Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2001
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialResting esophageal sphincter pressures and deglutition frequency in awake subjects after oropharyngeal topical anesthesia and laryngeal mask device insertion.
We investigated the effects of oropharyngeal topical anesthesia and placement of the standard (LMA) and the ProSeal (PLMA) laryngeal mask airway on resting gastroesophageal barrier pressure (GEBP), upper esophageal sphincter pressure (UESP), and deglutition frequency in awake subjects. Each subject was studied on 2 consecutive days: 1 day with the LMA and the other with the PLMA, in random order. GEBP and UESP were measured between deglutitions by using a pull-through technique in five sequential conditions: 1) after acclimatization to the manometer, 2) after topical anesthesia, 3) after the LMA or PLMA was self-inserted and the cuff inflated with either 10 or 30 mL of air in random order, 4) after the cuff volume was adjusted to the other randomized volume, and 5) after LMA or PLMA removal. Deglutition frequency was determined between pressure measurements by using a neck microphone. UESP was always larger than GEBP (P < 0.001 for all). Topical anesthesia had no influence on GEBP, UESP, or deglutition frequency. LMA and PLMA placement did not influence GEBP or UESP, but deglutition frequency was higher (P < 0.02 for all). GEBP and UESP did not vary between devices for any condition. Cuff volume did not influence GEBP or UESP. Deglutition frequency was more frequent for the LMA than the PLMA at a 30-mL cuff volume (P = 0.008). We conclude that resting GEBP and UESP are unaffected by oropharyngeal topical anesthesia and the LMA or PLMA in awake subjects, but that deglutition frequency is increased by the LMA or PLMA. This may have implications for the incidence of regurgitation in these situations. ⋯ Resting gastroesophageal barrier pressure and upper esophageal sphincter pressure are unaffected by oropharyngeal topical anesthesia and laryngeal mask devices in awake subjects, but deglutition frequency is increased by laryngeal mask devices. This may have implications for the incidence of regurgitation in these situations.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2001
Comparative Study Clinical TrialFast-tracking after outpatient laparoscopy: reasons for failure after propofol, sevoflurane, and desflurane anesthesia.
In this study, although 41%-94% of the patients were fast-track eligible after laparoscopic surgery, only 35%-53% of the patients actually bypassed the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) because of anesthetic-related factors and surgical complications. Residual sedation was the most common anesthetic-related cause of failure to bypass thePACU.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2001
Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the transient hyperemic response test and the static autoregulation test to assess graded impairment in cerebral autoregulation during propofol, desflurane, and nitrous oxide anesthesia.
The transient hyperemic response (THR) test has been used to assess cerebral autoregulation in anesthesia and intensive care. To date it has not been compared with the static autoregulation test for assessing graded changes in cerebral autoregulation. We compared the two tests during propofol, desflurane, and nitrous oxide anesthesia. Seven subjects were studied. For the THR test, changes in the middle artery blood flow velocity were assessed during and after a 10-s compression of the ipsilateral common carotid artery. Two indices of autoregulation--THR ratio (THRR) and strength of autoregulation (SA)--were calculated. For the test of static autoregulation, changes in the middle cerebral artery flow velocity after a phenylephrine-induces increase in mean arterial pressure were assessed, and the static rate of regulation (sROR) was calculated. The tests were performed before induction and after equilibrium at 0.5 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration (MAC) and then at 1.5 MAC of desflurane. THRR, SA and sROR decreased significantly (P < 0.001) at 0.5 MAC and then at 1.5 MAC desflurane. CHanges in THRR and SA reflected the changes in sROR with a sensitivity of 100%. ⋯ When compared with the established test of static autoregulation, the transient hyperemic response test provides a valid method for assessing graded impairment in cerebral autoregulation.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2001
Comparative StudyThe carbon dioxide absorption capacity of Amsorb is half that of soda lime.
A new CO(2) absorbent, Amsorb (A), which does not contain monovalent bases, is ideal because it does not degrade volatile anesthetics to either Compound A (from sevoflurane) or carbon monoxide (from desflurane, enflurane, or isoflurane). The CO(2) absorption capacity of A, however, has not been investigated under clinical conditions. In this study, we compared the longevity (time to exhaustion) and CO(2) absorption capacity (the volume of CO(2) absorbed before CO(2) rebreathing occurs) of A under low-flow anesthesia (1 L/min) with those of two soda lime absorbents-Medisorb (M) and Sodasorb (S)-by using a 750-mL ADU canister and a 1350-mL Aestiva 3000 canister. In the study with the ADU canister, the longevity of A was 213 +/- 71 min, significantly less than those of M (445 +/- 125; P < 0.01) and S (503 +/- 89; P < 0.001). The CO(2) absorption capacity (L/100 g absorbent) of A was 5.5 +/- 1.2, significantly less than those of M (10.7 +/- 1.7) and S (12.1 +/- 1.8; P < 0.001). In the study with the Aestiva 3000 canister, the longevity of A was 218 +/- 61 min, significantly less than those of M (538 +/- 136) and S (528 +/- 103; P < 0.001). The CO(2) absorption capacity (L/100 g absorbent) of A was 7.6 +/- 1.6, significantly less than those of M (14.4 +/- 1.8) and S (14.8 +/- 2.3; P < 0.001). These results indicate that the CO(2) absorption capacity of A is half that of M or S and that the difference in the CO(2) absorption capacity between A and M or S is almost constant, regardless of the canister design. ⋯ The CO(2) absorption capacity of Amsorb is half that of Medisorb and Sodasorb under clinical low-flow (1 L/min) anesthesia with either a 750-mL Ohmeda ADU compact or a 1350-mL Ohmeda Aestiva 3000 canister.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Jul 2001
Case ReportsTerlipressin for treating intraoperative hypotension: can it unmask myocardial ischemia?
After administration of terlipressin to treat hypotension related to induction of general anesthesia, profound hypertension occurred in association with myocardial ischemia and occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. The authors emphasize cautious use of this drug because of such adverse events.