Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialTramadol infusion for postthoracotomy pain relief: a placebo-controlled comparison with epidural morphine.
We compared continuous IV tramadol as an alternative to neuraxial or systemic opioids for the management of postthoracotomy pain in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. General anesthesia was supplemented by thoracic epidural analgesia with 0.25% bupivacaine. At rib approximation, patients received one of the following: IV tramadol (150-mg bolus followed by infusion, total 450 mg/24 h, n = 29), epidural morphine (2 mg, then 0.2 mg/h, n = 30), or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine only (n = 30). All patients received PCA morphine and rescue morphine as necessary postoperatively. For the first 24 h, pain and sedation scores and respiratory, cardiovascular, and side effect measures were monitored. There was no significant difference in pain scores and PCA morphine use between tramadol and epidural morphine. Pain scores at rest and on coughing were lower in the Tramadol and Epidural Morphine groups than in the PCA Morphine group at various time points over the first 12 h. The Tramadol and Epidural Morphine groups used significantly less hourly PCA morphine than the PCA Morphine group at specific time points in the first 10 h. Vital capacities in the Tramadol group were significantly closer to baseline values at the 20-h point than in the PCA Morphine group. We conclude that an intraoperative bolus of tramadol followed by an infusion was as effective as epidural morphine and avoided the necessity of placing a thoracic epidural catheter. ⋯ A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of postthoracotomy pain relief showed that IV tramadol in the form of a bolus followed by continuous infusion was as effective as epidural morphine. The use of tramadol avoids the necessity of placing a thoracic epidural catheter.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe primary action of epidural fentanyl after cesarean delivery is via a spinal mechanism.
We tested the hypotheses that the primary mechanism of action of epidural fentanyl after cesarean delivery is spinal and that very small dose epidural bupivacaine with epinephrine enhances this effect. After elective cesarean delivery, 100 parturients were randomized in a double-blinded design to four groups. Group I and II patients received a continuous 12 mL/h epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.015% with epinephrine 1 microg/mL for 48 h and Groups III and IV received a 12 mL/h saline epidural infusion instead. Fentanyl 20 microg/mL was administered via a patient-controlled analgesia device either into the epidural infusion (Groups I and IV) or IV (Groups II and III). When compared to patients receiving epidural fentanyl, those receiving IV fentanyl required larger mean infused and total dose of fentanyl (P < 0.0001), reported more pain (P < 0.001), and had a more frequent incidence of excessive sedation (P < 0.01), nausea (P < 0.01), and vomiting (P < 0.01). Plasma concentrations of fentanyl were larger for Group II and III than for Groups I and IV (P < 0.001) at 24 and 48 h. Our results support the hypothesis that the primary mechanism of analgesia of epidural fentanyl after cesarean delivery is spinal. Our data also show that the total required dose of epidural, but not IV, fentanyl is reduced by very small dose epidural bupivacaine and epinephrine (Group I versus Group IV, P < 0.02 and Group II vs Group III, not significant). ⋯ Fentanyl administered epidurally to parturients after cesarean delivery has a primarily spinal mechanism of action and this effect is enhanced by very small dose epidural bupivacaine and epinephrine.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effects of urapidil on thermoregulatory thresholds in volunteers.
In a previous study we have shown that the antihypertensive drug, urapidil, stops postanesthetic shivering. One possible mechanism in the inhibition of postanesthetic shivering by urapidil may be alterations in thermoregulatory thresholds. We therefore studied the effects of urapidil on vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds during cold-induced shivering in volunteers. Seven healthy male volunteers were cooled by an infusion of saline at 4 degrees C on two study days separated by 48 h. Thermoregulatory vasoconstriction was estimated using forearm minus fingertip skin-temperature gradients, and values exceeding 0 degrees C were considered to represent significant vasoconstriction. The rectal core temperatures at the beginning of shivering and at vasoconstriction were considered the thermoregulatory thresholds. Before cooling, either 25 mg of urapidil or placebo was administered randomly and blindly to each volunteer. When shivering occurred continuously for 10 min, another 25 mg of urapidil was administered IV to completely stop shivering. Urapidil led to a decrease in core temperature at vasoconstriction and shivering threshold by 0.4 degrees C plus/minus 0.2 degrees C (P < 0.001) and 0.5 degrees C plus/minus 0.3 degrees C (P < 0.01), respectively. Oxygen consumption increased during shivering by 70% plus/minus 30% (P < 0.01) in comparison with baseline and decreased levels after shivering stopped, despite the continued low core temperature. Our investigation shows that urapidil stops postanesthetic shivering by decreasing important thermoregulatory thresholds. This means that shivering, not hypothermia, is treated, and hypothermia will need more attention in the postanesthesia care unit. ⋯ In this study we show that the antihypertensive drug urapidil stops cold-induced shivering and decreases normal thermoregulatory responses, i.e., the thresholds for vasoconstriction and shivering, in awake volunteers.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialSelective spinal anesthesia versus desflurane anesthesia in short duration outpatient gynecological laparoscopy: a pharmacoeconomic comparison.
We compared the cost and effectiveness of selective spinal anesthesia (SSA) with a desflurane-based general anesthetic (DES) for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. A prospective analysis was undertaken of 10 patients randomized to receive SSA and compared with 10 patients randomized to receive DES. The groups were well matched in their demographic characteristics. The mean cost (in 2000 Canadian dollar values) of anesthesia supplies, drugs, and nursing for the SSA group of $62.31 was less than that for the DES group of $92.31 (P < 0.01). Recovery costs of both groups were similar. Time to administer anesthesia and time spent in the postanesthetic care unit were also similar. Postoperative analgesia was required by 50% of the DES group but in no patient receiving SSA (P < 0.01). SSA is a cost-effective alternative to DES in these patients. ⋯ Small-dose spinal anesthesia is an effective alternative to a desflurane general anesthetic in terms of cost and recovery profiles in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2002
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe prophylactic effect of tropisetron on epidural morphine-related nausea and vomiting: a comparison of dexamethasone with saline.
Tropisetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 receptor antagonist that is primarily used in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We evaluated the prophylactic effect of tropisetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting associated with epidural morphine. Dexamethasone and saline served as controls. One-hundred twenty women (n = 40 in each of three groups) undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy under epidural anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled study. At the end of surgery, Group 1 received IV tropisetron 5 mg, whereas Groups 2 and 3 received dexamethasone 5 mg and saline, respectively. We found that tropisetron did not significantly reduce the occurrence of nausea and vomiting associated with epidural morphine. Dexamethasone, however, reduced the total incidence of nausea and vomiting from 59% to 21% (P < 0.01) and the percentage of patients requiring rescue antiemetic from 38% to 13% (P < 0.05). We conclude that IV tropisetron 5 mg did not prevent the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting associated with epidural morphine. IV dexamethasone 5 mg was effective for this purpose. ⋯ We compared the prophylactic IV administration of tropisetron 5 mg to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with epidural morphine with dexamethasone 5 mg and saline in women undergoing hysterectomy. We found that tropisetron 5 mg did not significantly reduce the occurrence of PONV associated with epidural morphine. Dexamethasone 5 mg was effective for this purpose.