Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of epidural levobupivacaine 0.75% with racemic bupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery.
Levobupivacaine, the S(-) isomer of bupivacaine, is less cardiotoxic than racemic bupivacaine. In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study of epidural anesthesia, the onset, extent, and duration of sensory and motor block produced by 0.75% levobupivacaine (20 mL, 150 mg) was compared with that of 0.75% racemic bupivacaine in 56 patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery. The time to onset of adequate sensory block (T10 dermatome) was similar in both treatment groups (13.6 +/- 5.6 min for levobupivacaine and 14.0 +/- 9.9 min for bupivacaine), with an average peak block height of T5 reached at 24.3 +/- 9.4 and 26.5 +/- 13.2 min, respectively. Time to complete regression of sensory block was significantly longer with levobupivacaine (550.6 +/- 87.6 min) than bupivacaine (505.9 +/- 71.1 min) (P = 0.016). Abdominal muscle relaxation was adequate for the scheduled procedure in all patients, and there were no significant differences between the groups in rectus abdominis muscle scores (P = 0.386) and quality of muscle relaxation as determined by the surgeon and anesthesiologist (P = 0. 505 and 0.074, respectively). In conclusion, both 0.75% levobupivacaine and 0.75% bupivacaine produced effective epidural anesthesia and their effects were clinically indistinguishable. ⋯ The results of this study indicate that the sensory and motor block produced by 0.75% levobupivacaine is equivalent to that of 0.75% racemic bupivacaine. Both local anesthetics are well tolerated and effective in producing epidural anesthesia for patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialWhat concentration of sufentanil should be combined with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia?
In this randomized double-blinded study, we sought to determine an optimal dose-combination of sufentanil with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol as postoperative epidural analgesics. One hundred twenty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery under general and thoracic epidural anesthesia (T9-11) were assigned to groups receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol (R), ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol + sufentanil 0.5 microg/mL (R+S0.5), 0. 75 microg/mL (R+S0.75), 1.0 microg/mL (R+S1). A visual analog score of less than 40 was considered effective, and all side effects were recorded. In randomized subgroups (10 patients per group), plasma pharmacokinetic data were obtained for both epidural drugs. Four patients in Group R and two in Group R+S0.5 were excluded because of inadequate analgesia. The drug infusion rates (range of means: 5.4-5. 9 mL/h) were similar in all patients. Analgesia was superior for sufentanil 0.75 microg/mL with no further enhancement by the larger sufentanil concentration of 1 microg/mL. Sufentanil plasma levels were within the range of the minimal effective concentrations (highest in R+S1), and there was no covariation between plasma levels and pain relief. Free ropivacaine plasma concentrations remained stable for 96 h. No severe side effects were detected, although pruritus correlated with an increasing dose of sufentanil. We conclude that the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil provided the best analgesia with the fewest side effects of the three combinations tested. ⋯ Sufentanil is added to epidural infusions of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol to improve the effectiveness of postoperative pain management. Regarding the risk of side effects, however, it is still unclear what concentration of sufentanil should be added to the local anesthetic. For postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia after major abdominal surgery, the combination of ropivacaine 0.2% wt/vol and 0.75 microg/mL sufentanil resulted in an appropriate cost:benefit ratio between good analgesia and side effects.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe efficacy of intravenous 0.15 versus 0.25 mg/kg intraoperative morphine for immediate postoperative analgesia after remifentanil-based anesthesia for major surgery.
We evaluated the effect of perioperative administration of two doses of morphine for postoperative analgesia after remifentanil-based anesthesia. The prospective, randomized study included 245 patients from 33 centers. All patients were scheduled for abdominal or urological surgery lasting more than 1 h. General anesthesia used remifentanil as the perioperative opioid (1 microg/kg as a bolus then, 0.5 microg/kg as a continuous infusion). A morphine bolus of 0. 15 mg/kg (0.15-mg group) or 0.25 mg/kg (0.25-mg group) was administered 30 min before the end of surgery. In the postanesthesia care unit, pain scores for patients were evaluated by using behavioral pain scores of 1-3, verbal pain scores of 0-3, and visual analog scale scores of 0-10). Postoperative analgesia was obtained by a morphine titration (3 mg every 5 min). Demographic and surgery characteristics were similar in both groups. The delay for first demand of morphine was similar in the 0.15-mg and the 0.25-mg groups (26 [9-60] and 30 [10-60] min, respectively). The frequency of morphine titration was similar in both groups (75% and 66%, respectively). The amount of morphine used in the postanesthesia care unit was smaller in the 0.25-mg group (0.16 [0.0-1.25] vs 0.10 [0.0-0.56] mg/kg; P = 0.008). In the 0.25-mg group, the behavioral pain score was lower at 15 min, the verbal pain score was lower at 60 min (P < 0.001), and similar at 30 min. The visual analog scale pain score at 30 min and 60 min was similar in both groups. The incidence of minor side effects was similar in both groups. However, three cases of postoperative respiratory depression occurred in the 0.25-mg group compared with no cases in the 0.15-mg group. In conclusion, perioperative administration of morphine alone does not provide entirely adequate immediate postoperative pain control after remifentanil-based anesthesia in major surgery. ⋯ The administration of 0.15 or 0.25 mg/kg perioperative morphine during remifentanil-based anesthesia for major surgery does not preclude additional morphine administration in the postanesthesia care unit. The larger dose of 0.25 mg/kg slightly improves postoperative analgesia; however, it may be responsible for postoperative respiratory depression.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2000
Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe effects of sevoflurane on serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen concentrations: a retrospective, twenty-two-center, comparative evaluation of renal function in adult surgical patients.
Despite mounting clinical evidence that supports its safety, the question of the potential adverse effects of sevoflurane on renal function continues to generate some controversy. This study retrospectively evaluated pooled renal laboratory data from 22 different clinical trials that compared sevoflurane with three widely used anesthetics. The trials examined postoperative changes in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels from a total of 3, 436 ASA physical status I-IV adult surgical patients administered either sevoflurane (n = 1941) or a control drug (isoflurane, enflurane, or propofol; n = 1495) as the maintenance anesthetic. The incidences of increased serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen concentrations were similar among patients administered sevoflurane and those administered control drugs. Additionally, no trends specific to sevoflurane were observed with respect to postoperative serum creatinine concentration and fresh gas flow rate, concurrent treatment with nephrotoxic antibiotics, or type of carbon dioxide absorbent. ⋯ Our data for changes in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen indicate that, for exposures of less than 4 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration/h, sevoflurane is not associated with an increased risk of renal toxicity compared with other commonly used anesthetics. For clinical purposes, the pre- to postoperative changes in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen are appropriate measures of renal function in surgical patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialIs an infusion pump necessary to safely administer remifentanil?
We sought to determine if remifentanil could be administered as safely and effectively from an IV drip as from a calculator pump, because not all anesthesiologists have access to a calculator pump. Forty healthy adults undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy were premedicated with midazolam, 2 mg. Total IV anesthesia was induced with propofol by bolus (2 mg/kg) and maintained by a continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil. On a randomized, double-blinded basis, they received, IV, either remifentanil (50 microg/mL) by syringe from an infusion pump or from a bag of saline containing remifentanil 20 microg/mL through a minidrip set. The remifentanil infusion syringe pump rate was 0.4 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) until skin incision and then 0.2 microg. kg(-1). min(-1), whereas that from the bag/minidrip set was set to approximate the delivery rate from the pump. Both a syringe pump and bag/minidrip set infusion were administered to each patient but only one contained remifentanil, that one being determined in a randomized, double-blinded manner. There were no differences in demographic data, time to recovery of open eyes, response to command, ability to speak (approximately 7 min), total dose and time of administration of propofol and remifentanil, the incidence of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia, and postoperative shivering. We demonstrated that remifentanil can be administered as safely and effectively from a bag with a minidrip set as from a syringe in a calculator infusion pump, provided the anesthesiologist is paying attention to the drip rate from the bag. ⋯ Because remifentanil is rapidly degraded in the body, it can be safely and effectively administered from a bag through a minidrip set. We showed that there was no difference with this less expensive method of administration than from the more precise method of a calculator infusion pump.