Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialIntravenous infusion of phenytoin relieves neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study.
Neuropathic pain responds inconsistently to opioids and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. However, oral anticonvulsants have a proven analgesic effect on neuropathic pain, but may not be practical in an acute flare-up. Phenytoin was the first oral anticonvulsant used as an analgesic for neuropathic pain. There have been few studies on the parenteral analgesic effect of this drug. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of 20 patients with acute flare-ups of neuropathic pain, we compared a 2-h placebo infusion with a 2-h infusion of 15 mg/kg phenytoin. Overall pain, shooting pain, burning pain, paresthesia, numbness, and sensitivity were measured using a 10-cm linear visual analog score. Numbness and sensitivity were reduced in the placebo group during infusion, but not in the 7 days after infusion. In the phenytoin group, there were significant reductions in burning pain (P < 0.05), shooting pain (P < 0.001), sensitivity (P < 0.001), numbness (P < 0.05), and overall pain (P < 0.005) during the infusion period. The reduction in overall pain persisted for 1 day, in sensitivity for 2 days, and in shooting pain for 4 days after infusion. We conclude that IV infusion of 15 mg/kg phenytoin has an analgesic effect in acute flare-ups of neuropathic pain and that this relief outlives both the infusion time and plasma half-life of phenytoin. ⋯ Oral phenytoin can relieve neuropathic pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of IV phenytoin on neuropathic pain. The results indicate that IV phenytoin may be used to treat flare-ups of chronic neuropathic pain.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialDetermination of the effective therapeutic dose of intrathecal sufentanil for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Intrathecal (IT) sufentanil provides effective analgesia for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. However, the optimal dose of sufentanil has not been established. We designed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to determine the optimal dose of IT sufentanil. Sixty men were randomized to receive 12.5,15,17.5, or 20 microg of IT sufentanil (n = 15 for each group) via a combined spinal epidural technique. Inadequate analgesia was treated with IV propofol, and the epidural was activated for a pain score greater than 6 on a 10-point verbal analog pain scale. Intraoperative and postoperative visual analog pain scale scores were significantly higher in the 12.5-microg group compared with 20-microg group (3.2 +/- 1.6 vs 1.6 +/- 1.2, P < 0.05, and 1.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 0.5 +/- 0.4, P < 0.05, respectively). The smaller-dosage groups of IT sufentanil required significantly more supplemental boluses of propofol compared with the 20-microg group (67%, 53%, and 40% vs 6%, respectively, P < 0.05). However, pruritus was significantly diminished in the smaller-dosage groups compared with the 20-microg group (55%, 60%, and 67% vs 100%, P < 0.05). The time to discharge was significantly shorter in the 15-microg group compared with the 20-microg group (84 +/- 40 min vs 126 +/- 48 min, P < 0.05). These results suggest that 15 microg of IT sufentanil may be the optimal IT dose for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. ⋯ Many anesthetic techniques are used for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). We have previously shown that intrathecal sufentanil was effective for ESWL, but was associated with a high incidence of itching. We tested 60 patients in four spinal sufentanil dose groups and found that doses of 15 and 17.5 microg provided the most effective analgesia with the fewest side effects for ESWL, with only mild itching.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of the sedation and recovery profiles of Ro 48-6791, a new benzodiazepine, and midazolam in combination with meperidine for outpatient endoscopic procedures.
In this randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the onset and recovery characteristics of an investigational benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791 (when administered alone or combined with meperidine), a midazolam-meperidine combination for sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Ninety consenting outpatients scheduled for upper or lower GI procedures were randomly assigned as follows: Group I received midazolam 1 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; Group II received Ro 48-6791 0.5 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; or Group III received Ro 48-6791 1.0 mg IV alone. If the level of sedation did not achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 4 (where 5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep) in < or = 2 min, a second bolus dose, equal to half of the original dose of midazolam or Ro 48-6791, was administered. The onset time was defined as the time to achieve an OAA/S score of 4. During the procedure, a bolus dose equal to half of the total induction dose was given to maintain an OAA/S score of 4. The induction and maintenance dosages, as well as recovery times to an OAA/S score of 5, were recorded. A heel-toe line walk (HTLW) test used to determine the time to "fitness for discharge." Although the onset times were similar in all three groups, the induction dosages were significantly reduced in Group II compared with Groups I and III. There were significantly more patients requiring supplemental sedative boluses and "rescue" analgesia with Ro 48-6791 than with midazolam. The Ro 48-6791 groups also experienced more dizziness after the procedures. Ro 48-6791 was associated with a higher incidence of inadequate sedation (18% vs 3%) without the opioid. The time for the HTLW test to return to baseline values after the procedure was similar among the three groups. However, the Ro 48-6791 groups had significantly reduced times to return to an OAA/S score of 5 and to achieve the baseline HTLW value after the last dose of the benzodiazepine. In conclusion, compared with midazolam, Ro 48-6791 is more potent and may be associated with a more rapid early recovery after endoscopic GI procedures. However, sedation with Ro 48-6791 required more supplemental bolus doses and "rescue" analgesic medication and was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness. ⋯ The investigational water-soluble benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791, is a more potent sedative than midazolam, which appears to have a slightly shorter duration of action. Unfortunately, use of Ro 48-6791 increased the requirement for supplemental doses of the sedative medication and the need for "rescue" analgesics during the procedure and was associated with more dizziness after the procedure.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialVideotape increases parental knowledge about pediatric pain management.
Pediatric pain management often depends on parents recognition and assessment of their child's pain and their beliefs as to whether the pain should be treated. Parental misconceptions concerning pain assessment and pain management may therefore result in inadequate pain treatment, particularly in patients who are too young or too developmentally handicapped to self-report their pain. We hypothesized that viewing a concise, educational videotape would provide parents with instructive information that could correct misconceptions concerning pain and pain management in children. To do this, we evaluated the impact of an educational videotape on parental responses to a questionnaire about pediatric pain management. Parents of children scheduled for inpatient, postoperative hospital care were studied. After answering 30 questions, parents were randomly assigned to either view (Group 1) or not view (Group 2) a 19-min educational videotape. Immediately after viewing the videotape (Group 1), or 30 min after taking the first test (Group 2), parents were asked to answer the same questionnaire a second time. The effect of seeing the videotape was assessed by comparing post-pre test score differences using paired t-test. One-hundred parents were studied. Randomization was effective in assigning equitable groups. Initial scores of percent answers correct in each group were not different ([mean +/- SD] Group 1 [n = 50]: 68.7% +/- 18.8% vs Group 2 [n = 50]: 61.5% +/- 22.7%; P = 0.09). Viewing the videotape effectively increased test scores: paired t-test within groups demonstrated a significant difference in Group 1 (22.4% +/- 16.5%, P < 0.0001), whereas Group 2 scores changed to a much lesser degree (2.7% +/- 8.3%, P = 0.0271). All parents who viewed the videotape stated that it was informative regarding their understanding of their child's pain management. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of an educational videotape in changing parental knowledge concerning postoperative pediatric pain. This effective and efficient teaching medium may be useful in improving pain management in postoperative pediatric surgical patients. ⋯ Pediatric pain management often depends on parents recognition and assessment of their child's pain and their beliefs as to whether the pain should be treated. This prospective, randomized, controlled study demonstrated the effectiveness of an educational videotape in changing parental knowledge concerning postoperative pediatric pain. This effective and efficient teaching medium may be useful in preventing inadequate pain management in postoperative pediatric surgical patients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialHemodynamic responses induced by dopamine and dobutamine in anesthetized patients premedicated with clonidine.
To test the hypothesis that the pharmacological effects of dopamine (DOA) and dobutamine (DOB) are altered when there is inhibition of the release of norepinephrine from nerve endings, we examined the hemodynamic responses to DOA and DOB in anesthetized patients premedicated with oral clonidine. Seventy adult patients were assigned to one of two groups (oral premedication with clonidine 5 microg/kg or no premedication). After the induction of general anesthesia, heart rate and systemic blood pressure (BP) were measured for 10 min after each of five IV infusions (3 and 5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) of DOA; 0.5, 1, and 3 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) of DOB) in a randomized, double-blind manner. In patients given clonidine, the mean BP increases induced by DOA 5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) were significantly attenuated (P < 0.01), whereas the mean BP increases induced by DOB-0.5, 1, or 3 microg x kg(-l) x min(-1) were significantly enhanced (P < 0.01 or 0.05). The heart rate responses to DOA and DOB did not differ between patients with or without clonidine. Premedication with clonidine alters the effects on BP to both DOA and DOB. When small doses of DOA or DOB are used in clonidine-premedicated patients, differences of pharmacological profiles need to be considered for perioperative management. ⋯ Our randomized, double-blind study suggests that premedication with clonidine may enhance the effect on blood pressure response to a small dose of dobutamine (direct-acting) and attenuate that to a small dose of dopamine (mixed direct-and indirect-acting) in patients anesthetized with fentanyl and nitrous oxide.