Comparison of propofol-remifentanil versus propofol-ketamine deep sedation for third molar surgery.

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 µg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 µg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 µg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

An economic evaluation of bupivacaine plus fentanyl versus ropivacaine alone for patient-controlled epidural analgesia after total-knee replacement procedure: a double-blinded randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total-knee replacement (TKR) surgery is one of the most painful orthopedic procedures after surgery. Opioid has been commonly combined with a local anesthetic to improve the quality of pain relief, but the treatment has opioid-related side effects. This study compared the cost effectiveness of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl (BF) 3 microg/mL versus 0.15% ropivacaine alone (R) during the first 48 hours after TKR procedure. METHODS: This prospective randomized double-blinded study was performed on 70 patients who underwent unilateral TKR procedure and received either BF or R after surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at rest and upon movement, side effects, and cost of treatment were compared. RESULTS: Overall pain at rest and upon movement between groups was not significantly different (P = 0.58, 95% CI = 4.4 to -7.8 and P = 0.8, 95% CI = 6.4 to -8.2, respectively). Patients in the BF group experienced more pruritus and had more vomiting episodes than those in the R group (P = .015), whereas no difference occurred in other side effects. Nevertheless, patient satisfaction with pain management was higher in the BF group compared with that in the R group. In addition, pain treatment with bupivacaine and fentanyl was 18% less costly compared with ropivacaine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the economic evaluation, we conclude that PCEA with 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 3 microg/mL is more cost effective and provides more patient satisfaction than PCEA with ropivacaine alone. However, use of epidural ropivacaine alone causes fewer opioid-related side effects, particularly pruritus and vomiting.

Balanced anaesthesia today.

An 'ideal' anaesthetic can be approached by using a combination of different compounds. A variety of anaesthetic techniques has been described to ensure safe administration and an early recovery with high patient satisfaction. In particular, the inhalational anaesthetics desflurane and sevoflurane, with their rapid pharmacokinetics, re-established the notion of balanced anaesthesia as an equivalent, well-controllable technique. With the choice of anaesthetics and anaesthetic adjuvants clinically available today, especially the combination of a volatile anaesthetic with a short-acting opioid, balanced anaesthesia represents a big step towards an ideal anaesthetic.

Comparison of propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil for maintenance of anaesthesia for elective intracranial surgery.

BACKGROUND: Propofol and sevoflurane are suitable agents for maintenance of anaesthesia during neurosurgical procedures. We have prospectively compared these agents in combination with the short-acting opioid, remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty unpremedicated patients undergoing elective craniotomy received remifentanil 1 microg kg(-1) followed by an infusion commencing at 0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1) reducing to 0.25 microg kg(-1) min(-1) after craniotomy. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol, and maintained with either a target-controlled infusion of propofol, minimum target 2 microg ml(-1) or sevoflurane, initial concentration 2%(ET). Episodes of mean arterial pressure (MAP) more than 100 mm Hg or less than 60 mm Hg for more than 1 min were defined as hypertensive or hypotensive events, respectively. A surgical assessment of operating conditions and times to spontaneous respiration, extubation, obey commands and eye opening were recorded. Drug acquisition costs were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-four and twenty-six patients were assigned to propofol (Group P) and sevoflurane anaesthesia (Group S), respectively. The number of hypertensive events was comparable, whilst more hypotensive events were observed in Group S than in Group P (P=0.053, chi-squared test). As rescue therapy, more labetolol [45 (33) vs 76 (58) mg, P=0.073] and ephedrine [4.80 (2.21) vs 9.78 (5.59) mg, P=0.020] were used in Group S. Between group differences in recovery times were small and clinically unimportant. The combined hourly acquisition costs of hypnotic, analgesic, and vasoactive drugs appeared to be lower in patients maintained with sevoflurane than with propofol. CONCLUSION: Propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil both provided satisfactory anaesthesia for intracranial surgery.

Induction with sevoflurane-remifentanil is comparable to propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium in PONV after laparoscopic surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare sevoflurane-remifentanil induction and propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium induction with regards to the frequency of moderate to severe postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 hr after laparoscopic day surgery. METHODS: After informed consent, 156 ASA physical status class I to III patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or tubal ligation were randomized to either induction with sevoflurane 8%, N(2)O 67% and iv remifentanil 1 to 1.5 microg.kg(-1) or induction with iv fentanyl 2 to 3 microg.kg(-1), propofol 2 mg.kg(-1), and rocuronium 0.3 to 0.5 mg.kg(-1). All patients received iv ketorolac 0.5 mg.kg(-1) at induction and sevoflurane-N(2)O maintenance anesthesia with rocuronium as needed. PONV was treated with iv ondansetron, droperidol, or dimenhydrinate; postoperative pain was treated with opioid analgesics. Patients were followed for 24 hr with regards to PONV and pain. Intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria, and drug costs were measured. RESULTS: No differences were seen between the two groups in their frequencies of 24-hr moderate to severe PONV and postoperative pain, or in their intubating conditions, induction and emergence times, and time to achieve fast-track discharge criteria. Patients undergoing sevoflurane-remifentanil induction received more morphine (11 mg vs 8 mg; P < 0.001) in the postanesthetic care unit. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction resulted in similar anesthetic and total drug costs for both procedures. CONCLUSION: We did not demonstrate any difference in PONV, pain, or anesthetic/recovery times or costs between the sevoflurane and propofol groups. Sevoflurane-remifentanil induction is a feasible technique for anesthetic induction.

Fast-track eligibility, costs and quality of recovery after intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil versus balanced anaesthesia with isoflurane-alfentanil.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study was performed in 120 patients undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery to test the hypothesis that intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil when compared with a balanced anaesthesia technique using isoflurane-alfentanil improves the speed of recovery, minimizes postoperative side-effects and, thus, leads to an improved quality of recovery without increasing total costs. METHODS: The total costs for each anaesthesia technique were calculated considering drug acquisition costs, personnel costs for the additional time spent in the operating room and the postanaesthesia care unit until fast-tracking eligibility, and the costs to treat the side-effects during and after operation. RESULTS: The times from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation and the time until leaving the operating room were not different between the two groups. However, more patients receiving intravenous anaesthesia (80 versus 49%) were eligible for fast tracking and thus could bypass the recovery room. This was associated with an average cost saving of 6.00 euros per patient. However, intravenous anaesthesia was associated with higher total costs (89 euros versus 78 euros) mainly because of higher acquisition costs of the anaesthetics (34.60 euros versus 16.50 euros). There was no difference in the quality of recovery as measured by a Quality of Recovery score and patient satisfaction between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The higher acquisition costs of the intravenous anaesthetics propofol and remifentanil cannot be compensated for by improved speed of recovery. This anaesthesia technique is more cost intensive than balanced anaesthesia using isoflurane and alfentanil.

Prospective, randomized cost analysis of anesthesia with remifentanil combined with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane for otorhinolaryngeal surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the era of cost containment, cost analysis should demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of new anesthetic drugs. METHODS: This single-blind, prospective, randomized study compared the costs of three remifentanil (REM)-based anesthetic techniques with a conventional one in 120 patients undergoing otorhinolaryngeal surgery. The patients were randomized (n=30 each group) to either receive a combination of REM with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane, or a conventional anesthetic with thiopentone, alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. RESULTS: The costs for anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and for disposables were twice as high in the three REM-based groups as in the conventional group (REM/PRO 0.51 Euro;/min, REM/DES 0.42 Euro;/min, and REM/SEVO 0.41 Euro;/min vs. 0.18 Euro;/min in the ALF/ISO/N2O group; P<0.05). Wastage of intravenous drugs accounted for up to 40% of total costs. In all REM groups, early recovery was predictably faster and more complete (P<0.05). Patient satisfaction was equally high (90-97%) in all groups, with less nausea in the REM/PRO group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that REM-based anesthetic techniques are more expensive than a conventional technique using alfentanil, isoflurane and N2O. This is the result of higher costs of anesthetic and nonanesthetic drugs and of disposables. The wastage of intravenous drugs contributes considerably to these costs.

Cost-effectiveness of propofol anesthesia using target-controlled infusion compared with a standard regimen using desflurane.

The cost-effectiveness of propofol anesthesia using target-controlled infusion (TCI) versus a standard regimen using desflurane for anesthesia maintenance was analyzed. This observational study consisted of 100 inpatients 18 to 75 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II who were scheduled for otological surgery lasting less than four hours. Patients received one of two treatments. The desflurane-maintenance group received propofol 2-4 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.15-0.30 microg (as the citrate)/kg. A constant fresh gas flow of 1 L/min was used during maintenance of anesthesia. The propofol-maintenance group received TCI propofol and an additional infusion of sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 0.15-0.30 microg/kg. One blinded evaluator assessed the postoperative recovery from anesthesia for all patients. The cost of drugs and medical devices used during the intraoperative and postoperative periods was calculated. Effectiveness was defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while the cost-effectiveness of each procedure was the cost per PONV-free episode. The efficiency of each procedure represented the production of effectiveness per dollar invested. Chi-square and t tests, sensitivity analysis, and logistic regression were also performed. The only intergroup difference detected was the frequency of PONV occurring in the early recovery phase (11 in the desflurane group versus 2 in the propofol group). Of those patients requiring antiemetic rescue, 9 were in the desflurane group and only 2 were in the propofol group (p < 0.05). The TCI propofol regimen was more expensive than the desflurane regimen ($45 versus $28 per patient, respectively) (p < 0.001). The differential cost-effectiveness ratio was $94.7 per PONV-free episode. PONV 24 hours after surgery and patient satisfaction were similar between groups. A standard regimen of desflurane was more cost-effective than TCI propofol for anesthesia maintenance in achieving PONV-free episodes.

Anestesia endovenosa total en cirugía general: comparación de dos técnicas. Resultados preliminares / Total intravenous anesthesia in general surgery: comparison of two techniques. Preliminary results

Muy pocos trabajos que muestren resultados numéricos de las variables fisiológicas sobre técnicas endovenosas de anestesia se han publicado en Argentina. Esta es una falta que pretendemos subsanar. Muchas variantes pueden usarse para hacer TIVA. La aparición en el mercado del remifentanilo ha abierto un sinnúmero de posibilidades. Material y Métodos. Se estudiaron 41 pacientes electivos en dos grupos, no premedicados, de cirugía general que no fueron seleccionados a priori, no importando edad, tipo de operación, gravedad de la enfermedad, etc. Se asignaron aleatoriamente a uno de dos grupos: PR: anestesia con propofol a razón de 2 µg.kg-1.min-1 en el sitio de acción (cerebro) y remifentanilo a 0,5 µg.kg-1.min-1; y MR, el otro grupo, con midazolam, a razón de 2 µg.kg-1.min-1 y remifentanilo, igual que en PR. Se ventilaron mecánicamente con O2 puro. La inducción se realizó con un bolo de midazolam de 2 a 3 mg en el grupo MR y con 14 mg.kg-1 de propofol, y se continuó con las dosis de infusión antedichas. Después de 7 u 8 min, se inyectó succinilcolina en dos dosis (la primera=1/10 de la total) para minimizar las contracciones y se intubó a los 9 o 10 min. Durante el mantenimiento, las dosis de propofol y midazolam se disminuyeron al 1/3 o al 1/2 después de la primera hora de anestesia o de acuerdo a las variables hemodinámicas. Igual criterio se siguió con el remifentanilo, si el mismo afectaba presión y/o frecuencia, ajustando la dosis según necesidad. Los datos hemodinámicos, pCO2, espirada y saturación de O2 percutánea, se tomaron en las siguientes ocasiones: 1) basal; 2) al minuto de iniciadas las inyecciones; 3) antes de intubar; 4) a los 5 min después de intubar; 5) a partir de allí, cada 10 min hasta los 60 min; 6) luego, cada media hora hasta terminar; 7) después de suspendido el remifentanilo, cada 5 min hasta el momento de extubar. Resultados: Ambos grupos resultaron casi iguales en todas las variables hemodinámicas. La intubación no las cambió en ninguno de los grupos; excepto en el descenso de frecuencia y presiones que siguió a la inducción, ya comprobables al minuto y a los 5 min de comenzadas las inyecciones, la estabilidad fue muy notoria. En algunos casos, fue posible determinar glucemia (como índice muy indirecto, pero probablemente válido) de ausencia de estrés. Los pacientes despertaron a los 7,95 min y se extubaron a los 10,73 min en el grupo PR; en el grupo MR, a los 6,67 min extubándose a los 10 min...

Anestesia endovenosa total en cirugía general: comparación de dos técnicas. Resultados preliminares / Total intravenous anesthesia in general surgery: comparison of two techniques. Preliminary results

Muy pocos trabajos que muestren resultados numéricos de las variables fisiológicas sobre técnicas endovenosas de anestesia se han publicado en Argentina. Esta es una falta que pretendemos subsanar. Muchas variantes pueden usarse para hacer TIVA. La aparición en el mercado del remifentanilo ha abierto un sinnúmero de posibilidades. Material y Métodos. Se estudiaron 41 pacientes electivos en dos grupos, no premedicados, de cirugía general que no fueron seleccionados a priori, no importando edad, tipo de operación, gravedad de la enfermedad, etc. Se asignaron aleatoriamente a uno de dos grupos: PR: anestesia con propofol a razón de 2 Ag.kg-1.min-1 en el sitio de acción (cerebro) y remifentanilo a 0,5 Ag.kg-1.min-1; y MR, el otro grupo, con midazolam, a razón de 2 Ag.kg-1.min-1 y remifentanilo, igual que en PR. Se ventilaron mecánicamente con O2 puro. La inducción se realizó con un bolo de midazolam de 2 a 3 mg en el grupo MR y con 14 mg.kg-1 de propofol, y se continuó con las dosis de infusión antedichas. Después de 7 u 8 min, se inyectó succinilcolina en dos dosis (la primera=1/10 de la total) para minimizar las contracciones y se intubó a los 9 o 10 min. Durante el mantenimiento, las dosis de propofol y midazolam se disminuyeron al 1/3 o al 1/2 después de la primera hora de anestesia o de acuerdo a las variables hemodinámicas. Igual criterio se siguió con el remifentanilo, si el mismo afectaba presión y/o frecuencia, ajustando la dosis según necesidad. Los datos hemodinámicos, pCO2, espirada y saturación de O2 percutánea, se tomaron en las siguientes ocasiones: 1) basal; 2) al minuto de iniciadas las inyecciones; 3) antes de intubar; 4) a los 5 min después de intubar; 5) a partir de allí, cada 10 min hasta los 60 min; 6) luego, cada media hora hasta terminar; 7) después de suspendido el remifentanilo, cada 5 min hasta el momento de extubar. Resultados: Ambos grupos resultaron casi iguales en todas las variables hemodinámicas. La intubación no las cambió en ninguno de los grupos; excepto en el descenso de frecuencia y presiones que siguió a la inducción, ya comprobables al minuto y a los 5 min de comenzadas las inyecciones, la estabilidad fue muy notoria. En algunos casos, fue posible determinar glucemia (como índice muy indirecto, pero probablemente válido) de ausencia de estrés. Los pacientes despertaron a los 7,95 min y se extubaron a los 10,73 min en el grupo PR; en el grupo MR, a los 6,67 min extubándose a los 10 min...(AU)

Prolonged epidural infusions of ropivacaine (2 mg/mL) after colonic surgery: the impact of adding fentanyl.

UNLABELLED: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a 72-h epidural infusion of ropivacaine and measured the impact of adding fentanyl 2 microg/mL to the required infusion rate, on the quality of postoperative pain relief and the incidence of side effects, after colonic surgery. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for elective colonic surgery were randomized in this trial. Epidural infusions of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 2 microg/mL (R + F) and without fentanyl (R) were commenced during surgery and continued for 72 h postoperatively. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multi-center trial. The median infusion rate required was less in the R + F group (9.3 vs 11.5 mL/h, P < 0.001). Median pain scores at rest and on coughing were lower in the R + F group (P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was more in the R + F group (P = 0.01). Time to readiness for discharge was delayed in the R + F group (median 6.6 vs 5.5 days, P = 0.012). The addition of fentanyl to ropivacaine resulted in decreased infusion rates and enhanced pain control; however, adverse effects were increased and readiness to discharge was delayed. IMPLICATIONS: Epidural infusions of ropivacaine with and without fentanyl were administered to patients to control pain after colonic surgery. Patients who received ropivacaine with fentanyl had better pain control, increased side effects, and delayed readiness to discharge. This study questions the value of adding opioids to epidural infusions of local anesthetics.

Part II: total episode costs in a randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of four anesthetics.

UNLABELLED: Newer anesthetics promise improved clinical outcomes, but usually come at a higher price per dose. Previous studies have found few economic benefits in the immediate postoperative period, but have hypothesized that earlier recovery may lead to lower costs for the whole episode of hospitalization. This study uses cost data for patients enrolled in a randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing four anesthetics to test whether the higher costs of the newer anesthetics would be offset against decreased use of other hospital resources. Five hundred general surgery patients were randomly assigned to one of four anesthetic regimens. Estimates from the hospital's patient costing system were used, with validated cost records for a subset of 360 patients. Five patients admitted to the intensive care unit or requiring prolonged hospitalization skewed the distribution of costs, but none of these complications could be attributed to anesthesia. No significant differences were found on length of stay, mean episode cost, operating room costs, ward costs, or readmission rate within 3 mo. The study was not powered to sufficiently show differences in intensive care unit admission or other uncommon outcomes. Patient quality of recovery did not vary among groups, but neither patient willingness-to-pay nor satisfaction were directly measured. IMPLICATIONS: Propofol and sevoflurane do not offer any significant economic advantages over thiopental and isoflurane in adults undergoing elective inpatient surgery.

V. A new route, jet injection of lidocaine for skin wheal for painless intravenous catheterization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of intradermal lidocaine anesthesia by two jet injectors to the routine needle infiltration and to the topical EMLA cream. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, controlled trial, 100 consenting surgicenter patients in a university hospital setting were divided into four groups (n = 25, each); intradermal lidocaine anesthesia was given either by the conventional 25 g needle/syringe or the Med-E-Jet or Biojector injector or EMLA cream was applied on the skin. Visual analogue pain scores (VAS) or verbal pain intensity scores (PIS) were reported by the patients at lidocaine application and i.v. catheterization. Cost was also assessed. RESULTS: At lidocaine application, no pain was reported, since proportions of VAS = 0 were 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Biojector; 25/25 (0.868, 0.999) with EMLA; in contrast to pain, 3/25 (0.044, 0.302) with the needle (PP > 0.999). The VAS scores (mean +/- SD) were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.04 +/- 0.20, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 2.4 +/- 2.2 respectively (p < 0.00 1). No pain was reported by proportions of PIS = 0 with Med-E-Jet: 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999); with Biojector: 23/25 (0.749, 0.976); EMLA 25/25 (0,868, 0.999); but pain with the needle: 5/25 (0.090, 0.394) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD PIS scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.16 +/- 0.55, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 1.24 +/- 1.00, respectively (p < 0.001). At i.v. catheterization, the proportions of VAS = 0 scores were 22/25 with Med-E-Jet (0.698, 0.956); 21/25 (0.651, 0.934) with Biojector; but some pain with needle: 6/25 (0.116, 0.436) (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD VAS scores were: 0.12 +/- 0.33, 0.44 +/- 0.20, and 1.64 +/- 1.50, respectively (p < 0.001). No pain was reported by PIS = 0 scores in 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with Med-E-Jet; 24/25 (0.804, 0.991) with the Biojector; but pain by zero PIS scores 13/25 (0.334, 0.703) in half of the patients in the needle group (PP > 0.999). The mean +/- SD scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 0.76 +/- 0.88, respectively (p < 0.001). The EMLA cream was not evaluated because of inadequate duration of application prior to anesthetic induction. Cost/application were: Med-E-Jet = $ 0.13; needle = $ 0.50; Biojector = $ 0.94 and EMLA = $ 3.76. CONCLUSION: Almost completely painless i.v. catheterization by jet injection of lidocaine was accomplished, while needle infiltration produced pain/discomfort and did not significantly reduce it at the i.v. needle insertion.