Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2001
The effects of peripheral administration of a novel selective antagonist for prostaglandin E receptor subtype EP(1), ONO-8711, in a rat model of postoperative pain.
Mechanically evoked pain, also known as incident pain, induced by coughing or deep breathing after surgery leads to potentially devastating consequences. It is generally thought that the prostaglandin receptor- (especially, the receptor for prostaglandin E(2), EP receptor) mediated sensitization of sensory nerve fibers is a key contributor to the generation of hyperalgesia. We examined whether a peripherally administered novel selective EP(1) antagonist, ONO-8711, would be a potential analgesic for incision-induced mechanical hyperalgesia. We used a rat model of postoperative pain introduced by Brennan et al. (1). Withdrawal thresholds to punctate stimulation and response frequencies to nonpunctate mechanical stimulation were determined by using von Frey filaments applied adjacent to the wound and directly to the incision site of the hind paw, respectively. Mechanical hyperalgesia to punctate and nonpunctate stimuli was observed 2 and 24 h after the incision. ONO-8711 (2, 10, or 50 microg) or saline was administered subcutaneously into the hind paw on the ipsilateral side to the incision. ONO-8711 significantly (P < 0.01) increased the withdrawal thresholds to punctate mechanical stimulation and significantly (P < 0.01) decreased the response frequencies to nonpunctate mechanical stimulation in a dose- and time-dependent manner 2 and 24 h after the incision. We conclude that EP(1) receptor-mediated sensitization of sensory nerve fibers may contribute to the generation of mechanical hyperalgesia produced by incisional surgery, and that the EP(1) receptor antagonist ONO-8711 may be an option for treatment of postoperative pain, especially incident pain. ⋯ The peripheral administration of an antagonist for EP(1) receptor that is a subtype of prostaglandin E receptors can inhibit the mechanical hyperalgesia induced by a surgical incision.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2001
Comment Letter Comparative StudyCerebral hemodynamic response to the introduction of desflurane: a comparison with sevoflurane.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2001
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialRemifentanil versus meperidine for monitored anesthesia care: a comparison study in older patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy is one of the most frequently performed outpatient procedures in the United States. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that a remifentanil infusion would be superior to boluses of meperidine in older patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy. One hundred ASA physical status I-IV patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized in this double-blinded study to receive either remifentanil infusions (n = 49) or titrated boluses of meperidine (n = 51). Patient tolerance was assessed using physiologic variables and side effects associated with opioid analgesia. Verbal pain/anxiety and patient/operator satisfaction were also assessed. As a group, the physiologic characteristics demonstrated no significant differences in the response to the colonoscopy procedure. Although the patient and operator satisfaction surveys were similar between groups, the incidences of tachycardia, hypotension, and nausea were less and the adjusted verbal pain and anxiety scores were more in the Remifentanil group compared with the Meperidine group. This study demonstrates that remifentanil and meperidine were equally well tolerated in older patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy when administered by an anesthesia provider. The differences in the pharmakinetics of remifentanil and meperidine most likely account for the differences noted between the two treatment groups. ⋯ Remifentanil infusions and meperidine boluses are equally well tolerated in older patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy when administered by an anesthesia provider.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2001
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialDexamethasone facilitates discharge after outpatient anorectal surgery.
Corticosteroids can decrease pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate if the routine use of dexamethasone would facilitate the early recovery process after anorectal surgery. A secondary aim of the study was to determine if dexamethasone would increase the incidence of postoperative wound complications. Eighty adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery with a standardized monitored anesthesia care technique were randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone 4 mg IV or an equal volume of saline before the start of surgery. All patients were premedicated with midazolam 2 mg IV and received ketorolac 30 mg IV as a preemptive analgesic. A propofol infusion, 50 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) IV, was initiated and subsequently titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 2 or 3 (with 5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep). Fentanyl 25 microg IV was administered 3-5 min before infiltrating the surgical field with a 30-mL local anesthetic mixture containing 15 mL of lidocaine 1% and 15 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% (with epinephrine 1:200,000 and sodium bicarbonate 3 mL). All patients were fast-tracked directly from the operating room to the step-down recovery area. Even though the incidences of postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting were small in both treatment groups, the time to "home readiness" was significantly shorter in the dexamethasone group. Importantly, there was no increase in the incidence of wound infections (8% vs 12%) or hematoma formation (3% vs 5%) in the dexamethasone (versus saline) group. We conclude that the administration of dexamethasone, 4 mg IV, shortened the time to home readiness without increasing the incidence of postoperative wound infections in a high-risk outpatient population undergoing anorectal surgery. ⋯ A single dose of dexamethasone (4 mg IV) decreased the time to "home readiness" without increasing the incidence of postoperative wound complications in an outpatient population undergoing anorectal surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jan 2001
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe analgesic effect of sufentanil combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia: a comparison of three sufentanil doses.
The combination of opioids with local anesthetics is commonly used for epidural labor analgesia. We examined whether increasing sufentanil in doses of 5, 10, and 15 microg prolonged the duration of labor analgesia produced by ropivacaine. One hundred healthy parturients in the first stage of labor who requested epidural analgesia were enrolled. Parturients were randomized to receive 12 mL ropivacaine 0.2% alone or with sufentanil 5 microg, sufentanil 10 microg, or sufentanil 15 microg. The duration of analgesia, pain score, degree of motor blockade (using a four-point Bromage scale), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and incidence of nausea and pruritus were recorded. The mean duration of epidural analgesia was 96 +/- 32 min for patients without sufentanil, 134 +/- 27 min for Group 5 (p < 0.01 versus control), 135 +/- 33 min for Group 10 (p < 0.01 versus control), 130 +/- 33 min for Group 15 (p < 0.01 versus control) without differences among sufentanil groups. Between 30 and 90 min, the sufentanil groups (5 microg, 10 microg, and 15 microg) had lower pain scores than the control group (p < 0.01 versus control) but there were no differences among the sufentanil groups. No patient in any group had a Bromage score more than 1. No significant difference was found for opioid-related side effects. We conclude that 5-10 or 15 microg sufentanil induced a similar prolongation of analgesia when combined with ropivacaine 0.2% for initiation of labor analgesia. ⋯ We studied the effect of adding one of three possible sufentanil doses to epidural ropivacaine 0.2% for labor analgesia. Adding sufentanil increased the duration of analgesia but there was no advantage in adding more than 5 microg of sufentanil.