Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialLess core hypothermia when anesthesia is induced with inhaled sevoflurane than with intravenous propofol.
Hypothermia after the induction of anesthesia results initially from core-to-peripheral redistribution of body heat. Sevoflurane and propofol both inhibit central thermoregulatory control, thus causing vasodilation. Propofol differs from sevoflurane in producing substantial peripheral vasodilation. This vasodilation is likely to facilitate core-to-peripheral redistribution of heat. Once heat is dissipated from the core, it cannot be recovered. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the induction of anesthesia with i.v. propofol causes more core hypothermia than induction with inhaled sevoflurane. We studied patients undergoing minor oral surgery randomly assigned to anesthetic induction with either 2.5 mg/kg propofol (n = 10) or inhalation of 5% sevoflurane (n = 10). Anesthesia in both groups was subsequently maintained with sevoflurane and 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Calf minus toe skin temperature gradients <0 degrees C were considered indicative of significant vasodilation. Ambient temperature and end-tidal concentrations of maintenance sevoflurane were comparable in each group. Patients in both groups were vasodilated throughout most of the surgery. Nonetheless, core temperatures in patients who received propofol were significantly lower than those in patients who received inhaled sevoflurane. These data support our hypothesis that even a brief period of vasodilation causes substantial redistribution hypothermia that persists throughout surgery. ⋯ Core temperatures in patients who received i.v. propofol were consistently lower than those in patients who received inhaled sevoflurane, although anesthesia was subsequently maintained with sevoflurane in nitrous oxide in both groups. This suggests that even a brief period of propofol-induced vasodilation during anesthetic induction causes substantial redistribution hypothermia that persists throughout surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe assessment of four different methods to verify tracheal tube placement in the critical care setting.
One of the most serious complications of conventional endotracheal intubation is unidentified placement of the tube in the esophagus. The aim of our study was to evaluate four different methods for immediate detection of the tube position: auscultation, capnographic determination of ETCO2, esophageal detection method (EDM) using a self-inflating bulb, and the transillumination method using a lighted stylet (Trachlight; Laerdal, Armonk, NY). Thirty-eight endotracheally intubated patients admitted to our medical intensive care unit were enrolled in the study. A second identical tube was inserted into the esophagus under laryngoscopic control. The endotracheal tube was then disconnected from the ventilator. Two blinded examiners, one experienced, the other inexperienced, determined the tube position within 30 s using one of the four methods. The order of the tubes tested and the methods used were randomized. In 130 of 152 examinations, both examiners correctly diagnosed the position of the tube. The wrong result was obtained by both examiners 4 times; only the experienced examiner was wrong 4 times, and only the inexperienced examiner was wrong 14 times. Using ETCO2, both examiners were correct in all cases. Auscultation showed an obvious relation to the examiner's experience: the experienced examiner was correct in all cases, the inexperienced examiner was correct in only 68% of cases. Using the self-inflating bulb, there were two wrong results of the experienced examiner and one wrong result of the inexperienced examiner. The transillumination technique was associated with a high error rate by both examiners (16% and 13%, respectively). Comparing all four methods showed that capnography is superior to auscultation (P = 0.0005) and to the Trachlight detection method (P = 0.0078). EDM was not statistically superior to auscultation and transillumination. Capnography was the most reliable method for rapid evaluation of tube position, followed by EDM, whereas auscultation and Trachlight did not seem to be of comparable value. Experience was a determining factor for auscultation. ⋯ To prevent unidentified esophageal intubation, a serious complication in the critical care setting, four methods for detecting tube position were tested by two examiners (one experienced, the other inexperienced) in endotracheally intubated patients after insertion of a second tube into the esophagus.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe use of lidocaine for preventing the withdrawal associated with the injection of rocuronium in children and adolescents.
We designed this study to examine the incidence and degree of movement after the administration of rocuronium in children and adolescents and to measure the treatment effect of lidocaine for its prevention. One hundred patients (aged 5-18 yr) were randomly assigned to two groups. After general anesthesia was induced with 5 mg/kg thiopental sodium and manual occlusion of venous outflow was performed, one group of patients received 0.1 mL/kg 1% lidocaine i.v.. A second group received 0.1 mL/kg of isotonic sodium chloride solution as a placebo control. Venous outflow occlusion was held for 15 s, released, and immediately followed by the administration of rocuronium 1 mg/kg i.v.. The patient's response to rocuronium injection was graded using a 4-point scale. We observed that the incidence of withdrawal was 84% in the placebo group and was significantly decreased to 46% in patients pretreated with lidocaine (P < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the i.v. injection of rocuronium is commonly associated with a withdrawal reaction in anesthetized pediatric patients and that this reaction can be attenuated or eliminated by pretreatment with i.v. lidocaine. ⋯ Pain on injection of rocuronium in pediatric patients can be alleviated by pretreatment with i.v. lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effect of stimulus frequency on the analgesic response to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain.
Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common medical problems in our society. Increasingly, patients are turning to nonpharmacologic analgesic therapies such as percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS). We designed this sham-controlled study to compare the effect of three different frequencies of electrical stimulation on the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Sixty-eight consenting patients with LBP secondary to degenerative lumbar disc disease were treated with PENS therapy at 4 Hz, alternating 15 Hz and 30 Hz (15/30 Hz), and 100 Hz, as well as sham-PENS (0 Hz), according to a randomized, cross-over study design. Each treatment was administered for a period of 30 min three times per week for 2 wk. The pre- and posttreatment assessments included the health status survey short form and visual analog scales for pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep. After receiving all four treatments, patients completed a global assessment questionnaire. The sham-PENS treatments failed to produce changes in the degree of pain, physical activity, sleep quality, or daily intake of oral analgesic medications. In contrast, 4-Hz, 15/30-Hz, and 100-Hz stimulation all produced significant decreases in the severity of pain, increases in physical activity, improvements in the quality of sleep, and decreases in oral analgesic requirements (P < 0.01). Of the three frequencies, 15/30 Hz was the most effective in decreasing pain, increasing physical activity, and improving the quality of sleep (P < 0.05). In the global assessment, 40% of the patients reported that 15/30 Hz was the most desirable therapy, and it was also more effective in improving the patient's sense of well-being. We conclude that the frequency of electrical stimulation is an important determinant of the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Alternating stimulation at 15-Hz and 30-Hz frequencies was more effective than either 4 Hz or 100 Hz in improving outcome measures in patients with LBP. ⋯ The frequency of electrical stimulation seems to be an important determinant of the analgesic efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Mixed low- and high-frequency stimulation was more effective than either low or high frequencies alone in the treatment of patients with low back pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Multicenter Study Clinical TrialNerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications. Study Group on Regional Anesthesia.
To evaluate the failure rate, patient acceptance, effective volumes of local anesthetic solution, and incidence of neurologic complications after peripheral nerve block performed using the multiple injection technique with a nerve stimulator, we prospectively studied 3996 patients undergoing combined sciatic-femoral nerve block (n = 2175), axillary blocks (n = 1650), and interscalene blocks (n = 171). The success rate and mean injected volumes of local anesthetic were: 93% with 22.6 +/- 4.5 mL in the axillary, 94% with 24.5 +/- 5.4 mL in the interscalene, and 93% with 28.1 +/- 4.4 mL in the sciatic-femoral nerve blocks. Patients receiving combined sciatic-femoral nerve block showed more discomfort during block placement and worse acceptance of the anesthetic procedure than patients receiving brachial plexus anesthesia. During the first month after surgery, 69 patients (1.7%) developed neurologic dysfunction on the operated limb. Complete recovery required 4-12 wk in all patients but one, who required 25 wk. The only variable showing significant association with the development of postoperative neurologic dysfunction was the tourniquet inflation pressure (<400 mm Hg compared with >400 mm Hg, odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence intervals 1.6-5.4; P < 0.001). We conclude that using the multiple injections technique with a nerve stimulator results in a success rate of >90% with a volume of <30 mL of local anesthetic solution and an incidence of transient neurologic complication of <2%. ⋯ Based on a prospective evaluation of 3996 consecutive peripheral nerve blocks, the multiple injection technique with nerve stimulator allows for up to 94% successful nerve block with <30 mL of local anesthetic solution. Although the data collection regarding neurologic dysfunction was limited, the withdrawal and redirection of the stimulating needle was not associated with an increased incidence of neurologic complications. Sedation/analgesia should be advocated during block placement to improve patient acceptance.