Severity of airway hyperreactivity associated with laryngeal mask airway removal: correlation with volatile anesthetic choice and depth of anesthesia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the influence of anesthetic depth and choice of volatile anesthetic drug on the incidence and severity of airway hyperreactivity associated with Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) removal. DESIGN: Randomized observer-blinded study. SETTING: Ambulatory Surgical Center at a University Medical Center. PATIENTS: 123 ASA physical status I and II children undergoing infraumbilical procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: Group 1 = anesthetic induction with halothane, maintenance with isoflurane, nitrous oxide (N(2)O), and oxygen (O(2)), LMA removed when child awakened; Group 2 =anesthetic induction and maintenance as in Group 1, LMA removed while child anesthetized with age adjusted 2 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) end-tidal concentration of isoflurane; Group 3 = anesthetic induction and maintenance with sevoflurane, N(2)O, and O(2), LMA removed when child awakened; Group 4 = anesthetic induction and maintenance as in Group 3, but LMA removed while child anesthetized with age-adjusted 2 MAC end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Severity of airway hyperreactivity was graded as mild, moderate, or severe. A significant difference was not found amongst the four groups with respect to mild and moderate airway hyperreactivity. Severe airway hyperreactivity leading to a critical event [partial or complete laryngospasm with oxygen saturation (SPO(2)) < 85%] was only encountered in Group 1 patients (incidence 13%). Adverse airway events (SPO(2) < 90%, vomiting and bronchospasm) were also significantly higher in Group 1 (p < 0.05). Isoflurane use was independently associated with significantly higher airway hyperreactivity when compared with sevoflurane (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Depth of anesthesia during LMA removal does not appear to affect the incidence or severity of airway hyperreactivity when sevoflurane is the maintenance anesthetic. However, awake LMA removal during isoflurane anesthesia results in a higher incidence of adverse airway events and carries the risk of severe airway hyperreactivity.

The anesthetic and recovery profile of two doses (60 and 80 mg) of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: Reports of transient neurological symptoms with the use of subarachnoid lidocaine has generated interest in alternate local anesthetics of intermediate duration, such as mepivacaine. This prospective randomized, double-blinded, dose-response study examined the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of preservative-free plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Sixty patients undergoing ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair of the knee under spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups; Group 1 (29 patients) received 4 mL of 1.5% (60-mg dose) and Group 2 (31 patients) received 4 mL of 2% (80-mg dose) of plain mepivacaine. All patients received a combined spinal-epidural anesthetic technique. The epidural catheter was used only in the event the surgery outlasted the duration of surgical anesthesia with subarachnoid mepivacaine. Epidural supplementation was administered in three patients (12%) in Group 1 and one patient (3%) in Group 2 when the sensory block regressed to L-1 with surgery expected to last longer than 15 min. The cephalad dermatome level of the block and degree of motor block was comparable in the two groups. Times to two-segment and T-10 regression were comparable in the two groups (112 +/- 26 min in Group 1 versus 122 +/- 28 min in Group 2). Time to L-1 regression was significantly longer in Group 2 (146 +/- 28 min in Group 1 versus 159 +/- 19 min in Group 2). All of the ambulatory milestones were significantly faster in Group 1. Side effects, such as hypotension and emesis were negligible, severe bradycardia and urinary retention did not occur, and none of the patients in the two groups reported transient neurological symptoms over 24 h. In conclusion, plain mepivacaine in a 60- or 80-mg dose is a suitable local anesthetic choice for ambulatory spinal anesthesia with respect to anesthetic, as well as recovery profiles. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated the anesthetic and recovery profiles of 60- and 80-mg doses of plain mepivacaine for ambulatory spinal anesthesia. Both doses produced comparable sensory and motor block. Sensory and motor regression and ambulatory milestones were 20-30 min longer with the 80-mg dose. Side effects were negligible and transient neurological symptoms were not reported during a 24-h follow-up.