The Comparison of Infusion of Two Different Sedation Regimens with Propofol and Ketamine Combination During Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Anesthetic agents are often combined to enhance their therapeutic effects while minimizing adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different sedation regimens of ketamine and propofol combination via infusion on perioperative variables in patients who underwent plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This randomized double-blind clinical trial was done on 80 patients who were randomized to two groups; group 1 (n = 40) received a 2:1 mixture of 9 mg/ml propofol and 4.5 mg/ml ketamine, and group 2 (n = 40) received a 4:1 mixture of 9 mg/ml propofol and 2.25 mg/ml ketamine. After premedication and before local anesthetic injection, the infusion of mixtures was adjusted to attain the Ramsay sedation scores of 5 in both groups. We recorded induction time, sedation efficacy, cardiovascular and respiratory events, recovery time, and incidence of adverse events during and after the procedure. RESULTS: The mean of volume infusion of mixtures in the beginning of the procedure was higher in group 2 (3.2 ± 1. 2 ml) than in group 1 (2.4 ± 0.8 ml) (p < 0.001). The induction time for sedation was 2.8 ± 0.8 min and 2.6 ± 0.4 min in group 1 and group 2, respectively (p = 0. 92). The number of oversedated patients was greater in group 2 compared to group 1 but not statistically significant (p = 0. 80). The sedation efficacy was similar between the two groups. The hemodynamic changes during the procedure were greater in group 2 compared to group 1 (p = 0. 001). The recovery time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.43). The mean pain score in the recovery room was lower in group 1 than group 2 (1.2 ± 0.8 vs 2.8 ± 1.8, p = 0. 01). Moreover, 4 (10 %) patients in group 1 and 10 (25 %) patients in group 2 needed opioid administration (p = 0. 02). Other postoperative adverse events were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of a 2:1 combination of propofol-ketamine, because it reduced the rescue propofol requirement and consequently produced lower cardiovascular and respiratory depression effects and also less postoperative pain.

Subarachnoid block with low dose of bupivacaine and sufentanil in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Subarachnoid block with local anesthetics and opioids enable efficacious spinal anesthesia because of their synergistic effect and permit the use of low-dose local anesthetics, which results in a stable hemodynamic state. The purpose of this study was to describe the cardiovascular effects of spinal anesthesia with low-dose bupivacaine and sufentanil on patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: This study was a double-blind randomized clinical trial. A total of 18 patients who had known coronary artery disease were enrolled. Our subjects underwent spinal block for lower limb surgery with 7.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 5 µg sufentanil. Complications related to anesthesia such as hypotension, bradycardia, vasopressor need, and blood or volume use were recorded. RESULTS: The average mean arterial pressure decreased 15% in the first 15 min of spinal block in our cases. No patients presented with hypotension and the subjects were without complaints during the spinal anesthesia. All patients remained alert, and no ST segment changes were observed intraoperatively and until 6 h after the operation. Baseline ejection fraction (EF) 40% or less was observed in 10 patients and these subjects were compared with other patients. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate decreased during the first 15 min in response to spinal anesthesia in both groups of patients, but decreased more significantly in patients with EF > 40%. CONCLUSION: We recommend spinal block with low-dose bupivacaine and sufentanil in patients with coronary artery disease and especially in patients with low EF.

The evaluation of perioperative safety of local anesthesia with lidocaine containing epinephrine in patients with ischemic heart disease.

The use of local anesthesia with lidocaine containing epinephrine in patients with cardiac disease is controversial in the literature. The aim of our study was determining the safety of use the local anesthesia contain epinephrine in patients with ischemic heart disease that undergoing reconstructive surgery. Thirty two patients that had known ischemic heart disease and candidate to undergo reconstructive surgery for skin tumor enrolled in this study.  All patients continued their medication for cardiac disease till morning of the operation. 10 ml lidocaine 2% containing 1:100,000 epinephrine was injected in patients for local anesthesia. The hemodynamic changes and electrocardiographic variables before injection were compared with them after injection, during surgery and till 6 hours postoperation period. A 12 lead electrocardiogram was recorded in all our cases for detection of myocardial ischemic changes. The mean age, weight and height were 58.2±10.4, 74.8.±14.4 kg and 164.5± 8 cm respectively. Twelve patients (37.5%) were diagnosed with systemic hypertension and 10 patients with diabetes (31.2%). The comparison of change of systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure between baseline, during procedure and after operation defined that our subjects did not have any significant disturbance in blood pressure in perioperative period. The comparison of baseline heart rate with heart rate after injection, during procedure and in postoperation period indicated a significant changes in this variable (P=0.044). The heart rhythm during the perioperative period also failed to exhibit alterations. The ischemic change was not recorded in our patients before injection compared to after injection. None of our patients have any early complications because of infiltration of local anesthetic containing epinephrine in our patients. The use of 10 ml 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:100,000 in patients with cardiac disease represent a safe anesthetic procedure. These patients experienced a more profound anesthesia with hemodynamic stability and without myocardial ischemic changes.

The hemodynamic effects of spinal block with low dose of bupivacaine and sufentanil in patients with low myocardial ejection fraction.

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of spinal block with low dose of bupivacaine and sufentanil on patients with low cardiac output who underwent lower limb surgery. Fifteen patients who had ejection fraction less than 40% (group 1) were compared with 65 cases with ejection fraction more than 40% (group 2) in our study. Our subjects underwent spinal block with 7.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 5 µg sufentanil. We recorded early events such as hypotension, bradycardia, vasopressor need and ST segment change in our cases. The average mean arterial pressure decreased 13% (110 mmHg to 95.7 mmHg) in group 1 and 20% (160 mmHg to 128 mmHg) in group 2 (P<0.001). Hypotension due to spinal anesthesia was observed in none of our subjects in both groups and none of our cases need to vasopressor support. All patients remained alert, and no ST segment changes were observed in two groups. In our study none of subjects complained of pain intraoperatively. The subjects were without complaints during the spinal anesthetic in both groups. Spinal block with low dose local anesthetic and sufentanil was a safe and effective method for lower limb surgery in patients with low ejection fraction.