Articles: anesthesia.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Subarachnoid block with hyperbaric lignocaine. A comparison with hyperbaric bupivacaine.
A double-blind study was carried out in 20 patients to compare 5% hyperbaric lignocaine and 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid block. The injections were made in the lateral position and the patients turned supine immediately. The onset, extent and duration of sensory and motor blockade, the quality of anaesthesia, cardiovascular effects and the frequency of side effects were studied. ⋯ Bupivacaine produced a longer duration of action in the lumbar and sacral segments but the duration in the thoracic segments was similar. There was a considerable degree of hypotension in both groups but this responded readily to ephedrine. Hyperbaric lignocaine is an alternative to hyperbaric bupivacaine and its shorter duration of action in the lumbar and sacral segments is advantageous when a fast recovery is desirable.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Maternal and neonatal responses to alfentanil administered before induction of general anaesthesia for caesarean section.
The cardiovascular response to tracheal intubation was compared in two groups of patients undergoing elective Caesarean section. Both groups received a standard technique of general anaesthesia. ⋯ No adverse effect on the neonate was seen. However, a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea occurred in mothers in the alfentanil group (P less than 0.05).
-
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)
-
J Hand Surg Eur Vol · Oct 1987
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of 1% lignocaine with 0.5% bupivacaine in digital ring blocks.
In a randomised double-blind trial comparing 1% lignocaine with 0.5% bupivacaine in digital ring block, the mean time of onset of complete anaesthesia was 5.8 minutes (range 5 to 10 minutes) for lignocaine and 11.2 minutes (range 8 to 20 minutes) for bupivacaine. The duration of action was 59.6 minutes (S. ⋯ D. +/- 277 minutes) for bupivacaine. We describe how these differences can be exploited in clinical practice.