Der Anaesthesist
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
[Better acceptance of measures for induction of anesthesia after rectal premedication with midazolam in children. Comparison of results of an open and placebo-controlled study].
The rectal administration of midazolam for premedication of children before induction of anesthesia by mask was investigated in two clinical studies. In 62 children aged between 2 and 10 years, midazolam was given by open design at various dosages (0.15 mg.kg-1, 0.25 mg.kg-1, 0.30 mg.kg-1, 0.35 mg.kg-1, 0.40 mg.kg-1) to evaluate the most effective dose for optimal acceptance of the mask and gas mixture. An additional 40 children between 3 and 9 years received 0.2 mg midazolam.kg-1 body weight or placebo in a double-blind design to estimate the lower limit of efficacy of midazolam. ⋯ The rectal administration of 0.35-0.4 mg midazolam.kg-1 is most suitable for the preoperative medication of children between 2 and 10 years. Due to the degree of sedation and the relief of anxiety toward the surroundings and the operation, the induction of anesthesia is optimally accepted by the child. In contrast, the effect of a dose around 0.2 mg midazolam.kg-1 body weight is not much different from that of placebo and is not sufficient for effective premedication.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
[Hemodynamic action profile of propofol in comparison with midazolam. A study in coronary surgical patients].
Propofol, a rapid and short-acting i.v. anesthetic, was associated with the risk of anaphylactic reactions in its original cremophor-EL formulation. It has been reformulated in a soybean emulsion with satisfactory anesthetic properties. A former study of hemodynamic changes after i.v. induction with propofol, thiopental, methohexital, etomidate, and midazolam in patients with coronary artery disease demonstrated that in comparison to other induction agents propofol depressed systolic and diastolic arterial pressures more severely, compromising coronary perfusion. ⋯ Propofol decreased systolic and diastolic pressures (-27%, -22%) more than midazolam (-10%, -9%). Cardiac index and stroke volume index were diminished following both drugs (propofol: -14%, -9%; midazolam: -15%, -11%); total systemic resistance was reduced significantly by propofol (-22%). Dp/dtmax was compromised more markedly by propofol (-24%) than by midazolam (-18%), but there was no significant difference.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
[Hemodynamics under propofol-nitrous oxide anesthesia: effects of premedication with lormetazepam and of additional fentanyl].
Propofol, in both its new oil-in-water emulsion and the former cremophor-EL solution, is known to produce significant decreases in arterial blood pressure. The aim of this study was to obtain a precise hemodynamic profile of anesthesia induction with propofol under conditions of daily routine (additional 70% nitrous oxide) and to evaluate the influence of (1) premedication with lormetazepam and (2) additional i.v. injection of fentanyl. Forty patients (ASA classes I and II) were randomly assigned to one of four groups (A, B, C, and D). ⋯ The following parameters were determined immediately prior to induction of anesthesia and 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 min after the start of the propofol injection: heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), central venous pressure (CVP), pulmonary occlusion pressure (POP), cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR). In all four groups a slight decrease in HR and SVR occurred while a marked decrease in arterial blood pressure (SAP, MAP, DAP) and cardiac output was seen. PAP and preload pressures showed no significant changes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
[Comparative hemodynamic study of anesthesia induction with propofol (Diprivan), thiopental, methohexital, etomidate and midazolam in patients with coronary disease].
In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the induction of anesthesia is not without risk because of specific cardiovascular effects of the anesthetic and the preoperative state of the patient. The hemodynamic effects of etomidate, midazolam, thiopental, and methohexital are well known: etomidate is an anesthetic that induces only minor cardiovascular changes; its influence on the endocrine system, however, has reduced its clinical indication. Barbiturates such as thiopental and methohexital produce negative inotropic effects in combination with an increase in heart rate and myocardial oxygen consumption; midazolam reduces pre- and afterload in patients with poor left ventricular function. Propofol, a new short-acting induction agent with good anesthetic properties, is said to diminish arterial pressure as well as myocardial oxygen consumption. ⋯ In a randomized study we investigated the hemodynamic effects of intravenous induction with propofol (2 mg/kg body wt.), thiopental (5 mg/kg), methohexital (1 mg/kg), etomidate (0.3 mg/kg), and midazolam (0.15 mg/kg) in 50 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. All patients were premedicated with flunitrazepam (0.03 mg/kg up to 2 mg) and morphine hydrochloride (0.2 mg/kg up to 15 mg) 100 min before the investigation. After 0.003 mg/kg fentanyl the patients received the induction agent in the above-mentioned dosage within 40 s followed by 0.1 mg/kg pancuronium bromide. Hemodynamic measurements were performed 1, 3, and 5 min after the end of the injection as well as 1 and 5 min after intubation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
[Midazolam and pethidine/promethazine for intramuscular premedication].
The main reason for premedication is the reduction of preoperative stress. Despite the proven fact that benzodiazepines best reduce preoperative stress, combinations of opioids and neuroleptic drugs are preferred for premedication by many on reviewing the journal Der Anaesthesist. This double-blind study was performed to investigate midazolam and meperidine/promethazine for intramuscular premedication. ⋯ We conclude from these results that anesthesiologists still premedicate with meperidine/promethazine because the patients accept this premedication very well when asked the day after surgery. Nevertheless, premedication with midazolam provides significantly better anxiolytic and antidepressive effects with significantly less side-effects. Therefore, midazolam should be preferred to meperidine/promethazine for intramuscular premedication.