Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialRecovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane in preschool-aged children undergoing bilateral myringotomy and pressure equalization tube insertion.
This double-blinded study was undertaken to prospectively evaluate the role of halothane and sevoflurane and the use of IV ketorolac on the anesthetic emergence in a group of children undergoing bilateral myringotomy with pressure equalization tube procedures. Two-hundred ASA physical status I and II patients were premedicated with nasal midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) and randomized to one of four groups (Group 1 - halothane and ketorolac; Group 2 - halothane and placebo; Group 3 - sevoflurane and ketorolac; Group 4 - sevoflurane and placebo). A blinded nurse observer characterized the quality of the anesthetic emergence and recorded the incidence of emesis and the use of pain medications in the recovery room. There were no differences in age, weight, previous anesthetic experience, or duration of anesthesia among the four groups. There was no difference in the incidence of emergence agitation for patients anesthetized with sevoflurane compared with halothane, regardless of whether they received ketorolac or placebo. Regardless of the anesthetic, the incidence of emergence agitation was significantly less in patients who received ketorolac compared with patients who received placebo. The incidence of emesis in the recovery room, the total 24-h incidence of emesis, and the use of at-home pain medications were similar in all four groups. ⋯ We conclude that the incidence of emergence agitation in children undergoing ultrashort anesthetic procedures is similar for sevoflurane and halothane and that ketorolac markedly diminishes emergence agitation and/or pain behavior.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
The growth of microorganisms in propofol and mixtures of propofol and lidocaine.
Propofol emulsion supports bacterial growth. Extrinsic contamination of propofol has been implicated as an etiological event in postsurgical infections. When added to propofol, local anesthetics (e.g., lidocaine) alleviate the pain associated with injecting it. Because local anesthetics have antimicrobial activity, we determined whether lidocaine would inhibit microbial growth by comparing the growth of four microorganisms in propofol and in mixtures of propofol and lidocaine. Known quanta of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were inoculated into solutions of 1% propofol, 0.2% lidocaine in propofol, 0.5% lidocaine in propofol, 0.5% lidocaine in isotonic sodium chloride solution, and 0.9% isotonic sodium chloride solution. All microorganisms were taken from stock cultures and incubated for 24 h. Growth of microorganisms in each solution was compared by counting the number of colony-forming units grown from a subculture of the solution at 0, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h. Propofol supported the growth of E. coli and C. albicans. Propofol maintained static levels of S. aureus and was bactericidal toward P. aeruginosa. The addition of 0.2% and 0.5% lidocaine to propofol failed to prevent the growth of the studied microorganisms. The effect of 0.5% lidocaine in isotonic sodium chloride solution did not differ from the effects of isotonic sodium chloride solution alone. We conclude that lidocaine, when added to propofol in clinically acceptable concentrations, does not exhibit antimicrobial properties. ⋯ Local anesthetics such as lidocaine have antimicrobial activity. Propofol supports the growth of bacteria responsible for infection. Bacteria were added to propofol and propofol mixed with lidocaine. The addition of lidocaine to propofol in clinically relevant concentrations did not prevent the growth of bacteria. The addition of lidocaine to propofol cannot prevent infection from contaminated propofol.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe safety and effectiveness of remifentanil as an adjunct sedative for regional anesthesia.
We assessed the sedative potential of continuous infusions of remifentanil with a validated composite alertness scale in 160 patients (ASA physical status I or II) undergoing hip replacement surgery with spinal block (n = 61) or hand surgery using brachial plexus block (n = 93). They were randomized to receive one of the following initial dose regimens in double-blinded fashion: placebo or 0.04, 0.07, or 0.1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) remifentanil subsequently titrated to effect. Additional midazolam IV was allowed for adequate sedation as required. The combined analysis of both surgery groups revealed a dose-related increase in achievement of sedation level > or =2 within 15 min of the start of the study drug infusion; all remifentanil dose comparisons with placebo reached significance (P < 0.001). The remifentanil 50% effective dose for a composite sedation level > or =2 within 15 min of the start of drug infusion was estimated as 0.043 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.059). The requirement for midazolam decreased with increasing remifentanil dose compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The median time to return to alertness after the end of infusion was 10-12 min in the remifentanil groups and 5 min in the placebo group. Significant incidences of nausea, pruritus, sweating, and respiratory depression were reported during remifentanil infusions compared with placebo. The data suggest that remifentanil may be useful for supplementation of regional anesthesia, provided that ventilation is carefully monitored. ⋯ In this dose-finding, placebo-controlled study, remifentanil infusions were used to provide sedation during spinal and brachial plexus regional anesthesia. The 50% effective dose for achievement of sedation was 0.043 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Return to alertness occurred after 10-12 min (median time). Remifentanil infusions can be used to supplement regional anesthesia, but this requires careful monitoring of ventilation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEpidural analgesia with local anesthetics after abdominal surgery: earlier motor recovery with 0.2% ropivacaine than 0.175% bupivacaine.
The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare pain relief, side effects, and ability to ambulate during epidural anesthesia with ropivacaine 0.2% plus sufentanil versus bupivacaine 0.175% plus sufentanil after major gastrointestinal surgery. Epidural catheters were inserted at T8-11, and 30 microg of sufentanil with 15 mL of ropivacaine 0.75% (Group 1, n = 42) or bupivacaine 0.5% (Group 2, n = 44) was injected. General anesthesia was induced, a continuous epidural infusion (5 mL/h) was then begun with 1 microg/mL sufentanil plus ropivacaine 0.2% (Group 1) or bupivacaine 0.175% (Group 2). Postoperatively, the infusion rate was adjusted to individual requirements. Patients were also able to receive additional 2-mL bolus doses every 20 min. Demographic data (except for gender and height), analgesia, drug dosage, and side-effects, including motor blockade (Bromage score), were similar in both groups, but mobilization recovered more quickly in Group 1. Gender, age, ASA physical status, duration of surgery, and intraoperative blood loss had no effect on mobilization. We conclude that epidural analgesia is effective and safe with both regimens. There is not necessarily a correlation between the Bromage score and the desired outcome of mobilization. The ability to walk postoperatively is hastened if ropivacaine is used instead of bupivacaine. ⋯ Regarding pain relief and side effects, epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% and sufentanil 1 microg/mL yields pain scores and pain intensity comparable to those for the well evaluated combination of bupivacaine 0.175% and sufentanil 1 microg/mL. However, earlier recovery of the ability to walk unassisted in patients receiving the combination of ropivacaine and sufentanil may result in their earlier rehabilitation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effects on resting ventilation of intravenous infusions of morphine or sameridine, a novel molecule with both local anesthetic and opioid properties.
Sameridine has both local anesthetic and partial mu-opioid receptor agonistic properties. The aim of this single-blinded, randomized, three-way cross-over study of 12 subjects was to investigate the effects on resting ventilation of two doses of sameridine: 0.15 mg/kg (S-Small) and 0.73 mg/kg (S-Large) compared with 0.10 mg/kg morphine. Each drug was infused IV over 20 min. Ventilation was measured by pneumotachography and in-line capnography, and sedation was rated by the subjects using a visual analog scale (VAS). Plasma was collected and analyzed for sameridine and morphine. At the end of drug infusion, minute ventilation (VE) and tidal volume (VT) were reduced in the S-Large group, and VE was reduced in the morphine group. End-tidal CO2 increased in both groups (P < 0.05), but respiratory rates remained unchanged. In the S-Small group, no ventilatory changes were recorded. In the S-Large group, the median sedation score was 6.8 cm with corresponding values in the morphine and S-Small groups of 3.3 and 2.5 cm, respectively. There was a relationship between the plasma concentration of sameridine and the depression of ventilation. We conclude that sameridine influences resting ventilation and that this effect is directly related to plasma concentrations of sameridine. From a ventilatory aspect, a clinical dose of sameridine with both local anesthetic and opioid properties seems safe. ⋯ Sameridine, a molecule with both local anesthetic and analgesic properties, impaired resting ventilation after a large IV dose (0.73 mg/kg), more so than 0.10 mg/kg IV morphine. A clinical dose of sameridine (0.15 mg/kg) did not have any effects on ventilation.