Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anaesthesia care during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We conducted an open, prospective, randomized study to compare the efficacy, safety and recovery characteristics of remifentanil or propofol during monitored anaesthesia care in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (1 mg kg(-1) followed by 10 mg kg (-1) h(-1), n = 20) or remifentanil (0.5 microg kg(-1) followed by 0.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1), n = 20). The infusion rate was subsequently adapted to clinical needs. RESULTS: In the propofol group, arterial pressure and heart rate decreased significantly from the baseline. These variables remained unchanged in the remifentanil group, but hypoventilation occurred in 55% of patients. Early recovery was delayed in the propofol group (P < 0.002). Recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions was faster in the remifentanil group. Fifteen minutes after anaesthesia, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test score was 28.6 +/- 12.8 versus 36.2 +/- 9.4 and the Trieger Dot Test score was 25.6 +/- 8.1 versus 18.7 +/- 4.1 in the propofol and remifentanil groups, respectively (both P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction, using a visual analogue scale, was higher in the propofol group (96 +/- 7 versus 77 +/- 21, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil proved efficient in reducing pain during colonoscopy. Emergence times were shorter and the recovery of cognitive function was faster with remifentanil compared with propofol. Remifentanil provided a smoother haemodynamic profile than propofol; however, the frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced hypoventilation requires the cautious administration of this agent.

Pelvic floor function in patients with clinically complete spinal cord injury and its relation to constipation.

PURPOSE: Constipation is a common problem in patients with spinal cord injury. The aim of this study is to analyze the role of pelvic floor dysfunction in the development of constipation. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with clinically complete supraconal spinal cord injury were studied by means of colonic transit time, anal manometry, electrophysiologic testing, and sensory-evoked potentials. RESULTS: Sixteen patients had prolonged total and segmental colonic transit times (Group C), and nine patients had normal colonic transit times (Group NC). Basal pressure and anal pressure during coughing, Valsalva's maneuver, and rectal distention were diminished in all patients, but no differences were observed between Group C and Group NC. Rectal sensation was preserved in eight patients, but this was not related to the absence of constipation. In seven of these eight patients, somatosensory-evoked potentials could be recorded, which indicated an incomplete cord lesion. Synergic relaxation of the pelvic floor during straining was never observed; dyssynergia was seen in ten (7 in Group C and 3 in Group NC; P = not significant) patients. Associated peripheral nerve damage was present in 40 percent of patients but did not predispose these patients to constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Loss of rectal sensation, dyssynergic pelvic floor contraction during straining, associated peripheral nerve damage, and insufficient rise of intraabdominal pressure could not be held responsible for constipation as a result of spinal cord injury. A prolongation of the colonic transit time is the most important mechanism, and therapy should be directed toward it.