Current techniques and strategies for anesthesia in patients undergoing peripheral bypass surgery.

Peripheral arterial disease is an illness with a high prevalence in Europe and North America. The disease is associated with a significant impact on quality of life. Despite advanced medical and endovascular treatments, surgery is often indicated to prevent the consequences of ischemic injury. Usually, these patients do have significant comorbidities resulting in an increased risk for anesthesia-related complications. While general anesthesia is commonly used for the majority of the patients, local and regional anesthesia (RA) offer several possible advantages such as stable cardiovascular hemodynamic perioperative course, improved postoperative pain relief and prevention of chronic postsurgical pain syndromes. This review will discuss perioperative management, available evidence regarding general anesthesia and various regional anesthetic techniques for peripheral vascular surgery, and the current advises regarding anticoagulants and RA. No definitive conclusions can be drawn from the existing literature with respect to superiority of general or neuraxial anesthesia or even RA. Maybe the profits lie in the combination of techniques, a strategy, to overcome the risks of one and use the benefits of the other technique. From circumstantial evidence, it is most likely that the experience of the anesthetic and surgical team is one of the major determinants of perioperative complications independent from the individual anesthesia technique.

The prevalence of postoperative pain in a sample of 1490 surgical inpatients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of postoperative pain, an assessment was made of 1490 surgical inpatients who were receiving postoperative pain treatment according to an acute pain protocol. METHODS: Measurements of pain (scores from 0 to 100 on a visual analogue scale) were obtained three times a day on the day before surgery and on days 0-4 postoperatively; mean pain intensity scores were calculated. Patients were classified as having no pain (score 0-5), mild pain (score 6-40), moderate pain (score 41-74) or severe pain (score 75-100). RESULTS: Moderate or severe pain was reported by 41% of the patients on day 0, 30% on days 1 and 19%, 16% and 14% on days 2, 3 and 4. The prevalence of moderate or severe pain in the abdominal surgery group was high on postoperative days 0-1 (30-55%). A high prevalence of moderate or severe pain was found during the whole of days 1-4 in the extremity surgery group (20-71%) and in the back/spinal surgery group (30-64%). CONCLUSION: We conclude that despite an acute pain protocol, postoperative pain treatment was unsatisfactory, especially after intermediate and major surgical procedures on an extremity or on the spine.

Evaluation of two different epidural catheters in clinical practice. narrowing down the incidence of paresthesia!

Although epidural anesthesia is considered safe, several complications may occur during puncture and insertion of a catheter. Incidences of paresthesia vary between 0.2 and 56%. A prospective, open, cohort-controlled pilot study was conducted in 188 patients, ASA I-III, age 19-87 years, scheduled for elective surgery and epidural anesthesia. We evaluated a 20 G polyamide (standard) catheter and a 20 G combined polyurethane-polyamide (new) catheter. Spontaneous reactions upon catheter-insertion, paresthesia on questioning, inadvertent dural or intravascular puncture, and reasons for early catheter removal were recorded. The incidence of paresthesia reported spontaneously was 21.3% with the standard catheter and 16.7% with the new catheter. Systematically asking for paresthesia almost doubled the paraesthesia rate. Intravascular cannulation occurred in 5%. No accidental dural punctures occurred. An overall incidence of 13.3% of technical problems led to early catheter removal. The new catheter was at least equivalent to the standard regarding epidural success rate and safety : rate of paresthesia, intravascular and dural cannulation.

Assessment of volume preload on uteroplacental blood flow during epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidural and spinal anaesthesia are the preferred mode of anaesthesia for Caesarean section. Volume preloading is recommended to prevent maternal hypotension and a reduction in uteroplacental blood flow, although positive effects of volume preloading on maternal cardiac output and arterial pressure are debatable. Doppler measurements of the umbilical artery beyond deriving pulsatility indices are not routinely performed. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, 14 consecutiVe women with epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section received either hydroxyethyl starch 500 mL or gelatine 500 mL. Haemodynamic variables monitored were maternal arterial pressure, maximal blood flow velocity and pulsatility indices of the uterine artery derived from Doppler measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Maternal arterial pressure and pulsatility indices in both groups did not change from baseline after intravenous colloid infusion. However, uterine blood flow increased significantly in both groups. The effectiveness of volume preloading may therefore be better described by changes in maximum uterine blood flow velocity than by pulsatility indices or maternal arterial pressure.

Epidural local anesthetics: a novel treatment for fetal growth retardation?

BACKGROUND: Chronically compromised uterine perfusion may lead to placental insufficiency and subsequent intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Various therapeutic approaches (e.g. vasodilators, low-dose aspirin, intravenous glucose infusion, and hemodilution) are often of limited efficacy. Local anesthetics have been shown to improve placental blood flow in pre-eclamptic women. We hypothesized that epidural administration of local anesthetics might improve outcome in IUGR independent of the underlying cause. In preparation for a clinical trial to test this hypothesis, we performed a pilot study in 10 patients. METHODS: After approval of the study protocol, 10 pregnant women presenting with oligohydramnios and IUGR were included in the study. In addition to our standard protocol (magnesium, glucose, betamethasone), each patient received an epidural catheter (T10/T12) with continuous infusion of bupivacaine 0.175% at a rate of 5 ml/h. Uteroplacental circulation was monitored by Doppler sonography and the amount of amniotic fluid was estimated daily. RESULTS: Epidural insertion and infusion was performed without complications. Four patients continued to deteriorate rapidly, amniotic fluid volume did not change and uterine artery pulsatility index (PI) tended to increase. In the remaining 6 patients the clinical status stabilized, amniotic fluid volume tended to increase and uterine artery PI tended to decrease during treatment. This improvement was associated with a prolonged interval to cesarean section and increased infant birth weight. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, even if the underlying cause of IUGR is not pre-eclampsia, epidural local anesthetic administration might improve placental blood flow and be beneficial in a subgroup of patients. A clinical trial to test this hypothesis appears warranted.

A multicentre trial comparing different concentrations of ropivacaine plus sufentanil with bupivacaine plus sufentanil for patient-controlled epidural analgesia in labour.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal concentration of ropivacaine for bolus-only patient-controlled epidural labour analgesia, three different doses of ropivacaine were evaluated in comparison with bupivacaine in a double-blinded multicentre study. METHODS: Four hundred-and-fifty labouring parturients at term in three different academic institutions were randomized to four groups receiving bupivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), ropivacaine 0.125% or 0.175% with sufentanil 0.75 microg mL(-1), or ropivacaine 0.2%. After an initial bolus of 10 mL of the study solution, and once visual analogue scores (VAS) were below 30 mm, patient-controlled epidural analgesia was initiated with a bolus of 4 mL, a lockout interval of 15 min and without a background infusion. Variables studied were the quality of analgesia, incidence of side-effects, the degree of motor blockade, and the mode of delivery. RESULTS: Bupivacaine 0.125% and ropivacaine 0.125% with sufentanil proved equally effective in providing labour analgesia without a difference in local anaesthetic consumption (48.6 +/- 23 mg bupivacaine vs. 52.1 +/- 38 mg ropivacaine), motor blockade or mode of delivery. Ropivacaine 0.175% plus sufentanil enhanced the quality of analgesia of the initial loading dose, whereas ropivacaine 0.2% without sufentanil increased the consumption of local anaesthetics (80.2 +/- 34 mg; P < 0.05) and the degree of motor blockade. CONCLUSION: Despite recent studies indicating that bupivacaine and ropivacaine may not be equipotent, both local anaesthetics provided equi-effective analgesia at equal doses without a difference in side-effects.