Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Comparative StudyDifficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients.
Whether tracheal intubation is more difficult in obese patients is debatable. We compared the incidence of difficult tracheal intubation in obese and lean patients by using a recently validated objective scale, the intubation difficulty scale (IDS). We studied 134 lean (body mass index, <30 kg/m2) and 129 obese (body mass index, >or=35 kg/m2) consecutive patients. The IDS scores, categorized as difficult intubation (IDS >or=>5) or not (IDS <5), and the patient data, including oxygen saturation (SpO2) while breathing oxygen, were compared between lean and obese patients. In addition, risk factors for difficult intubation were determined in obese patients. The IDS score was >or=5 in 3 lean and 20 obese patients (P = 0.0001). A Mallampati score of III-IV was the only independent risk factor for difficult intubation in obese patients (odds ratio, 12.51; 95% confidence interval, 2.01-77.81), but its specificity and positive predictive value were 62% and 29%, respectively. SpO2 values noted during intubation were (mean +/- SD) 99% +/- 1% (range, 91%-100%) and 95% +/- 8% (range, 50%-100%) in lean and obese patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). We conclude that difficult intubation is more common among obese than nonobese patients. None of the classic risk factors for difficult intubation was satisfactory in obese patients. The high risk of desaturation warrants studies to identify new predictors of difficult intubation in the obese. ⋯ We report a difficult intubation rate of 15.5% in obese patients and 2.2% in lean patients. None of the risk factors for difficult intubation described in the lean population was satisfactory in the obese patients. We also report a high risk of desaturation in obese patients with difficult intubation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
The bispectral index declines during neuromuscular block in fully awake persons.
Using an Aspect A-1000 BIS monitor, researchers demonstrated a drop in Bispectral Index Score in awake, paralysed volunteers to low values ranging from 9 to 64.
pearl -
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Clinical TrialThe effects of large-dose propofol on cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation in head-injured patients.
In healthy individuals, cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation is preserved or even improved when propofol is infused. We examined the effect of an increase in propofol plasma concentration on pressure autoregulation in 10 head-injured patients. Using target-controlled infusions, the static rate of autoregulation was determined at a moderate (2.3 +/- 0.4 microg/mL) and a large (4.3 +/- 0.04 microg/mL) plasma target concentration of propofol. Using norepinephrine to control cerebral perfusion pressure, transcranial Doppler measurements from the middle cerebral artery were made at a cerebral perfusion pressure of 70 and 85 mm Hg at each propofol concentration. Middle cerebral artery flow velocities at the large propofol concentration were significantly lower than at the moderate concentration, without any concurrent increase in arterio-jugular difference in oxygen content, a finding compatible with maintained flow-metabolism coupling. Despite this, static rate of autoregulation decreased significantly from 54% +/- 36% to 28% +/- 35% (P = 0.029). Our data suggest that after head injury, the cerebrovascular effects of propofol are different from those observed in healthy individuals. We propose that large doses of propofol should be used cautiously in head-injured patients, because there is the potential to increase the injured brain's vulnerability to secondary insults. ⋯ Propofol is used for sedation and control of intracranial pressure in head-injured patients. In contrast to previous data from healthy individuals, we show a deterioration of cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation with fast propofol infusion rates after head injury. Large propofol doses may increase the injured brain's vulnerability to secondary insults.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe central nervous system and cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in healthy volunteers.
We compared the central nervous system (CNS) and cardiovascular effects of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine when given IV to healthy male volunteers (n = 14) in a double-blinded, randomized, crossover trial. Subjects received levobupivacaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.5% after a test infusion with lidocaine to become familiar with the early signs of CNS effects (e.g., tinnitus, circumoral paresthesia, hypesthesia). The development of CNS symptoms was assessed at 1-min intervals and study drug administration was terminated when the first CNS symptoms were recognized. Thereafter, symptoms were recorded at 1-min intervals until symptom resolution. Hemodynamic variables were assessed by transthoracic electrical bioimpedance. Continuous 12-lead electrocardiogram monitoring was also performed. There was no significant difference between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for: the mean time to the first onset of CNS symptoms (P = 0.870), mean total volume of study drug administered at the onset of the first CNS symptom (P = 0.595), stroke index (P = 0.678), cardiac index (P = 0.488), acceleration index (P = 0.697), PR interval (P = 0.213), QRS duration (P = 0.637), QT interval (P = 0.724), QTc interval (P = 0.737), and heart rate (P = 0.267). Overall, fewer CNS symptoms were reported for levobupivacaine than ropivacaine (218 versus 277). This study found that levobupivacaine and ropivacaine produce similar CNS and cardiovascular effects when infused IV at equal concentrations, milligram doses, and infusion rates. ⋯ This study compared directly, for the first time, the toxicity of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in healthy volunteers. Levobupivacaine and ropivacaine produced similar central nervous system and cardiovascular effects when infused IV at equal concentrations, milligram doses, and infusion rates.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of mixing lidocaine with propofol on the dose of propofol required for induction of anesthesia.
Lidocaine is used to reduce pain associated with propofol injection, either mixed with propofol or preceding it as a separate injection. The addition of lidocaine to propofol causes destabilization of the emulsion and reduces anesthetic potency in rats and humans. We conducted a randomized double-blinded study on 67 patients to assess the effect of mixing lidocaine with propofol on the dose of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia. Patients in Group S (n = 32) received IV lidocaine 0.2 mg/kg followed by an infusion of propofol whereas those in Group M (n = 35) received IV normal saline (placebo) followed by an infusion of a freshly prepared mixture of propofol 1%/lidocaine 1% in 10:1 volume ratio. The infusion was stopped when the subjects lost consciousness, as detected by the syringe-drop method. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the mean (95% confidence interval) doses of propofol required for loss of consciousness: 2.0 (1.8-2.2) mg/kg for Group S versus 1.9 (1.7-2.0) mg/kg for Group M (P = 0.206). Mixing 20 mg of lidocaine with 200 mg of propofol is unlikely to affect the dose of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia. ⋯ Adding lidocaine to propofol destabilizes the propofol emulsion. A randomized double-blinded trial found no statistically significant difference in the doses of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia whether administered as a freshly prepared propofol 1%/lidocaine 1% 10:1 mixture or as a separate injection after a dose of lidocaine.