ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Endotracheal intubation is essential during general anesthesia and muscle relaxant drugs provide ideal conditions for this purpose. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intubating condition of remifentanil combined with propofol without muscle relaxant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, 60 children aged 3-12 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II were included. All the children were premedicated with 0.05 mg/kg midazolam and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine 5 min before the induction of anesthesia with 3 mg/kg propofol. Then, they were allocated randomly to receive either 2 µg/kg remifentanil (group R) or 1.5 mg/kg succinylcholine (group S). Tracheal intubation was attempted 90 s after the administration of propofol. The quality of intubation was assessed by using Copenhagen score based on jaw relaxation, ease of laryngoscopy, position of vocal cord, coughing and limb movement. Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded before and after induction, and 1, 3, 5 min after intubation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in intubating condition between the two groups (P = 0.11). Intubation condition was excellent in 26 of 30 (86.7%) patients in the group R compared with 30 (100%) patients in the group S. We observed significant difference in heart rate and systolic blood pressure over time between two groups (P = 0.02, P = 0.03 respectively). After intubation, we had higher heart rate and systolic blood pressure with a significant difference in group S compared with group R (P = 0.006, P = 0.018). None of the children had a chest rigidity, laryngospasm, and hypoxia. CONCLUSIONS: In premedicated children, propofol-remifentanil combination provides adequate conditions for tracheal intubation that is comparable with succinylcholine. Hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation was controlled better in group R.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Analgesia is based on balanced anaesthesia, which is usually maintained by administration of narcotic agents. In some patients, it is not possible to use narcotics. We compared hemodynamic changes, anaesthesia depth, emetic sequelae and post-operative pain between sodium Diclofenac, Ketamine-Propofol (DKP) and Fentanyl-Midazolam (FM). AIMS: The effectiveness of an anaesthetic technique employing sodium was compared against in patients undergoing elective surgery. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In a clinical trial study, 82 patients who attended for an elective surgery were randomly divided into two groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In DKP group pre-medication included Sodium Diclofenac 1 mg/kg and Midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, whereas, in FM group they were Fentanyl 2 µg/kg and Midazolam 0.02 mg/ kg. Anaesthesia induction in both groups was the same. Anaesthesia was conserved in DKP group by using Propofol plus Ketamine infusion plus N2O 50% and in FM group with Fentanyl plus Midazolam plus N2O 50%. Hemodynamic changes, depth of anaesthesia, nausea and vomiting, post operative analgesic effects were recorded. RESULTS: Hemodynamic changes and depth of anaesthesia were similar throughout the maintenance phase in two groups. In FM group, significant increase in heart rate was recorded in recovery room. Pain score according to visual analogue scale (VAS) and need for analgesics, was significantly more in FM group compared to DKP group (P = 0.000). No patient suffered from nausea, vomiting or hallucinations. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that intravenous administration of Sodium Diclofenac along with Ketamine and Propofolplus N2O 50% for general anaesthesia provides a balanced anaesthesia as well as hemodynamic stability, and adequate depth of anaesthesia. It also reduces the postoperative pain and need for narcotics. We recommended DKP plus N2O 50% method for patients prohibited from opioid administration. It will be an acceptable method in sensitive patients.
ABSTRACT
UNLABELLED: We compared the ability of metoclopramide with IV lidocaine pretreatment to abolish pain from a diazepam injection. In a randomized, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 159 patients (ASA physical status I and II), aged 20-70 yr old, were allocated to one of three groups. Placebo and study drugs were injected IV immediately before 0.1 mg/kg of diazepam into a dorsal hand vein. Patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3 received 2 mL of placebo, 2 mL of lidocaine 1%, and 2 mL of metoclopramide (10 mg), respectively. The patient's response was graded using a 4-point scale. Any score other than 0 represented pain on injection. We observed that the incidence of pain on diazepam injection was 83% in the placebo group, which was decreased to 70% and 39% in patients pretreated with metoclopramide and lidocaine, respectively. Although there was no significant difference in the incidence of pain in Groups 1 and 3 (P > 0.05), Group 3 showed significantly less patients with severe pain scores than Group 1 as diazepam was injected (P < 0.000). Group 2 showed a significantly less frequent incidence of pain than the saline (P < 0.000) and the metoclopramide (P < 0.002) groups as diazepam was injected. The intensity of pain in Group 2 was significantly less than Group 3 (P = 0.012). The intensity of diazepam injection pain was intense with placebo as compared with other groups (P < 0.000). Metoclopramide, rather than lidocaine pretreatment, may be a reasonable analgesic alternative for painful injections. IMPLICATIONS: Metoclopramide, rather than lidocaine pretreatment, may be a reasonable analgesic alternative to decrease pain from a diazepam injection, especially when there is a medical condition in which lidocaine should be used very cautiously.
