weaker in the 0.5% group (P = 0.025), with a significantly increased hemodynamic stability, compared with the 0.15% group (P = 0.004). In conclusion, the same dose of levobupivacaine provides an equal quality of analgesia in small- or large-volume continuous epidural infusion and decreases the incidence of motor blockade and hemodynamic repercussions. This is in accordance with the assumption that the total dose of local anesthetics determines the spread and quality of analgesia. ⋯ We demonstrated that a large concentration/small volume of levobupivacaine given as a continuous thoracic epidural infusion provided an equal quality of postoperative analgesia as a small-concentration/large-volume infusion and induced less motor blockade and fewer hemodynamic repercussions.