Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPropofol versus midazolam: safety and efficacy for sedating the severe trauma patient.
Previous studies have compared sedation profiles with midazolam (Mz) and propofol (Pf), particularly in heterogeneous populations of patients. Decreases in blood pressure and heart rate have been reported after the administration of propofol. These side effects are potentially deleterious in severe trauma patients, particularly in patients with head trauma. To assess the safety and efficacy of Mz and Pf, alone or in combination, in the prolonged sedation of severe trauma patients, we designed a prospective, controlled, randomized, study. One hundred consecutively admitted trauma patients requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation for more than 48 h were studied. Patients were sedated according to three different protocols based on the continuous i.v. administration of Mz alone, Pf alone, and Mz in combination with Pf. All patients received morphine chloride. Safety and efficacy were assessed during the sedation and wake-up periods according to clinical and laboratory variables. Cerebral hemodynamics were also studied in patients with head trauma. Patients were sedated for 6.3 +/- 4.0 days (mean +/- SD). All three sedation regimens were equally efficacious in achieving the desired sedation goal. The incidence of adverse events during the sedation period was also similar. In head trauma patients with intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring, we did not find differences in ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure, or jugular venous oxygen saturation among the three groups. The serum triglyceride concentration was significantly higher in the Pf group. Wake-up time was significantly shorter in the Pf group. We conclude that both Mz and Pf are safe and efficacious in the sedation of severe trauma patients. The use of Pf in these patients is associated with a high incidence of hypertriglyceridemia and a shorter wake-up time. ⋯ In a prospective, controlled, randomized study, we confirmed the safety and efficacy of midazolam and propofol, alone or in combination, in the prolonged sedation of a homogeneous group of severe trauma patients, particularly in patients with head trauma. The propofol group had shorter wake-up times and higher triglyceride levels.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialExperimental pain in healthy human subjects: gender differences in nociception and in response to ibuprofen.
We used electrically induced pain in healthy young subjects to study gender differences in nociception and the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen. Cutaneous stimulation of the earlobe allowed measurement of pain detection thresholds and maximal pain tolerance. Drug and placebo were each administered twice using a double-blind, randomized, multiple cross-over design. Male subjects had greater stimulus thresholds (lower nociception) compared with female subjects (18 +/- 0.3 vs 15 +/- 0.3 volts, mean +/- SEM; n = 10 in each group) and a greater pain tolerance (24 +/- 0.4 vs 21 +/- 0.4 volts). Response variability was also greater in the male subjects, yet only the men exhibited a statistically significant analgesic response to ibuprofen (deltavolts; ibuprofen versus placebo: 2.80 +/- 0.33 vs -0.18 +/- 0.34; P < 0.05, n = 10). None of these results could be attributed to pharmacokinetic differences. The finding that ibuprofen was less effective in women than in men has potential clinical significance, especially as a factor in the response variability to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. ⋯ In this study, we examined ibuprofen, a widely used nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, for its ability to reduce experimental pain. We found that it had such properties in healthy young male subjects but not in young female subjects. This is a paradox because many of the painful conditions for which nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are used (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis) occur more often in women.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effects of general versus epidural anesthesia for outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Although many anesthetic techniques are described for immersion extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), regional and i.v. techniques are the most commonly reported. This randomized, prospective study compared general anesthesia (GA) and epidural anesthesia (EPID) with regard to effectiveness, side effects, induction time, and recovery in patients undergoing ESWL using an unmodified Dornier HM-3 lithotriptor. Twenty-six healthy outpatients were randomized to GA (propofol, N2O, laryngeal mask airway) or EPID (lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine). Intraoperative and postoperative supplemental medications, side effects, and complications were noted. Induction times and times required to meet standard recovery criteria were compared between groups. Patients were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with anesthesia. All patients in the EPID group had effective blocks with a single catheter insertion and local anesthetic injection. In the GA group, the LMA was inserted successfully in all patients. Time from room entry to procedure start was significantly less in the GA group (23 +/- 11 vs 34 +/- 9 min; P < 0.05). Patients in the GA group were ready for discharge home earlier (127 +/- 59 vs 178 +/- 49 min; P < 0.05). Only three patients experienced nausea (one in the GA group, two in the EPID group). There were no differences in patient or urologist satisfaction with anesthesia. We conclude that GA is associated with a rapid recovery compared with EPID. ⋯ General anesthesia with propofol, nitrous oxide, and a laryngeal mask airway is comparable to epidural anesthesia with lidocaine for outpatient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedures. However, early recovery is more rapid after general anesthesia compared with epidural anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jun 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialConjugated estrogen reduces transfusion and coagulation factor requirements in orthotopic liver transplantation.
We conducted a prospective, randomized study to determine the efficacy of conjugated estrogen in reducing blood product transfusion during orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Patients undergoing OLT were included in the study. Only those having a reaction time of more than 30 mm or 15 min (19 -28 mm) on computed thromboelastography (CTEG) at the beginning of surgery were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to receive either conjugated estrogen (CE) or placebo. Every patient received a first dose of CE (100 mg i.v.) (20 mL) or placebo (20 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution) at the beginning of the procedure and a second dose of CE (100 mg i.v.) or 20 mL of placebo (20 mL of isotonic sodium chloride solution) just after reperfusion of the new graft. The two groups were similar in age, weight, requirement for veno-veno bypass, time on veno-veno bypass, CTEG measurement, and preoperative hemoglobin and platelet values. Blood products were given in relation to hematocrit and coagulation (CTEG) variables, which were measured every hour during the surgery. The amount of transfused blood products did not differ in terms of units of cryoprecipitate, but the intraoperative requirements for red blood cells (6 +/- 3 vs 9 +/- 6 U; P = 0.05), platelets (12 +/- 8 U vs 18 +/- 10 U; P = 0.05) and fresh-frozen plasma (3 +/- 3 U vs 6 +/- 4 U; P = 0.001) was significantly less in the estrogen group than in the control group. We conclude that CE is associated with a significant decrease in use of fresh-frozen plasma, platelets, and red blood cells during OLT. ⋯ In this study, we prospectively investigated whether i.v. conjugated estrogen could decrease blood product transfusion during orthotopic liver transplantation. Conjugated estrogen-treated patients received less fresh-frozen plasma, red blood cells, and platelets. In this population of patients, conjugated estrogen can be a useful addition in coagulation management during orthotopic liver transplantation.