Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEvaluating T-wave amplitude as a guide for detecting intravascular injection of a test dose in anesthetized children.
Previous reports have suggested that accidental intravascular injection of an epinephrine-containing test dose increases T-wave amplitude in anesthetized children. We designed this study to prospectively determine whether changes in T-wave amplitude could be a reliable indicator for detecting intravascular injection. We studied 32 ASA physical status I infants and children (3.4 +/- 1.7 yr) undergoing elective minor surgeries during 1.0 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration of sevoflurane and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. After the i.v. administration of atropine 0.01 mg/kg, the patients were randomly assigned to receive either saline (n = 16) or a test dose consisting of 1% lidocaine (0.1 mL/kg) with 1:200,000 epinephrine (0.5 microg/kg, n = 16) via a peripheral vein to simulate the intravascular injection of the test dose. Heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were recorded every 20 and 30 s, respectively, and the T-wave amplitude of lead II was continuously recorded for subsequent analysis. Of the 16 children receiving the test dose, 16, 13, and 16 developed increases in HR, SBP, and T-wave amplitude > or = 10 bpm, > or = 15 mm Hg, and > or = 25%, occurring at 30 +/- 7, 70 +/- 31, and 20 +/- 5 s, respectively. Because no patient receiving saline met these criteria, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were all 100% based on the criteria using the T-wave amplitude and the peak HR. Our results suggest that changes in T-wave amplitude are as effective as HR for detecting the intravascular injection of an epinephrine-containing test dose in sevoflurane-anesthetized children. ⋯ To determine whether an epidurally administered local anesthetic is unintentionally injected into a blood vessel, a small dose of epinephrine is often added to a local anesthetic. We found that increases in T-wave amplitude by > or = 25% in lead II monitor electrocardiography are as effective as a heart rate increase > or = 10 bpm for detecting intravascular injection in sevoflurane-anesthetized children.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Clinical TrialA dose-response study of intravenous regional anesthesia with meperidine.
Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) with meperidine in doses > or = 100 mg provides effective postoperative analgesia. However, this technique is associated with excessive opioid-related side effects, which limit its clinical usefulness. The minimal dose of meperidine that is effective for IVRA has yet to be established. We added 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 mg of meperidine to 0.5% lidocaine IVRA for either carpal tunnel or tenolysis surgery. Pain and sedation scores and the incidence of side effects were assessed in the postanesthesia care unit. The duration of analgesia, defined as the time to first request for pain medications, and use of acetaminophen/codeine (T3) tablets were measured. The duration of analgesia increased, in a dose-dependent manner, in the groups that received 0, 10, 20, and 30 mg of meperidine. There was no significant difference in the duration of analgesia for patients receiving > or = 30 mg of meperidine. T3 use was similar in the groups that received 0, 10, and 20 mg of meperidine and in the groups that received 30, 40, and 50 mg. T3 use was significantly lower in the larger dose groups. The incidence of sedation and of all other side effects was significantly higher in the groups that received 30-50 mg of meperidine compared with those that received smaller doses. We conclude that doses of meperidine large enough to produce the most effective postoperative analgesia with IVRA lidocaine causes a significant incidence of side effects, thus limiting its clinical usefulness. ⋯ Meperidine may be a useful addition to 0.5% lidocaine for i.v. regional anesthesia. We showed that 30 mg is the optimal dose of meperidine with respect to postoperative analgesia. However, this dose caused a significant incidence of sedation, dizziness, and postoperative nausea and vomiting.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Tracheal intubation of healthy pediatric patients without muscle relaxant: a survey of technique utilization and perceptions of safety.
We conducted a survey of Society for Pediatric Anesthesia anesthesiologists practicing within the United States to determine the frequency of tracheal intubation of healthy infants and children using an inhaled anesthetic without muscle relaxation (IAWMR). We also examined reasons for the use of this technique. Of all responders who listed their most often used technique for tracheal intubation of healthy infants and children, IAWMR was chosen over intubation with a muscle relaxant by 38.1% and 43.6%, respectively. Anesthesiologists who most often used IAWMR for tracheal intubation of healthy infants and children had over twice the odds (odds ratio [OR] 2.30 for infants, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-4.50; P = 0.015) of classifying their own practice as nonacademic, and one-third the odds (OR 0.34 for infants, 95% CI 0.17-0.68; P = 0.002) of conducting more than half of their cases in a supervisory role. Anesthesiologists who use IAWMR to tracheally intubate healthy pediatric patients most commonly selected as their reasons the lack of need for a muscle relaxant and the desire to avoid both succinylcholine and the excessive duration of nondepolarizing muscle relaxants. ⋯ Inhaled anesthetic without muscle relaxation is the most often used method of intubation for more than one third of Society for Pediatric Anesthesia anesthesiologists when tracheally intubating healthy, fasted pediatric patients undergoing elective procedures. The frequency of this practice seems to be highest in nonacademic practices.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of epidural ropivacaine infusion alone and in combination with 1, 2, and 4 microg/mL fentanyl for seventy-two hours of postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery.
Our aim in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness and side effects of epidural infusions with ropivacaine 2 mg/mL alone (Group R; n = 60) and in combination with fentanyl 1 microg/mL (R1F; n = 59), 2 microg/mL (R2F; n = 62), and 4 microg/mL (R4F; n = 63) for up to 72 h after major abdominal surgery. Effective epidural neural blockade was established before surgery; postoperatively, the infusion rate was titrated to a maximum of 14 mL/h for analgesia. No additional analgesics other than acetaminophen were permitted during the infusion. The median of individual visual analog scale score with coughing were <20 mm for all groups (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) and was significantly lower (P < 0.01) for Group R4F at rest and with coughing (compared with Group R). Infusions were discontinued due to inability to control pain in significantly fewer patients in Group R4F (16%) than the other groups (34% to 39%; P < 0.01). For all groups, >90% of patients had no detectable motor block after 24 h. Hypotension, nausea, and pruritus were more common with the larger dose of fentanyl. We conclude that, after major abdominal surgery, an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 4 microg/mL provided significantly more effective pain relief over a 3-day period than ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine with lower concentrations of fentanyl. ⋯ Postoperative epidural analgesic infusions are widely used, but there is little information regarding optimal strengths of opioid with local anesthetic. In this blinded, prospective study, we compared four different epidural infusion solutions for efficacy and side effects over a clinically useful postoperative period and conclude that an epidural infusion of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 4 microg/mL was most effective.