Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe impact of saline flush of the epidural catheter on resolution of epidural anesthesia in volunteers: a dose-response study.
We evaluated the effect of 1, 20, and 40 mL of epidural saline flush on recovery from lidocaine epidural anesthesia. Eight volunteers were studied for three study periods, each separated by 72 h. The volume of saline was randomized, and a new catheter was inserted for each study period. A standardized dose of 20 mL of 2% plain lidocaine was injected for 10 min, followed by an epidural saline flush 30 min later. Sensory block was assessed by pinprick and transcutaneous electrical stimulation and motor block by a modified Bromage scale and isometric maximal force contraction. Times to void and ambulate independently before discharge were recorded. Peak plasma lidocaine concentrations and time to peak concentration were determined. Results from six volunteers showed that epidural saline, 40 mL, significantly altered anesthetic resolution, accelerating the time of complete sensory and motor block regression (P < 0.05). Median peak levels of sensory and motor block and times to void and ambulate were similar among treatment groups. Peak plasma lidocaine concentrations were similar in all treatment groups. Our data suggest that a 40-mL epidural saline injection 30 min after the induction facilitates regression of epidural lidocaine anesthesia, but a 20-mL bolus does not. Epidural saline injection does not affect vascular absorption of epidural lidocaine. ⋯ Epidural catheter flushing with 40 mL of saline, after establishment of epidural lidocaine anesthesia, can facilitate sensory and motor block recovery. However, this does not affect vascular absorption of epidural lidocaine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialIntravenous infusion of phenytoin relieves neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study.
Neuropathic pain responds inconsistently to opioids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. However, oral anticonvulsants have a proven analgesic effect on neuropathic pain, but may not be practical in an acute flare-up. Phenytoin was the first oral anticonvulsant used as an analgesic for neuropathic pain. There have been few studies on the parenteral analgesic effect of this drug. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 20 patients with acute flare-ups of neuropathic pain, we compared a 2-h placebo infusion with a 2-h infusion of 15 mg/kg phenytoin. Overall pain, shooting pain, burning pain, paresthesia, numbness, and sensitivity were measured using a 10-cm linear visual analog score. Numbness and sensitivity were reduced in the placebo group during infusion, but not in the 7 days after infusion. In the phenytoin group, there were significant reductions in burning pain (P < 0.05), shooting pain (P < 0.001), sensitivity (P < 0.001), numbness (P < 0.05), and overall pain (P < 0.005) during the infusion period. The reduction in overall pain persisted for 1 day, in sensitivity for 2 days, and in shooting pain for 4 days after infusion. We conclude that IV infusion of 15 mg/kg phenytoin has an analgesic effect in acute flare-ups of neuropathic pain and that this relief outlives both the infusion time and plasma half-life of phenytoin. ⋯ Oral phenytoin can relieve neuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of IV phenytoin on neuropathic pain. The results indicate that IV phenytoin may be used to treat flare-ups of chronic neuropathic pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialDetermination of the effective therapeutic dose of intrathecal sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Intrathecal (IT) sufentanil provides effective analgesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. However, the optimal dose of sufentanil has not been established. We designed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to determine the optimal dose of IT sufentanil. Sixty men were randomized to receive 12.5,15,17.5, or 20 microg of IT sufentanil (n = 15 for each group) via a combined spinal epidural technique. Inadequate analgesia was treated with IV propofol, and the epidural was activated for a pain score greater than 6 on a 10-point verbal analog pain scale. Intraoperative and postoperative visual analog pain scale scores were significantly higher in the 12.5-microg group compared with 20-microg group (3.2 +/- 1.6 vs 1.6 +/- 1.2, P < 0.05, and 1.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 0.5 +/- 0.4, P < 0.05, respectively). The smaller-dosage groups of IT sufentanil required significantly more supplemental boluses of propofol compared with the 20-microg group (67%, 53%, and 40% vs 6%, respectively, P < 0.05). However, pruritus was significantly diminished in the smaller-dosage groups compared with the 20-microg group (55%, 60%, and 67% vs 100%, P < 0.05). The time to discharge was significantly shorter in the 15-microg group compared with the 20-microg group (84 +/- 40 min vs 126 +/- 48 min, P < 0.05). These results suggest that 15 microg of IT sufentanil may be the optimal IT dose for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. ⋯ Many anesthetic techniques are used for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). We have previously shown that intrathecal sufentanil was effective for ESWL, but was associated with a high incidence of itching. We tested 60 patients in four spinal sufentanil dose groups and found that doses of 15 and 17.5 microg provided the most effective analgesia with the fewest side effects for ESWL, with only mild itching.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPatient-controlled analgesia with morphine plus lysine acetyl salicylate.
Using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) delivery system, we evaluated the clinical advantages and disadvantages of morphine PCA compared with morphine plus lysine acetyl salicylate (LAS), a soluble aspirin. After major orthopedic surgery, 50 adult patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. When a patient in the recovery room complained of pain, an initial dose of morphine or the morphine/LAS mixture was titrated to achieve analgesia of visual analog score < or = 3 in 30 min. An equivalent volume PCA dose of either morphine 1 mg/mL or morphine 0.5 mg + LAS 90 mg/mL was used with a lockout interval of 10 min. Pain score, patient satisfaction, vital signs, and adverse effects were observed for 48 h. Adequate analgesia (visual analog scale score < or = 3) was achieved with either drug. Morphine consumption in the morphine/LAS group was significantly less than in morphine group (13.9 vs 18.4 mg in 24 h and 24.3 vs 32.4 mg in 48 h). Significantly more sedation was evident with the morphine group (P < 0.05). We conclude that injectable LAS can be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to morphine for PCA. This combination reduces dose requirements of morphine and hence some of its adverse effects. ⋯ Injectable aspirin could be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to morphine for patient-controlled analgesia. This combination reduces the dose requirement of morphine and therefore some of the morphine-related untoward effects.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of the sedation and recovery profiles of Ro 48-6791, a new benzodiazepine, and midazolam in combination with meperidine for outpatient endoscopic procedures.
In this randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the onset and recovery characteristics of an investigational benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791 (when administered alone or combined with meperidine), a midazolam-meperidine combination for sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Ninety consenting outpatients scheduled for upper or lower GI procedures were randomly assigned as follows: Group I received midazolam 1 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; Group II received Ro 48-6791 0.5 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; or Group III received Ro 48-6791 1.0 mg IV alone. If the level of sedation did not achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 4 (where 5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep) in < or = 2 min, a second bolus dose, equal to half of the original dose of midazolam or Ro 48-6791, was administered. The onset time was defined as the time to achieve an OAA/S score of 4. During the procedure, a bolus dose equal to half of the total induction dose was given to maintain an OAA/S score of 4. The induction and maintenance dosages, as well as recovery times to an OAA/S score of 5, were recorded. A heel-toe line walk (HTLW) test used to determine the time to "fitness for discharge." Although the onset times were similar in all three groups, the induction dosages were significantly reduced in Group II compared with Groups I and III. There were significantly more patients requiring supplemental sedative boluses and "rescue" analgesia with Ro 48-6791 than with midazolam. The Ro 48-6791 groups also experienced more dizziness after the procedures. Ro 48-6791 was associated with a higher incidence of inadequate sedation (18% vs 3%) without the opioid. The time for the HTLW test to return to baseline values after the procedure was similar among the three groups. However, the Ro 48-6791 groups had significantly reduced times to return to an OAA/S score of 5 and to achieve the baseline HTLW value after the last dose of the benzodiazepine. In conclusion, compared with midazolam, Ro 48-6791 is more potent and may be associated with a more rapid early recovery after endoscopic GI procedures. However, sedation with Ro 48-6791 required more supplemental bolus doses and "rescue" analgesic medication and was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness. ⋯ The investigational water-soluble benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791, is a more potent sedative than midazolam, which appears to have a slightly shorter duration of action. Unfortunately, use of Ro 48-6791 increased the requirement for supplemental doses of the sedative medication and the need for "rescue" analgesics during the procedure and was associated with more dizziness after the procedure.