Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialTropisetron for treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Tropisetron can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at doses smaller than those used to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In this placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and tolerability of three different doses of tropisetron were compared for the treatment of established PONV after surgical procedures in general anesthesia. Of 1513 patients who satisfied inclusion criteria, 314 experiencing PONV during the first 2 h after recovery from anesthesia were treated with one of three different doses of tropisetron (0.5, 2, or 5 mg) or placebo, administered i.v. as a single dose. Patients were then observed during 24 h for efficacy and tolerability. All three doses of tropisetron were significantly better than placebo in controlling emetic episodes and in reducing the need for rescue treatment. There were no significant differences among the three doses. However, in the subgroup of patients who had previous PONV, and in those randomized for nausea alone, the 2-mg and 5-mg doses controlled emetic episodes better than the 0.5-mg dose. All studied doses of tropisetron were well tolerated and did not affect vital signs. We conclude that a single i.v. administration of tropiestron significantly reduces the recurrence of emetic episodes in patients with established PONV after elective surgery with general anesthesia. Its optimal dose seems to be 2 mg. ⋯ Three hundred-fourteen patients suffering from postoperative nausea and vomiting received different i.v. doses of a new antiemetic drug, tropisetron, to determine the lowest effective dose. We found that a single i.v. administration of tropisetron significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective surgery with general anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialEconomic considerations of the use of new anesthetics: a comparison of propofol, sevoflurane, desflurane, and isoflurane.
Cost control in anesthesia is no longer an option; it is a necessity. New anesthetics have entered the market, but economic differences in comparison to standard anesthetic regimens are not exactly known. Eighty patients undergoing either subtotal thyroidectomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into four groups, with 20 patients in each group. Group 1 received propofol 1%/sufentanil, Group 2 received desflurane/sufentanil, Group 3 received sevoflurane/sufentanil, and Group 4 received isoflurane/sufentanil (standard anesthesia) for anesthesia. A fresh gas flow of 1.5-2 L/min and 60% N2O in oxygen was used for maintenance of anesthesia, and atracurium was given for muscle relaxation. Concentrations of volatile anesthetics, propofol, and sufentanil were varied according to the patient's perceived need. Isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane consumption was measured by weighing the vaporizers with a precision weighing machine. Biometric data, time of surgery, and time of anesthesia were similar in the four groups. Times for extubation and stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were significantly longer in the isoflurane group. Use of sufentanil and atracurium did not differ among the groups. Propofol patients required fewer additional drugs in the PACU (e.g., antiemetics), and thus showed the lowest additional costs in the PACU. Total (intra- and postoperative) costs were significantly higher in the propofol group ($30.73 per patient; $0.24 per minute of anesthesia). The costs among the inhalational groups did not differ significantly (approximately $0.15 per minute of anesthesia). We conclude that in today's climate of cost savings, a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic approach is needed. Although propofol-based anesthesia was associated with the highest cost, it is doubtful whether the choice of anesthetic regimen will lower the costs of an anesthesia department. ⋯ Cost analysis of anesthetic techniques is necessary in today's economic climate. Consumption of the new inhaled drugs sevoflurane and desflurane was measured in comparison to a standard anesthetic regimen using isoflurane and an IV technique using propofol. Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with the highest costs, whereas the costs of the new inhaled anesthetics sevoflurane and desflurane did not differ from those of a standard, isoflurane-based anesthesia regimen.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPrevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a combination of granisetron and droperidol.
In this randomized, double-blind study, we compared the efficacy and safety of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 150 female patients scheduled for elective major gynecological surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. either granisetron 2.5 mg (Group G), droperidol 1.25 mg (Group D), or granisetron 2.5 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg (Group GD) immediately before the induction of anesthesia (n = 50 in each group). A standard anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. Complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue antiemetic medication during the first 24 h after anesthesia, was 84% in Group G, 54% in Group D, and 96% in Group GD (P = 0.046 versus Group G, P = 0.001 versus Group D). No clinically important adverse effects were observed in any group. In conclusion, the combination of granisetron and droperidol is more effective than each antiemetic alone for complete response in patients undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery. ⋯ We compared the efficacy of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after gynecological surgery. The granisetron/droperidol combination was the most effective against these emetic symptoms.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial0.125% ropivacaine is similar to 0.125% bupivacaine for labor analgesia using patient-controlled epidural infusion.
We compared the effects of 0.125% ropivacaine with 0.125% bupivacaine in laboring patients using patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Fifty-one ASA physical status I or II term parturients with functioning epidural catheters were randomized to receive ropivacaine or bupivacaine using a prospective, double-blind design. Basal infusions (6 mL/h) were supplemented with patient-controlled boluses (5 mL) every 10 min as required. For inadequate analgesia, patients were administered 10-mL boluses of study solution until comfortable. There were no differences in verbal pain scores, amount of local anesthetics used, sensory levels, motor blockade, labor duration, mode of delivery, side effects, or patient satisfaction between the two local anesthetics. We conclude that 0.125% ropivacaine and bupivacaine are clinically indistinguishable and are both highly effective for labor analgesia using PCEA. ⋯ This study compared labor analgesia from 0.125% ropivacaine and 0.125% bupivacaine using patient-controlled epidural analgesia. We found no significant differences in local anesthetic use, analgesic characteristics, or side effects between 0.125% ropivacaine and 0.125% bupivacaine. We conclude that these two drugs are clinically indistinguishable at this concentration.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 1998
Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: Is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures?
The learning process is a multidimensional function with a wide intra- and interindividual scattering. To determine the learning process in anesthesia, we evaluated 11 first-year residents according to their rate of success or failure when applying manual anesthesiological skills, such as performance of spinal, epidural, or brachial plexus anesthesia and tracheal intubation or insertion of an arterial line. Epidural anesthesia was the most difficult procedure (P < 0.05). Significant differences were found between epidural anesthesia and tracheal intubation (P < 0.05), insertion of an arterial line (P < 0.05), and brachial plexus block (P < 0.05), as well as between spinal anesthesia and orotracheal intubation (P < 0.05). Learning curves are a valid tool for monitoring institutional and individual success. ⋯ To investigate the learning process in anesthesia, typical anesthetic procedures were performed by inexperienced residents during their first year. Learning curves were generated for each procedure performed. Epidural anesthesia was the most difficult procedure to perform (P < 0.05).