Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialSimulation of an epidural test dose with intravenous epinephrine in sevoflurane-anesthetized children.
An epidural test dose containing small doses of epinephrine does not produce a reliable increase in heart rate (HR) in children under halothane anesthesia. Because sevoflurane is increasingly used in clinical practice, we designed the present study to determine the hemodynamic responses to, and efficacy of, a simulated IV test dose containing a small dose of epinephrine in sevoflurane-anesthetized children. Sixty ASA physical status I infants and children (4.1 +/- 2.5 yr) undergoing elective minor surgeries were studied during 1.0 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of sevoflurane and 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either saline (n = 15), a test dose consisting of 1% lidocaine (0.1 mL/kg) with 1:200,000 epinephrine (0.5 microg/kg, n = 15), atropine 0.01 mg/kg followed 5 min later by saline (n = 15), or atropine followed by the test dose (n = 15) via a peripheral vein to simulate intravascular injection of the epidural test dose. HR and systolic blood pressure were recorded every 15 and 30 s, respectively. The test dose increased the HR from 15 to 60 s and from 15 to 90 s without and with atropine, respectively. Mean maximum increases in HR were similar with and without atropine (21 +/- 8 and 22 +/- 6 bpm, respectively). Of 15 children, 7 and 5 developed HR changes < 20 bpm after the test dose with and without atropine, respectively, whereas all children who received saline had an increase in HR < 20 bpm. No dysrhythmia occurred during the study. Our results indicate that an epidural test dose containing epinephrine is unreliable based on the conventional HR criterion (positive if > or = 20 bpm increase), but reliable on the modified HR criterion (positive if > or = 10 bpm increase) in children anesthetized with sevoflurane. I.v. atropine before the test dose injection did not improve the efficacy based on the conventional HR criterion. Because test doses of epinephrine-containing solution are used to determine whether an epidural catheter is intravascular, it is important to define the optimal test dose under sevoflurane anesthesia. ⋯ We found that during sevoflurane anesthesia in children, a heart rate increase > or = 10 bpm and a systolic blood pressure increase > or = 15 mm Hg, when preceded by atropine, may be reliable indicators for detecting intravascular injection.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialPremedication with fentanyl and midazolam decreases the reliability of intravenous lidocaine test dose.
This study was performed to determine whether premedication with midazolam and fentanyl prevents reliable detection of an i.v. lidocaine test dose. Thirty ASA physical status I or II patients received either 3 mL of saline or 1.5 mg of midazolam (1.5 mL) plus 75 microg of fentanyl (1.5 mL) i.v. in a randomized, double-blind fashion. Five minutes later, lidocaine 1 mg/kg was injected i.v. At 1.5 min before and every minute after lidocaine administration, each subject was questioned regarding the presence of four symptoms of systemic lidocaine toxicity. Any new tinnitus, perioral numbness, metallic taste, or light-headedness within 5 min after lidocaine administration was considered a positive response. All 15 patients in the saline group (100% sensitivity) had a positive response to i.v. lidocaine, but only 9 of 15 patients in the sedation group had a positive response (60% sensitivity; P = 0.017). We conclude that midazolam and fentanyl premedication decreases the reliability of subjective detection of i.v. lidocaine. ⋯ Anesthesiologists often rely on subjective symptoms to prevent local anesthetic toxicity while performing regional anesthesia. Sedatives are often administered during the administration of regional anesthesia. This study demonstrates that typical sedation decreases the reliability of detection of local anesthetic toxicity by subjective symptoms.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of patient-controlled analgesia with lornoxicam versus morphine in patients undergoing lumbar disk surgery.
The analgesic efficacy and tolerability of lornoxicam (Xefo; Nycomed Pharma A/S, Roskilde, Denmark), a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug, was compared with that of morphine in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of 96 patients with at least moderate pain after lumbar microsurgical discectomy. Both drugs were administered i.v. via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for up to 24 h postoperatively. Efficacy was assessed by comparing mean hourly pain intensity differences, mean hourly pain relief, and total pain relief (TOTPAR) values derived from a 5-point verbal rating scores of pain intensity and pain relief at several time points over 24 h. Of 79 patients included in a per-protocol analysis, statistically significant equivalence of lornoxicam and morphine was shown by TOTPAR values of 31.6 and 28.9, respectively (P = 0.048). Trends toward slightly faster onset of analgesia with morphine and slightly greater PCA demands with lornoxicam were observed initially, which may partly have been due to a higher baseline pain intensity in the lornoxicam group. Lornoxicam caused fewer adverse events than morphine (21.7% vs 38.0% of patients, respectively), most of which were mild or moderate in severity. These results suggest that lornoxicam is an alternative to morphine when administered by PCA for the treatment of moderate to severe postoperative pain. ⋯ After surgery for lumbar disk disease, patients obtained statistically equivalent pain relief with lornoxicam and morphine when administered by patient-controlled analgesia. However, lornoxicam was associated with a lower incidence of adverse events. This study suggests that lornoxicam provides an alternative to morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialTracheal intubation with rocuronium using the "timing principle".
We compared the endotracheal intubating conditions after rocuronium, using the "timing principle," with those after succinylcholine. The timing principle entails administration of a single bolus dose of nondepolarizing muscle relaxant, followed by an induction drug at the onset of clinical weakness. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to three groups. Patients allocated to Groups 1 and 2 received rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg. At the onset of clinical weakness (onset of ptosis), anesthesia was induced with thiopental 4-6 mg/kg; intubation was accomplished after 45 s in Group 1 and after 60 s in Group 2. Patients in Group 3 received vecuronium (0.01 mg/kg) 3 min before the administration of thiopental and succinylcholine 1.5 mg/kg, and their tracheas were intubated 60 s later by a blind anesthesiologist. Intubating conditions were assessed according to a grading scale and were either good (5 patients in Groups 1 and 2, 4 patients in Group 3) or excellent (10 patients in Groups 1 + 2, 11 patients in Group 3) in all patients. Patients were interviewed postoperatively, and all were satisfied with the induction of anesthesia. We conclude that rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg provides good to excellent intubating conditions 45 and 60 s after the induction of anesthesia using the timing principle. ⋯ We compared the ease with which a breathing tube could be placed in patients using three techniques. The standard technique (succinylcholine) was compared with two others in which a muscle-relaxing drug (rocuronium) was administered just before the anesthetic drug (so-called timing principle). No difference among the techniques was observed.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · May 1998
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialQuantifying oral analgesic consumption using a novel method and comparison with patient-controlled intravenous analgesic consumption.