Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of magnesium sulphate on hemodynamics and its efficacy in attenuating the response to endotracheal intubation in patients with coronary artery disease.
Laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation may produce adverse hemodynamic effects. Magnesium has direct vasodilating properties on coronary arteries and inhibits catecholamine release, thus attenuating the hemodynamic effects during endotracheal intubation. We studied 36 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of magnesium and its efficacy in attenuating the response to endotracheal intubation. Patients received either 0.1 mL/kg (50%) magnesium sulfate (50 mg/kg) (Group A, n = 19) or isotonic sodium chloride solution (Group B, n = 17) before the induction of anesthesia and 0.05 mL/kg of isotonic sodium chloride solution (Group A) or lidocaine 2% (1 mg/kg) (Group B) before intubation. The hemodynamic variables were recorded before induction, after the trial drug, after induction, and after endotracheal intubation. Automatic ST segment analysis was performed throughout the study period. Magnesium sulfate administration was associated with increased cardiac index (P < 0.01), a minimal increase in heart rate, and a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (P < 0.001). None of the patients in the magnesium group had significant ST depression compared with three patients in the control group. The magnesium group patients had a significantly lesser increase in MAP (P < 0.05) and SVR (P < 0.01) compared with the control group patients who received lidocaine before endotracheal intubation. Thus, magnesium is an useful adjuvant to attenuate endotracheal intubation response in patients with CAD. ⋯ Endotracheal intubation produces adverse hemodynamic effects, which may be more detrimental in patients with coronary artery disease than in healthy patients. The present study shows that magnesium administered before endotracheal intubation can attenuate this response better than lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA granisetron-droperidol combination prevents postoperative vomiting in children.
This study was performed to compare the efficacy of a granisetron-droperidol combination with each antiemetic alone to prevent postoperative vomiting after tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy in children. One hundred eighty pediatric patients, ASA physical status I, aged 4-10 yr, were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation and assigned to one of three treatment regimens: granisetron 40 microg/kg (Group G), droperidol 50 microg/kg (Group D), or granisetron 40 microg/kg plus droperidol 50 microg/kg (Group GD) (n = 60 in each group). These drugs were administered i.v. after an inhaled induction. The same standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout. The rate of complete response, defined as no emesis and no need for rescue antiemetic, 0-3 h after anesthesia was 83% in Group G, 60% in Group D, and 97% in Group GD (P = 0.029 versus Group G, P = 0.001 versus Group D). The corresponding rates 3-24 h after anesthesia were 83%, 55%, and 97% (P = 0.029 versus Group G, P = 0.001 versus Group D). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups. In conclusion, a granisetron-droperidol combination is superior to each antiemetic alone in complete response in children undergoing general anesthesia for tonsillectomy. ⋯ We compared the efficacy of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for the prevention of postoperative vomiting in children. The granisetron-droperidol combination was highly effective against postoperative emesis.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients.
A disposable (polyvinyl chloride) laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with dimensions identical to, but physical properties different from (stiffer tube/thicker cuff), the reusable (silicone) LMA has recently become available. We performed a randomized, cross-over study of 60 paralyzed, anesthetized patients to test the hypothesis that the use of these devices was different in terms of ease of insertion, airway sealing pressure, fiberoptic position, and changes in intracuff pressure during N2O anesthesia. We also tested the hypothesis that the airway sealing pressure of the LMA is suboptimal if the cuff is inflated to a high intracuff pressure. Both the devices were inserted into each patient in random order, and their performance was assessed at two intracuff pressures (60 and 180 cm H2O) by a blind observer. Subsequently, intracuff pressures were measured during N2O anesthesia for the second device. Ease of insertion was similar: there was no difference in first attempt success rates (97% vs 98%) and insertion times (15 vs 13 s) for the disposable and reusable LMA, respectively. There were no differences in airway sealing pressure or fiberoptic position. Airway sealing pressure was significantly higher at 60 cm H2O intracuff pressure compared with the airway sealing pressure at 180 cm H2O for both devices (P < 0.02). During N2O anesthesia, the intracuff pressure remained stable for the disposable LMA but increased significantly for the reusable LMA. We conclude that the disposable and reusable LMAs perform similarly in paralyzed adult patients, but that the disposable LMA has more stable intracuff pressures during N2O anesthesia. Inflation of the LMA to high intracuff pressures produces a suboptimal seal. ⋯ This randomized, single-blind, within-patient study of 60 adult patients shows that the disposable (polyvinyl chloride) and reusable (silicone) laryngeal mask airways perform similarly, but that the disposable laryngeal mask airway has more stable intracuff pressures during N2O anesthesia. Inflation of either device to high intracuff pressures produces a suboptimal seal.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialNeuromuscular effects of rocuronium during sevoflurane, isoflurane, and intravenous anesthesia.
The potency and time course of action of rocuronium were studied in patients anesthetized with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen and 1.5 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of sevoflurane or isoflurane, or a propofol infusion. Potency was estimated by using the single-bolus technique. Neuromuscular block was measured by stimulation of the ulnar nerve and by recording the force of contraction of the adductor pollicis muscle. The mean (95% confidence limits) of the 50% and 95% effective doses were estimated tobe 142 (129-157) and 265 (233-301) microg/ kg, 165 (146-187) and 324 (265-396) microg/kg, and 183 (163-207) and 398 (316-502) microg/kg during sevoflurane, isoflurane, and propofol anesthesia, respectively (P < 0.05 for sevoflurane versus propofol). The mean +/- SD times to onset of maximal block after rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg were 0.96 +/- 0.16, 0.90 +/- 0.16, and 1.02 +/- 0.15 min during sevoflurane, isoflurane, and propofol anesthesia, respectively. The respective times to recovery of the first response in the train-of-four (TOF) stimulation (T1) to 25% and 90% were 45 +/- 13.1 and 83 +/- 29.3 min, 35 +/- 6.1 and 56 +/- 15.9 min, and 35 +/- 9.2 and 55 +/- 19.4 min. The times to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.8 were 103 +/- 30.7, 69 +/- 20.4, and 62 +/- 21.1 min, and the 25%-75% recovery indices were 26 +/- 11.7, 12 +/- 5.0, and 14 +/- 6.9 min, respectively. There were no differences among groups in the times for onset of action or to recovery of T1 to 25%. However, the times for recovery of T1 to 90%, TOF ratio to 0.8, and recovery index in the sevoflurane group were all significantly longer compared with the other two groups (P < 0.05, < 0.01, and < 0.01, respectively). We conclude that the effects of rocuronium, especially duration of action, are significantly enhanced during sevoflurane compared with isoflurane and propofol anesthesia. ⋯ In routine clinical use, the effects of rocuronium are enhanced by sevoflurane, in comparison with isoflurane and propofol anesthesia, and the recovery is slower. Particular attention should be paid to monitoring of neuromuscular block during sevoflurane anesthesia.