Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
Beta3-containing gamma-aminobutyric acidA receptors are not major targets for the amnesic and immobilizing actions of isoflurane.
Mice bearing an N265M point mutation in the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)(A) receptor beta3 subunit resist various anesthetic effects of propofol and etomidate. They also require a 16% larger concentration of enflurane and a 21% larger concentration of halothane to abolish the withdrawal reflex than do wild-type mice. Using a Pavlovian test, we measured whether this mutation increased the concentration of isoflurane required to impair learning and memory relative to wild-type mice. We found that the concentration was not significantly increased. We also measured MAC (the minimum alveolar concentration required to eliminate movement in response to noxious stimulation in 50% of subjects). Isoflurane MAC for mutant mice (1.93% +/- 0.0.03%; mean +/- se; n = 14) was 17.0% larger than MAC for wild-type mice (1.65 +/- 0.04; n = 14; P < 0.001). Similarly, the cyclopropane MAC for mutant mice (27.6% +/- 0.55%; n = 16) was 13.6% larger than MAC for wild-type mice (24.3 +/- 0.46; n = 8; P < 0.01). The increase in MAC for cyclopropane was unexpected, because published reports find only minimal actions at alpha1beta2gamma2 GABA(A) receptors whereas isoflurane provides a large enhancement. Consistent with previous work on alpha1beta2gamma2 GABA(A) receptors, we found in Xenopus oocytes that 5 MAC cyclopropane enhanced the effect of GABA on alpha1beta2gamma2 GABA(A) receptors by only 76%, and by a nearly identical enhancement in alpha1beta3gamma2, and alpha6beta3gamma2 receptors. In contrast, a much smaller concentration of isoflurane (1 MAC) produced a 160% to 310% enhancement in these receptors. If, relative to isoflurane, cyclopropane minimally increases GABA-induced chloride currents at any GABA(A) receptor subtype, the present data for MAC are consistent with the notion that GABA(A) receptors do not mediate the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics. ⋯ The results of the present study indicate that beta3-containing gamma-aminobutyric acidA receptors do not mediate the amnesia produced by isoflurane and do not mediate, or only partially mediate, the immobility produced by inhaled anesthetics.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
A retrospective analysis of a remifentanil/propofol general anesthetic for craniotomy before awake functional brain mapping.
We performed this study to summarize drug dosing, physiologic responses, and anesthetic complications from an IV general anesthetic technique for patients undergoing craniotomy for awake functional brain mapping. Review of 98 procedures revealed "most rapid" IV infusion rates for remifentanil 0.05, 0.05-0.09 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) and propofol 115, 100-150 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). The infusions lasted for 78, 58-98 min. Intraoperative emergence from general anesthesia was 9 (6-13) min after discontinuing IV infusions to allow for brain mapping and was independent of infusion duration and duration of craniotomy before mapping. Spontaneous ventilation was generally satisfactory during drug infusion, as evidenced by Sao(2) = 95% (92%-98%) and Paco(2) = 50 (47-55) mm Hg. However, we recorded at least one 30-s epoch of apnea in 69 of 96 patients. Maximum systolic arterial blood pressure was 150 (139-175) mm Hg and minimal systolic arterial blood pressure was 100 (70-150) mm Hg during drug infusion. Three patients experienced intraoperative seizures. Two patients did not tolerate the awake state and required reinduction of general anesthesia. No patients required endotracheal intubation or discontinuation of surgery. This general anesthetic technique is effective for craniotomy with awake functional brain mapping and offers an alternative to continuous wakefulness or other IV sedation techniques. ⋯ An IV general anesthetic technique using remifentanil and propofol is an effective method allowing for reliable emergence for intraoperative awake functional brain mapping during craniotomy.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2005
The impact of acoustic stimulation on the AEP monitor/2 derived composite auditory evoked potential index under awake and anesthetized conditions.
The AEP Monitor/2 features an auditory evoked potential (AEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG)-derived hybrid index of the patient's hypnotic state. The composite AEP index (AAI) is preferably calculated from the AEP, but in case of low signal quality it is based entirely on the spontaneous EEG. We investigated the impact of auditory input on the AAI in 16 patients with correctly positioned headphones for acoustic stimulation and headphones disconnected from the patient's ears under awake and anesthetized conditions. The AAI and the Narcotrend Index (NI), another EEG-based measure of hypnotic depth, were recorded simultaneously. AAI values under awake and anesthetized conditions were higher with correctly positioned headphones than with headphones disconnected from the patient's ears (P < 0.05) but remained within the range indicating the patient's actual hypnotic state as given by the manufacturer of the monitor. Under awake conditions with correctly positioned headphones we observed frequent fluctuations between AEP-derived and EEG-derived AAI, whereas with headphones disconnected from the patient's ears the AAI calculation was completely EEG based. Acoustic stimulation had no impact on the Narcotrend Index. Although relevant misinterpretations of the patient's hypnotic state as a consequence of a turnover from AEP-derived to EEG-derived AAI values should not occur, an improved harmonization of the two methods of indexing would be desirable. ⋯ The AEP Monitor/2 generates an Index (AAITM) indicating the patient's hypnotic state by analyzing either auditory evoked potentials (AEP) or spontaneous electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. We demonstrate that, though significantly different under AEP-derived or EEG-derived conditions, AAI values remain within the range indicating the patient's actual hypnotic state as given by the manufacturer of the device.
-
Epidural catheters (EC) are often used in pediatric patients for intraoperative and postoperative pain relief. The small anatomical structures and catheter insertion under general anesthesia make it more difficult to perform EC and to prevent damage. In this study we investigated the use of ultrasound (US) in detecting neuraxial structures during insertion and placement of EC in children. ASA I-II children scheduled for elective surgery under combined general and epidural anesthesia were studied. Patients received balanced anesthesia using sevoflurane, opioids and rocuronium. Before EC insertion US examination in a lateral position was done to visualize and identify neuraxial structures. Quality of visualization and site and depth of structures were recorded. Using a sterile kit to hold the US probe in position and enable the visualization of the neuraxial structures, an epidural cannula was inserted, using the loss of resistance technique, as the EC passed under US control to the desired level. Of 25 children, 23 were evaluated. Epidural space, ligamentum flavum, and dural structures were clearly identified and the depth to skin level estimated in all patients. Loss of resistance was visualized in all patients with a lumbar epidural approach. Correlation of US measured depth and depth of loss of resistance was 0.88. In eight of 23 patients EC could be visualized during insertion and in 11 others it could be visualized with additional US planes. US is an excellent tool to identify neuraxial structures in both infants and children. The size and the incomplete ossification of the vertebra allow exact visualization and localization of the depth of the epidural space, the loss of resistance, and all relevant neuraxial structures. ⋯ Epidural catheters in children are mostly inserted under sedation or general anesthesia. This study showed that the use of ultrasound could help visualize all relevant neuraxial structures and their site and depth from the skin.
-
Several anesthetic drugs are nicotinic antagonists at or below levels used for anesthesia, including ketamine and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, propofol does not inhibit nicotinic receptors. To determine the potential behavioral ramifications of nicotinic inhibition by ketamine, we determined the doses of ketamine required to induce immobility, impair the righting reflex, and cause analgesia in the absence and presence of several nicotinic ligands. Propofol was used as a control in similar experiments. When used as a sole anesthetic drug, 383 +/- 22 mg/kg ketamine intraperitoneally (IP) was required for immobility and 180 +/- 17 mg/kg IP impaired righting reflex. Propofol, 371 +/- 34 mg/kg IP, induced immobility whereas 199 mg/kg IP inhibited the righting reflex. Nicotinic antagonists had no effect on the dose of propofol or ketamine required for either end-point. When nociceptive responses were tested at subhypnotic doses, no pronociceptive or antinociceptive phase was identified for propofol, whereas analgesia was induced at ketamine doses larger than 60 mg/kg IP. The broad-spectrum nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine enhanced the analgesic action of ketamine. These findings are different than those seen with volatile anesthetics, where nicotinic inhibition is thought to be responsible for a pronociceptive action. Such a phase is possibly obscured by analgesia induced as a result of N-methyl-d-aspartic acid antagonism by ketamine. ⋯ Ketamine and volatile anesthetics, but not propofol, inhibit neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in clinically relevant concentration ranges. Nicotinic inhibition by ketamine is not related to its immobilizing or sedating effects but may play a role in ketamine's analgesic action.