Anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Pipecuronium versus high dose vecuronium. II. A comparison of speed of onset and cumulation during propofol anaesthesia.
The onset time and tendency to cumulation of pipecuronium and high-dose vecuronium were compared during nitrous oxide anaesthesia supplemented with a propofol infusion. Pipecuronium 0.06 mg.kg-1 had a similar duration of action to vecuronium 0.2 mg.kg-1 (49 vs 43). Patients who received vecuronium had a shorter onset time of neuromuscular blockade (p less than 0.01). Neither pipecuronium nor vecuronium showed marked cumulation.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Pipecuronium versus high dose vecuronium. I. A comparison of speed of onset and cumulation during isoflurane anaesthesia.
The onset time and tendency to cumulation of pipecuronium and high-dose vecuronium were studied during nitrous oxide anaesthesia supplemented with isoflurane. Pipecuronium 0.06 mg.kg-1 had a similar duration of action to vecuronium 0.015 mg.kg-1 (42 vs 49 min). Patients who received vecuronium had a shorter onset time of neuromuscular blockade (p less than 0.01). The use of pipecuronium was associated with marked cumulation.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
2% propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit. A feasibility study.
A 2% solution of propofol has been compared with the 1% formulation for sedation in patients whose lungs were being mechanically ventilated in an intensive care unit following coronary artery bypass surgery. There were no significant differences in the amount of propofol used in the two groups, the rate of propofol infusion or the number of changes made to the infusion rate to maintain the desired level of sedation. ⋯ The mean heart rates of those receiving 2% propofol were significantly higher throughout the period of the study for no apparent reason. Propofol 2% was found to be safe, easy to administer and a practical alternative to the 1% solution for sedating cardiac surgical patients.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
A comparison of two approaches to sciatic nerve block.
This study compared the posterior and popliteal fossa approaches for sciatic nerve block. Patients scheduled to undergo foot surgery were allocated randomly into one of two groups: group A (n = 20) received sciatic nerve block via the posterior approach and group B (n = 20) received a block using the popliteal fossa approach. All blocks were performed with the aid of a peripheral nerve stimulator and alkalinised 0.5% bupivacaine with 1 in 200,000 adrenaline was injected in a dose of 2 mg.kg-1. ⋯ There was no significant difference between the groups in respect of time to onset or duration of block. Patients in group B reported less discomfort during performance of the sciatic nerve block but required supplementary nerve blocks more frequently. We recommend the use of the posterior approach for sciatic nerve block.