Extracorporeal Circulation Interference on Emergence from Anesthesia in Patients Submitted to Myocardial Revascularization

Background and objectives: Extracorporeal circulation (ECC) may change drug pharmacokinetics as well as brain function. The objectives of this study are to compare emergence time and postoperative sedation intensity assessed by the bispectral index (BIS) and the Ramsay sedation scale in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization (MR) with or without ECC. Method: Ten patients undergoing MR with ECC (ECC group) and 10 with no ECC (no-ECC group) were administered with sufentanyl, propofol 2.0 mu g.mL(-1) and pancuronium target controlled infusion. After surgery, propofol infusion was reduced to 1 mu g.mL(-1) and suspended when extubation was indicated. Patients BIS, Ramsay scale and time to wake up were assessed. Results: The ECC group showed lower BIS values beginning at 60 minutes after surgery (no-ECC = 66 +/- 13 and ECC = 53 +/- 14, p = 0.01) until 120 minutes after infusion (no-ECC = 85 +/- 8 and ECC = 73 +/- 12, p = 0.02). Sedation level measured by the Ramsay scale was higher in the ECC group at 30 minutes after the end of the surgery (no-ECC = 5 +/- 1 and ECC = 6 +/- 0, p = 0.021), at the end of infusion (no-ECC = 5 +/- 1 and ECC = 6 +/- 1, p = 0.012) and 5 minutes after the end of infusion (no-ECC = 4 +/- 1 and ECC = 5 +/- 0.42, p = 0.039). Emergence from anesthesia time was higher in the ECC group (no-ECC = 217 +/- 81 and ECC = 319 +/- 118, p = 0.038). Conclusions: There was a higher intensity of sedation after the end of surgery and a longer wake up time in ECC group, suggesting changes in the pharmacokinetics of propofol or effects of ECC on central nervous system.

Anesthesia or sedation for gastroenterologic endoscopies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because propofol is the sedative preferred by gastroenterologists, we focus this review on gastroenterologist-directed propofol sedation, provide simulations of the respiratory depressant effect of different dosing protocols and give a perspective on future developments in computer-assisted sedation techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Propofol use by nonanesthesiologists remains a contraindication in the package insert of propofol in most countries. Sedation guidelines produced by the American Society of Gastroenterology partially contradict those produced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists for sedation by nonanesthesiologists, whereas the German guidelines were developed with anesthesiologists involved. The use of fospropofol, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for sedation, is considered an alternative to propofol by some gastroenterologists. Methodological errors in earlier pharmacological studies have to be solved before widespread use of fospropofol is justified, however. Our simulations show that dosing protocols with small boluses administered at reasonable intervals induce less respiratory depression than large boluses. Interindividual variability of propofol-induced respiratory depression is illustrated by different pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameter sets used in the simulation. Two computer-assisted propofol infusion systems are currently being investigated. They not only incorporate the target effect but also the side effects, which may limit respiratory depression. SUMMARY: Propofol use by gastroenterologists may be well tolerated if appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring and low-dose sedation protocols are applied.

[Anesthesia management in implantation of baroreceptor stimulators].

Baroreceptor stimulators are novel implantable devices that activate the carotid baroreceptor reflex. This results in a decrease in activity of the sympathetic nervous system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. In patients with drug-resistant hypertension, permanent electrical activation of the baroreceptor reflex results in blood pressure reduction and cardiac remodeling. For correct intraoperative electrode placement at the carotid bifurcation, the baroreceptor reflex needs to be activated several times. Many common anesthetic agents, such as inhalation anesthetics and propofol dampen or inhibit the baroreceptor reflex and complicate or even prevent successful placement. Therefore, a specific anesthesia and pharmacological management is necessary to ensure successful implantation of baroreceptor reflex stimulators.

Which Anesthesia Regimen Is Best to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in Lung Surgery? A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND One-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery is associated with hypoxia-reoxygenation injury in the deflated and subsequently reventilated lung. Numerous studies have reported volatile anesthesia-induced attenuation of inflammatory responses in such scenarios. If the effect also extends to clinical outcome is yet undetermined. We hypothesized that volatile anesthesia is superior to intravenous anesthesia regarding postoperative complications. METHODS Five centers in Switzerland participated in the randomized controlled trial. Patients scheduled for lung surgery with one-lung ventilation were randomly assigned to one of two parallel arms to receive either propofol or desflurane as general anesthetic. Patients and surgeons were blinded to group allocation. Time to occurrence of the first major complication according to the Clavien-Dindo score was defined as primary (during hospitalization) or secondary (6-month follow-up) endpoint. Cox regression models were used with adjustment for prestratification variables and age. RESULTS Of 767 screened patients, 460 were randomized and analyzed (n = 230 for each arm). Demographics, disease and intraoperative characteristics were comparable in both groups. Incidence of major complications during hospitalization was 16.5% in the propofol and 13.0% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.22; P = 0.24). Incidence of major complications within 6 months from surgery was 40.4% in the propofol and 39.6% in the desflurane groups (hazard ratio for desflurane vs. propofol, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.28; P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial addressing the effect of volatile versus intravenous anesthetics on major complications after lung surgery. No difference between the two anesthesia regimens was evident.

Pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. A comparison of sevoflurane, isoflurane and propofol

Background and objective: There are no data about the influence of anaesthetics on cardiovascular variables during pressure support ventilation of the lungs through the laryngeal mask airway. We compared propofol, sevoflurane and isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway during pressure support ventilation. Methods: Sixty healthy adults undergoing peripheral musculo-skeletal surgery were randomized for maintenance with sevoflurane end-tidal 29%, isoflurane end-tidal 1.1% or propofol 6 mg kg(-1) h(-1) in oxygen 33% and air. Pressure support ventilation comprised positive end-expiratory pressure set at 5 cmH(2)O, and pressure support set 5 cmH(2)O above positive end-expiratory pressure. Pressure support was initiated when inspiration produced a 2 cmH(2)O reduction in airway pressure. A blinded observer recorded cardiorespiratory variables (heart rate, mean blood pressure, oxygen saturation, air-way occlusion pressure, respiratory rate, expired tidal volume, expired minute volume and end-tidal CO2), adverse events and emergence times. Results: Respiratory rate and minute volume were 10-21% lower, and end-tidal CO2 6-11% higher with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups, but otherwise cardiorespiratory variables were similar among groups. No adverse events occurred in any group. Emergence times were longer with the propofol group compared with the sevoflurane or isoflurane groups (10 vs. 7 vs. 7 min). Conclusion: Lung ventilation is less effective and emergence times are longer with propofol than sevoflurane or isoflurane for maintenance of anaesthesia during pressure support ventilation with the ProSeal (R) laryngeal mask airway. However, these differences are small and of doubtful clinical importance.

Propofol causes neuronal degeneration in neonatal mice and long-term neurocognitive consequences in adult mice

Purpose: To investigate the effect of propofol on brain development in neonatal mice and long-term neurocognitive impact in adult mice. Method: The offspring of female C57Bl/6 and male CD-1 mice were administered propofol at concentrations of 2.5 and 5.0 mg/kg (treatment group) or normal saline (control) on postnatal day 7. Thereafter, histological and immunohistochemical examinations were performed on the mice brain. Apoptotic assay, neuronal nuclei antigen immunohistochemistry (to assess neuron density), and behavioral and neurocognitive tests were conducted on the adult mice. Results: Propofol induced cellular degeneration and apoptosis in the brains of neonatal mice. It also modulated physiological parameters (pH, PO2, glucose and lactate), among which decreased blood glucose might be associated with cellular degeneration in the brain. Propofol also caused long-term neuronal deficits in adults, which showed impaired neurocognitive functions. Upon reaching adulthood, propofol-treated mice showed slow learning response and poor memory compared to controls. Conclusion: Propofol causes neurodegeneration in neonatal mice and has long-term neurocognitive consequences in adults, indicating that the use of propofol anesthetics in neonates requires careful consideration.

Association Of Lipophilic Opioids And Hyperbaric Bupivacaine In Spinal Anesthesia For Elective Cesarean Section. Randomized Controlled Study.

To evaluate the efficacy and side-effects of fentanyl and sufentanil combined with hyperbaric spinal bupivacaine in elective cesarean section. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study with 64 term parturients, distributed into 2 groups according to the opioid combined with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (10mg): GF - fentanyl (25 µg) and GS - sufentanil (5.0 µg). The latency and maximum sensory block level; degree and duration of motor block; duration and quality of analgesia; maternal-fetal repercussions were evaluated. This was an intention-to-treat analysis with a 5% significance level. The latency period, maximum sensory block level, motor block degree and perioperative analgesia were similar in both groups. Motor block and analgesia had a longer duration in the sufentanil group. Maternal adverse effects and neonatal repercussions were similar. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the fentanyl group. In both groups, there was a predominance of patients who were awake and either calm or sleepy. The addition of fentanyl and sufentanil to hyperbaric subarachnoid bupivacaine was shown to be effective for the performance of cesarean section, and safe for the mother and fetus. Analgesia was more prolonged with sufentanil.

[comparative Study Between Fast And Slow Induction Of Propofol Given By Target-controlled Infusion: Expected Propofol Concentration At The Effect Site. Randomized Controlled Trial].

studies have shown that rate of propofol infusion may influence the predicted propofol concentration at the effect site (Es). The aim of this study was to evaluate the Es predicted by the Marsh pharmacokinetic model (ke0 0.26min(-1)) in loss of consciousness during fast or slow induction. the study included 28 patients randomly divided into two equal groups. In slow induction group (S), target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol with plasma, Marsh pharmacokinetic model (ke0 0.26min(-1)) with target concentration (Tc) at 2.0-μg.mL(-1) were administered. When the predicted propofol concentration at the effect site (Es) reached half of Es value, Es was increased to previous Es + 1μg.mL(-1), successively, until loss of consciousness. In rapid induction group (R), patients were induced with TCI of propofol with plasma (6.0μg.ml(-1)) at Es, and waited until loss of consciousness. in rapid induction group, Tc for loss of consciousness was significantly lower compared to slow induction group (1.67±0.76 and 2.50±0.56μg.mL(-1), respectively, p=0.004). the predicted propofol concentration at the effect site for loss of consciousness is different for rapid induction and slow induction, even with the same pharmacokinetic model of propofol and the same balance constant between plasma and effect site.

Cardiopulmonary effects and eyeball centralization with low-dose atracurium in spontaneously breathing, anesthetized dogs

The objective was to determine the cardiopulmonary effects and eyeball centralization time obtained with 15 or 30µg kg-1 of atracurium in anesthetized dogs under spontaneous breathing. Eighteen healthy adult mixed-breed dogs were used, which received 0.1mg kg-1 acepromazine and 0.5mg kg-1 morphine IM, followed by 4mg kg-1 propofol IV and maintained on isoflurane anesthesia with spontaneous breathing. Animals received 1mL 0.9% NaCl IV (CG), 15µg kg-1 (G15) or 30µg kg-1 (G30) of atracurium IV. Eyeball centralization time was measured; heart rate (HR), systolic (SAP), mean (MAP) and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures, respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (Vt) and minute volume (Vm) were determined every 5min, and pH, arterial CO2 pressure (PaCO2 ), arterial O2 pressure (PaO2 ), hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SaO2 ), bicarbonate (HCO3-) and base excess (BE) every 15min until 60min. Both doses of atracurium produced a similar period of eyeball centralization. Vt in groups treated with atracurium was lower than in CG up to 15min. Vm in G15 differed from CG up to 10min and in G30 up to 25min. No differences were observed for cardiovascular parameters, RR, SaO2, PaO2, HCO3- and BE. pH decreased in CG between 30 and 60min and in G15 and G30 at 15min. G30 differed from CG between 15 and 30min. PaCO2 in GC differed from baseline between 30 and 60min and in G15 differed at 15min. Atracurium at the dose of 15µg kg-1 is adequate for short corneal procedures in inhalant-anesthetized dogs under spontaneous breathing.

Propofol-induced sleep: Polysomnographic evaluation of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and controls

OBJECTIVE: The localization of upper airway obstruction in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may optimize treatment. Nasoendoscopy during propofol sedation allows such an evaluation, but the effect of this drug on respiratory patterns and muscle relaxation is unknown. The objective of the present study was to determine through polysomnography whether propofol would change sleep parameters. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of subjects submitted to polysomnography under sedation with propofol. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifteen non-obese subjects (4 controls/11 OSA patients) were submitted to two diurnal polysomnograms (90-120 minutes of sleep), with and without the use of propofol. The parameters presence of snoring, apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), oxygen desaturation, and sleep architecture were compared. RESULTS: The use of propofol did not induce snoring in the control subjects, whereas 100 percent of the OSA patients snored. AHI and mean oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) did not differ significantly between examinations with and without sedation. However, minimum SaO(2) differed significantly (P < 0.05) with sedation, being lower during propofol sedation. Propofol also significantly changed the sleep architecture, with a significant increase in N3 sleep (P < 0.005) and total abolishment of rapid eye movement sleep (P < 0.0005) during propofol sedation. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results allow us to infer that sedation with propofol changes sleep architecture but permits respiratory evaluation, because the main respiratory parameters evaluated in OSA are maintained. These preliminary results support the view that nasoendoscopy under propofol sedation is a promising examination for management of this disease. (C) 2010 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. All rights reserved.

Lumbar Epidural Anesthesia in the Treatment of Discal Lombosciatalgia: A Comparative Clinical Study between Methylprednisolone and Methylprednisolone with Levobupivacaine

Sousa FAEF, Colhado OCG - Lumbar Epidural Anesthesia in the Treatment of Discal Lombosciatalgia: A Comparative Clinical Study between Methylprednisolone and Methylprednisolone with Levobupivacaine. Background and objectives: Lumbar epidural technique has been used in the treatment of lombosciatalgia since 1953. In most cases, methylprednisolone is used along with a local anesthetic, and it is not known whether the isolated use of methylprednisolone is equally effective in relieving symptoms. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two different solutions - methylprednisolone with saline and methylprednisolone with levobupivacaine injected in the epidural space to heal lombosciatalgia secondary to lumbar herniated disk. Methods: Sixty individuals ASA I and II, of both genders, ages 18 to 65 years participated in this randomized, double-blind study over a period of one year. They underwent interlaminar lumbar epidural analgesia without radioscopic control to heal a lombosciatalgia and they were divided into two groups: G-M (methylprednisolone + saline) and G-M + L (methylprednisolone + levobupivacaine + saline) both at a volume of 10 mL. Diagnosis was based on history, physical exam, and imaging exam (MRI). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was applied in a total of two blockades, 15 days apart. Results: A reduction in pain severity was observed in the methylprednisolone-levobupivacaine group, but without statistical significance. Conclusions: The analgesic efficacy of the G-M + L solution was superior to that of the G-M solution in the treatment of discal lombosciatalgia regarding the shorter time to onset of analgesia, but this was not significant at the time of discharge, and both solutions were effective in the treatment of discal lombosciatalgia.

Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: The MASTER Trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:244-256 (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2000.

Anesthesia alarms in context: An observational study

This paper surveys current work on the design of alarms for anesthesia environments and notes some of the problems arising from the need to interpret alarms in context. Anesthetists' responses to audible alarms in the operating room were observed across four types of surgical procedure (laparoscopic, arthroscopic, cardiac, and intracranial) and across three phases of a procedure (induction, maintenance, and emergence). Alarms were classified as (a) requiring a corrective response, (b) being the intended result of a decision, (c) being ignored as a nuisance alarm, or (d) functioning as a reminder. Results revealed strong effects of the type of procedure and phase of procedure on the number and rate of audible alarms. Some alarms were relatively confined to specific phases; others were seen across phases, and responses differed according to phase. These results were interpreted in light of their significance for the development of effective alarm systems. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of alarm systems that are more informative and more sensitive to operative context than are current systems.

Response to The quality of epidural Anesthesia is crucial in the assessment of periciperative outcome

In their letter, Gogarten et al. question the effectiveness of the epidural regimens across the trial centers. In our original publication (1), we clearly demonstrated that patients in the epidural group had a working epidural block intraoperatively (evidenced by significantly more hypotension) and postoperatively (evidenced by significantly improved pain scores for 3 days).