Nalbuphine pretreatment in cesarean section patients receiving epidural morphine.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 60 patients post cesarean delivery was conducted to determine whether nalbuphine reverses the side effects of pruritus and respiratory depression associated with epidurally administered morphine. Patients randomly received either three doses of intravenous nalbuphine or the equivalent volume of saline. Vital signs, sedation, pain, pruritus and oxygen saturation were assessed hourly for 18 hours. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, sedation level, pain scores or analgesia requirements. Only three patients had no pruritus, one who received nalbuphine and two who received saline. Five patients had respiratory depression (respiratory rate lower than 10 BPM or oxygen saturation less than 90%); three occurred in the nalbuphine group and two in the saline group. Although theoretically advantageous, nalbuphine, as administered in this study of obstetric patients, offered no prophylactic benefit against the pruritus associated with epidural morphine. Its benefit with regard to respiratory depression remains unclear.

Fluid through the epidural needle does not reduce complications of epidural catheter insertion.

Epidural catheter insertion may be associated with blood vessel trauma or nerve root irritation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the injection of small amounts of fluid through the Tuohy needle prior to catheter insertion reduced the incidence of these and other minor complications. Two hundred patients in labour, requesting epidural analgesia, were randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group I--the catheter was inserted without previous injection of fluid; Group II--3 ml, 1.5 per cent lidocaine hydrochloride was injected through the needle prior to catheter insertion; Group III--3 ml, saline was injected prior to catheter insertion. There were no differences among the groups in the incidence of blood vessel trauma or paraesthesiae. We conclude that there is no advantage in injecting of fluid routinely into the epidural space prior to catheter insertion.

Comparative evaluation of propofol and thiopentone for total intravenous anaesthesia.

Sixty unpremedicated ASA physical status I or II patients scheduled for surgical procedures of intermediate duration (15 to 60 min) were studied to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propofol, to measure recovery times and to compare the return of psychomotor and cognitive function with thiopentone. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained by either propofol (2.0-2.5 mg.kg-1 followed by a continuous infusion 0.1-0.2 mg.kg-1.min-1) or thiopentone (4.0-5.0 mg.kg-1, and infusion rate 0.16-0.32 mg.kg-1.min-1), titrated to patient response. Succinylcholine was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation and maintain neuromuscular blockade. Induction of anaesthesia was slightly longer with propofol than thiopentone (42.2 vs 29.8 sec) and was smooth with both drugs. Post-intubation increases in heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were attenuated by propofol when compared with thiopentone. After the administration of propofol, times to eye opening (6.4 +/- 4.3 vs 13.9 +/- 15.9 min), response to verbal command (7.6 +/- 6.3 vs 15.4 +/- 16.6 min) and orientation (22.7 +/- 12.8 vs 36.2 +/- 23.1 min), were significantly shorter. Psychomotor and cognitive function returned earlier with propofol and fewer side effects were noted. At 24 hr there was no distinguishable difference between groups. Propofol is a safe anaesthetic agent with the potential for early patient discharge and street fitness after outpatient procedures.