Anesthesia and analgesia
-
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
Comparative StudyA comparison of the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the systemic toxicity of intravenous bupivacaine in rats.
We compared the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on bupivacaine-induced central nervous system and cardiovascular toxicity in rats. Thirty-four male Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized with 70% N2O/30% O2 plus the 50% effective dose (ED50) of propofol (propofol group, n = 12); 70% N2O/30% O2 plus ED50 of sevoflurane (sevoflurane group, n = 11); or 70% N2O/30% O2 (control group, n = 11). Bupivacaine was infused at a constant rate of 2 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) while electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram, and invasive arterial pressure were continuously monitored. The cumulative doses of bupivacaine that induced dysrhythmias, seizures, and 50% reduction of heart rate were larger in the propofol and sevoflurane groups than in the control group. The cumulative dose of bupivacaine that induced a 50% reduction in the mean arterial blood pressure was larger in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane and control groups. The margin of safety, assessed by the time between the onset of dysrhythmias and 50% reduction of mean arterial blood pressure, was wider in the propofol group than in the sevoflurane group. We conclude that propofol and sevoflurane attenuate bupivacaine-induced dysrhythmias and seizures and that propofol has a wider margin of safety than sevoflurane. ⋯ In anesthetized patients, dysrhythmias may be the only warning sign of intravascular injection of bupivacaine. Because propofol has a wider margin of safety than sevoflurane, life-threatening cardiovascular depression may be prevented by stopping the injection of bupivacaine at the onset of dysrhythmias during propofol anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 1999
The effects of ketamine and propofol on neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and P2x purinoceptors in PC12 cells.
We studied the effects of ketamine and propofol on two ligand-gated ion channels mediating fast synaptic transmission through sympathetic ganglia, neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAchRs), and P2X purinoceptors in a rat pheochromocytoma cell line PC12 using whole cell voltage clamp recording. Ketamine and propofol similarly inhibited the nicotine-induced inward current reversibly and dose-dependently at the membrane potential of -60 mV but had no effects on the adenosine triphosphate-induced current. Both anesthetics accelerated the current decay during agonist application, resulting in greater inhibition on the steady current than the peak current. The 50% inhibition concentration values for the steady current were lower than the clinically relevant concentrations for ketamine (2.8+/-0.6 microM) and higher than those for propofol (5.4+/-0.6 microM). Both anesthetics induced an addition of the fast component to the decay phase and an acceleration of the slow component, which suggests an open channel blockade or an enhancement of desensitization as a mechanism. The effects on closed channels seemed to be small because preincubation with the anesthetics did not significantly augment the block. Inhibition was voltage-independent at membrane potentials between -20 and -70 mV and was consistent with a noncompetitive block. Inhibition of the neuronal nAchR-mediated current may lead to the suppression of synaptic transmission in sympathetic ganglia by ketamine, but not by propofol, at the clinically relevant concentrations. However, these results are not consistent with changes in sympathetic nerve activities reported for animals or humans anesthetized with ketamine or propofol, which suggests effects from other systems, such as the central nervous system in vivo. ⋯ Ketamine (at smaller than clinically relevant concentrations) and propofol (at larger than clinically relevant concentrations) inhibited neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor-mediated current in PC12 cells, which possess the receptors that resemble those in postganglionic sympathetic neurons. These findings are not consistent with in vivo experiments, which suggests that effects from other systems, such as the central nervous system, are of importance.