Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2003
Editorial CommentRopivacaine and bupivacaine: concentrating on dosing!
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2003
Meta AnalysisEpidural ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for labor: a meta-analysis.
Numerous studies have compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Early studies suggested that obstetrical and some neonatal outcomes were improved when ropivacaine was used. We systematically reviewed and combined the results of the randomized controlled trials that compared ropivacaine with bupivacaine to determine whether or not there was a difference in these outcomes. We searched electronic databases and journals for randomized controlled trials composed of laboring parturients. The primary outcome was the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery. We examined other obstetrical, neonatal, and analgesic outcomes. Where possible, these were combined by using metaanalytic techniques and random effects modeling. We found 23 randomized controlled trials composed of 1043 patients receiving ropivacaine and 1031 receiving bupivacaine. There was no significant difference in the incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.41; P = 0.12) or any of the other outcomes. Although more studies reported a more frequent incidence of motor block with bupivacaine, the results were heterogeneous and therefore not combined. We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in the incidence of any obstetrical or neonatal outcome. Further studies using clinically appropriate concentrations of drugs are required to determine whether or not there is a difference in the incidence of motor block. ⋯ This metaanalysis of 23 randomized controlled trials shows that both ropivacaine and bupivacaine provide excellent labor analgesia. There was no significant difference between the two drugs in mode of delivery, maternal satisfaction, or neonatal outcomes. Whether or not there is a difference in motor block at clinically relevant doses is unresolved.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialRepetitive large-dose infusion of the novel hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 in patients with severe head injury.
In this prospective, controlled, randomized, single-center study, we investigated the safety of repetitive large-dose infusion of a novel hydroxyethyl starch solution (6% HES 130/0.4) in cranio-cerebral trauma patients. Patients were randomized to receive either HES 130/0.4 (n = 16) at repetitive doses of up to 70 mL x kg(-1) x d(-1) (which is the largest HES dose reported in the literature) or the control HES 200/0.5 (n = 15) up to its approved dose limit of 33 mL x kg(-1) x d(-1) followed by human albumin up to a total dose (HES 200/0.5 + albumin) of 70 mL x kg(-1) x d(-1). We found no differences between groups in mortality, renal function, bleeding complications, and use of blood products. There were also no major differences in coagulation variables. However, at some time points, factor VIII, von Willebrand factor, and ristocetin cofactor were higher in the HES 130/0.4 group despite the large HES doses administered. We conclude that HES 130/0.4 can safely be used in critically ill head trauma patients over several days at doses of up to 70 mL x kg(-1) x d(-1). ⋯ There are concerns that infusion of certain hydroxyethyl starch (HES) types for plasma volume expansion may influence coagulation and renal function. We investigated the safety of the novel HES 130/0.4 in patients with severe cranio-cerebral trauma. The repetitive HES doses administered in this study are the largest reported in the literature.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialClonidine combined with small-dose bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for inguinal herniorrhaphy: a randomized double-blinded study.
The aim of this randomized double-blinded study was to see whether the addition of small-dose clonidine to small-dose bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia and also provided a sufficient block duration that would be adequate for inguinal herniorrhaphy. We randomized 45 patients to 3 groups receiving intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine 6 mg combined with saline (Group B), clonidine 15 micro g (Group BC15), or clonidine 30 micro g (Group BC30); all solutions were diluted with saline to 3 mL. The sensory block level was insufficient for surgery in five patients in Group B, and these patients were given general anesthesia. Patients in Groups BC15 and BC30 had a significantly higher spread of analgesia (two to four dermatomes) than those in Group B. Two-segment regression, return of S1 sensation, and regression of motor block were significantly longer in Group BC30 than in Group B. The addition of clonidine 15 and 30 micro g to bupivacaine prolonged time to first analgesic request and decreased postoperative pain with minimal risk of hypotension. We conclude that clonidine 15 micro g with bupivacaine 6 mg produced an effective spinal anesthesia and recommend this dose for inguinal herniorrhaphy, because it did not prolong the motor block. ⋯ The addition of clonidine 15 micro g to 6 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine increases the spread of analgesia, prolongs the time to first analgesic request, and decreases postoperative pain, compared with bupivacaine alone, during inguinal herniorrhaphy under spinal anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 2003
ReviewEducating patients about anesthesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of media-based interventions.
In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of media-based patient education about anesthesia. Fifteen randomized controlled trials (n = 1506) were identified after a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry), published articles, and contact with authors. Outcomes assessed were anxiety, knowledge, and patient satisfaction. Anxiety levels before anesthesia were less intense in subjects receiving the video and printed information compared with those receiving no intervention (weighted mean difference of 3; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1-5 Spielberger's State and Trait Anxiety Inventory). Patients in the video group were more likely to answer all knowledge questions correctly compared with patients with no intervention (relative risk of 6.64; 95%CI, 2.05-21.52). The level of knowledge about pain management was higher in the video group compared with patients with no intervention (weighted mean difference of 17%; 95%CI, 9-25). However, the level of patient satisfaction with the intervention (expectation versus actual anesthetic experience) was similar between the groups (relative risk of 1.06; 95%CI, 0.93-1.22). This systematic review supports the use of video and printed information about general process and risks of anesthesia for patient education before surgery. ⋯ The effectiveness of media-based interventions for educating patients about general process and risks of anesthesia were compared in this systematic review. The use of video and/or printed information can decrease patient anxiety and increase patient knowledge. However, patient satisfaction was similar between media-based intervention and nonintervention groups.