Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyComparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: a systematic review.
In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed (1966 to June 2002) using the search words "anesthesia" and with ambulatory surgical procedures limited to randomized controlled trials in adults (>19 yr), in the English language, and in humans. A second search strategy was used combining two of the words "propofol," "isoflurane," "sevoflurane," or "desflurane". Screening and data extraction produced 58 articles that were included in the final meta-analysis. No differences were found between propofol and isoflurane in early recovery. However, early recovery was faster with desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane and with sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. A minor difference was found in home readiness between sevoflurane and isoflurane (5 min) but not among the other anesthetics. Nausea, vomiting, headache, and postdischarge nausea and vomiting incidence were in favor of propofol compared with isoflurane (P < 0.05). A larger number of patients in the inhaled anesthesia groups required antiemetics compared with the propofol group. We conclude that the differences in early recovery times among the different anesthetics were small and in favor of the inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting, was less frequent with propofol. ⋯ A systematic analysis of the literature comparing postoperative recovery after propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in adults demonstrated that early recovery was faster in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting were less frequent with propofol.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialThe pharmacodynamic effects of a lower-lipid emulsion of propofol: a comparison with the standard propofol emulsion.
Using a randomized, double-blind protocol design, we compared a new lower-lipid emulsion of propofol (Ampofol) containing propofol 1%, soybean oil 5%, and egg lecithin 0.6% with the most commonly used formulation of propofol (Diprivan) with respect to onset of action and recovery profiles, as well as intraoperative efficacy, when administered for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia as part of a "balanced" anesthetic technique in 63 healthy outpatients. Anesthesia was induced with sufentanil 0.1 microg/kg (or fentanyl 1 microg/kg) and propofol 2 mg/kg IV and maintained with a variable-rate propofol infusion, 120-200 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Onset times to loss of the eyelash reflex and dropping a syringe were recorded. Severity of pain on injection, speed of induction, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and electroencephalographic bispectral index values were assessed. Recovery times to opening eyes and orientation were noted. The results demonstrated that there were no significant differences between Ampofol and Diprivan with respect to onset times, speed of induction, anesthetic dose requirements, bispectral index values, hemodynamic variables, recovery variables, or patient satisfaction. However, the incidence of pain on injection was more frequent in the Ampofol group (26% versus 6%, P < 0.05). We conclude that Ampofol is equipotent to Diprivan with respect to its anesthetic properties but was associated with a more frequent incidence of mild pain on injection. ⋯ The pharmacodynamic profile of a lower-lipid containing emulsion of propofol (Ampofol) was compared with Diprivan when administered for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. This preliminary study demonstrated that the two formulations of propofol were equivalent with respect to their induction and maintenance properties. However, Ampofol was associated with a more frequent incidence of pain on injection.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialIntrathecal and oral clonidine as prophylaxis for postoperative alcohol withdrawal syndrome: a randomized double-blinded study.
In this study, we evaluated the effect of intrathecal and oral clonidine as supplements to spinal anesthesia with lidocaine in patients at risk of postoperative alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). We hypothesized that clonidine would have a prophylactic effect on postoperative AWS. Forty-five alcohol-dependent patients (daily ethanol intake >60 g) scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate were double-blindly randomized into three groups. All patients received hyperbaric lidocaine 100 mg intrathecally. The diazepam group (DiazG) was premedicated with diazepam 10 mg orally; the intrathecal clonidine group (Clon(i/t)G) received a placebo (saline) tablet and clonidine 150 microg intrathecally; and the oral clonidine group (Clon(p/o)G) received clonidine 150 microg orally. For patients diagnosed with AWS, the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised scale, was used. Twelve patients in the DiazG had symptoms of AWS, compared with two in the Clon(i/t)G and one in the Clon(p/o)G. The median Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised scale, score was 12 in the DiazG versus 1 in the clonidine-treated groups. Two patients in the DiazG had severe delirium. Patients receiving oral clonidine had a slightly decreased mean arterial blood pressure 6-12 h after spinal anesthesia (P < 0.05); patients in the DiazG had a hyperdynamic circulatory reaction 24-72 h after surgery. In conclusion, preoperative clonidine 150 microg, intrathecally or orally, prevented significant postoperative AWS in ethanol-dependent patients. ⋯ In this randomized, double-blinded study, clonidine 150 microg both intrathecally and orally prevented postoperative alcohol-withdrawal symptoms in alcohol-dependent men. The effect was superior to that with a single dose of diazepam 10 mg orally.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialCombined spinal-epidural anesthesia using epidural volume extension leads to faster motor recovery after elective cesarean delivery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
Epidural volume extension (EVE) via a combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique is the enhancement of a small-dose intrathecal block by epidural saline boluses. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the EVE technique with single-shot spinal anesthesia with respect to its sensory and motor block profile and hemodynamic stability. Sixty-two parturients (n = 31 in each group) undergoing elective cesarean deliveries were administered either spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine 9 mg and fentanyl 10 microg or CSE comprising intrathecal hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine 5 mg with fentanyl 10 microg, followed by 0.9% saline 6.0 mL through the epidural catheter 5 min thereafter. In each group, the lowest systolic blood pressure (SBP), sensory block level to loss of pain from pinprick, and modified Bromage scores were recorded at 2.5-min intervals. The visual analog pain score (VAS), peak sensory block height, highest modified Bromage motor score, time for sensory regression to the tenth thoracic dermatome (T10), and motor block recovery were compared between groups. Both groups were comparable in demographic data, VAS scores, peak sensory block height, time for sensory regression to T10, and lowest SBP recorded. Patients in the EVE group demonstrated significantly faster motor recovery to modified Bromage 0 (73 +/- 33 min versus 136 +/- 32 min, P < 0.05). ⋯ When compared with conventional, single-shot spinal anesthesia, epidural volume extension of a small-dose spinal block provides satisfactory anesthesia for cesarean delivery with only 55% of the bupivacaine dose required and is associated with faster motor recovery of the lower limbs.