Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialAdvantages of intrathecal nalbuphine, compared with intrathecal morphine, after cesarean delivery: an evaluation of postoperative analgesia and adverse effects.
We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicenter study to compare the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of intrathecal nalbuphine, at three different doses, and intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief after cesarean deliveries. Ninety healthy patients at full term who were scheduled for elective cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia were enrolled in the study. They received 10 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% with either morphine 0.2 mg (Group 1), nalbuphine 0.2 mg (Group 2), nalbuphine 0. 8 mg (Group 3), or nalbuphine 1.6 mg (Group 4). Only patients in Groups 1 and 2 reported pain during surgery. Postoperative analgesia lasted significantly longer in the morphine group, compared with the nalbuphine groups (P: < 0.0001). In the nalbuphine groups, postoperative analgesia lasted longest with the 0.8-mg dose. The additional increase to 1.6 mg did not increase efficacy. The incidence of pruritus was significantly higher in Group 1 (11 of 22), compared with Group 2 (0 of 22, P: < 0.0002), Group 3 (0 of 23, P: < 0.0001), and Group 4 (3 of 20, P: < 0.02). Postoperative nausea and vomiting were more frequent in Group 1 (5 of 22), compared with Group 2 (0 of 22, P: < 0.05), Group 3 (0 of 23, P: < 0.05), and Group 4 (3 of 23, not significant). There was no maternal or newborn respiratory depression. Neonatal conditions (Apgar scores and umbilical vein and artery blood gas values) were similar for all groups. This study suggests that intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg provides good intraoperative and early postoperative analgesia without side effects. However, only morphine provides long-lasting analgesia. ⋯ Small doses of intrathecal nalbuphine produce fewer adverse effects, such as pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting, compared with intrathecal morphine. This may allow earlier discharge of patients from the recovery room.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe anesthetic and recovery profile of two doses (60 and 80 mg) of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia.
Reports of transient neurological symptoms with the use of subarachnoid lidocaine has generated interest in alternate local anesthetics of intermediate duration, such as mepivacaine. This prospective randomized, double-blinded, dose-response study examined the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of preservative-free plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Sixty patients undergoing ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair of the knee under spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups; Group 1 (29 patients) received 4 mL of 1.5% (60-mg dose) and Group 2 (31 patients) received 4 mL of 2% (80-mg dose) of plain mepivacaine. All patients received a combined spinal-epidural anesthetic technique. The epidural catheter was used only in the event the surgery outlasted the duration of surgical anesthesia with subarachnoid mepivacaine. Epidural supplementation was administered in three patients (12%) in Group 1 and one patient (3%) in Group 2 when the sensory block regressed to L-1 with surgery expected to last longer than 15 min. The cephalad dermatome level of the block and degree of motor block was comparable in the two groups. Times to two-segment and T-10 regression were comparable in the two groups (112 +/- 26 min in Group 1 versus 122 +/- 28 min in Group 2). Time to L-1 regression was significantly longer in Group 2 (146 +/- 28 min in Group 1 versus 159 +/- 19 min in Group 2). All of the ambulatory milestones were significantly faster in Group 1. Side effects, such as hypotension and emesis were negligible, severe bradycardia and urinary retention did not occur, and none of the patients in the two groups reported transient neurological symptoms over 24 h. In conclusion, plain mepivacaine in a 60- or 80-mg dose is a suitable local anesthetic choice for ambulatory spinal anesthesia with respect to anesthetic, as well as recovery profiles. ⋯ We evaluated the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Both doses produced comparable sensory and motor block. Sensory and motor regression and ambulatory milestones were 20-30 min longer with the 80-mg dose. Side effects were negligible and transient neurological symptoms were not reported during a 24-h follow-up.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialSpontaneous recovery profile of rapacuronium during desflurane, sevoflurane, or propofol anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy.
We evaluated the spontaneous recovery characteristics of rapacuronium during desflurane-, sevoflurane-, or propofol-based anesthesia in 51 consenting women undergoing laparoscopic tubal ligation procedures. After the induction of the anesthesia with standardized doses of propofol and fentanyl, 1.5 mg/kg IV rapacuronium was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation. Patients were randomized to receive either 1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of desflurane, 1 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane, or 100 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) propofol infusion in combination with 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen for maintenance of anesthesia. Neuromuscular blockade was monitored at the wrist by using electromyography. The degree of maximum blockade and the times for first twitch recovery (T(1)) to 5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90%, as well as the recovery index, were similar in all three anesthetic groups. However, recovery times for the train-of-four ratio to achieve 0.7 and 0.8 were significantly longer with desflurane (44.4 +/- 18.9 and 53.5 +/- 22.4 min) and sevoflurane (44.8 +/- 15.1 and 53.2 +/- 15.8 min) compared with propofol (31.8 +/- 5.3 and 36.5 +/- 6.5 min). Eight patients (16%) required a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg/kg rapacuronium and reversal of rapacuronium residual block occurred in three (6%) patients. We conclude that spontaneous recovery after an intubating dose of 1.5 mg/kg rapacuronium was significantly prolonged by both desflurane and sevoflurane compared with propofol-based anesthesia. Routine monitoring of neuromuscular activity is recommended even when a single bolus dose of rapacuronium is administered during ambulatory anesthesia. ⋯ When administered for laparoscopic surgery, the duration of action of an intubating dose of rapacuronium was prolonged 40%-50% by desflurane and sevoflurane, respectively, (versus propofol). Monitoring recovery of neuromuscular blockade produced by rapacuronium is particularly important when desflurane or sevoflurane is administered to ensure that an adequate recovery (train-of-four > or = 0.8) is achieved by the end of anesthesia.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Sep 2000
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialEmergence agitation after sevoflurane versus propofol in pediatric patients.
Sevoflurane may be associated with a high incidence of emergence agitation in preschool children. We tested the hypothesis that maintenance of anesthesia with propofol after sevoflurane induction would reduce the incidence of this excitatory behavior compared with continuing sevoflurane for maintenance. We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, two-period, cross-over study in 16 preschool age children undergoing repeated brief general anesthetics for eye examination. After sevoflurane induction, patients were randomly assigned to receive either sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia for maintenance. The alternative anesthetic was used for the maintenance of anesthesia on the second occasion. We compared the speed and quality of recovery characteristics of these anesthetics, as well as, overall parent satisfaction with anesthesia. Eight patients first received sevoflurane and the remaining eight patients first received propofol. Of the patients who received sevoflurane for the maintenance of anesthesia, 38% developed emergence agitation. In contrast, none developed emergence agitation when propofol was administered for maintenance of anesthesia. Despite emergence agitation, sevoflurane provided a shorter postanesthesia care unit stay than propofol. Parent satisfaction with anesthesia was greater with propofol than with sevoflurane. ⋯ In this cross-over study, we observed the incidence of emergence agitation with sevoflurane (38%) was significantly greater than with propofol (0%) in premedicated, preschool-aged children undergoing minor noninvasive surgery.