Methohexital-Induced Seizure in a Patient Undergoing Conscious Sedation.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital is a short-acting barbiturate used for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). As with other sedatives, adverse effects with methohexital include excess sedation and hypotension, but this agent can also lower the seizure threshold. We report a patient who developed a generalized seizure after administration of methohexital. CASE REPORT: A 60-year-old man presented to the ED by ambulance with chest pain and shortness of breath. Paramedics had administered adenosine for supraventricular tachycardia without conversion before arrival to the ED. He had no history of seizures. His initial vital signs in the ED included heart rate of 189 beats/min with a supraventricular rhythm, blood pressure 137/108 mm Hg, respiration 22 breaths/min, and oxygen saturation of 98% on room air. It was decided to attempt synchronized electrical cardioversion, and methohexital 1 mg/kg (120 mg) was administered over 2 min for moderate sedation. Within 15 s of methohexital administration, the patient developed a generalized seizure that lasted for 90 s. After seizure termination, he was successfully cardioverted, returned to his previous baseline level of consciousness within 20 min, and discharged without further problems with a follow-up referral to neurology. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Methohexital is a short-acting barbiturate used for moderate sedation. Its adverse effects are unique in that it can lower the seizure threshold in some patients. Alternative agents for sedation should be considered in individuals with possible seizure disorders.

Superselective methohexital challenge prior to intracranial endovascular embolization.

Pharmacologic provocative testing (PT) and intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) both mitigate and predict risks associated with endovascular embolization procedures. We present a series of patients undergoing endovascular intracranial embolization predominantly for AVMs both under general anesthesia and awake with the use of IONM. We reviewed our database to identify all patients undergoing endovascular procedures between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. Awake patients were tested with SSEP, EEG and real time neurologic examination while TcMEPs were performed in all anesthetized patients. BAEPs were performed in anesthetized patients if indicated. Methohexital was administered as an injection at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg and repeat testing was performed if needed.Sixty-three endovascular procedures that met criteria were performed in 32 patients. 54 procedures in 28 patients were performed under general anesthesia, 9 procedures in 4 patients were performed in wakefulness. PT was negative in 61 procedures and subsequently completed embolizations without neurological sequelae. In two cases, the testing was positive and the procedure was terminated without embolization in one patient. The other patient underwent embolization at an alternative site without repeat PT. There were no new postoperative neurologic deficits after any of these procedures. Specificity of PT was 100% as none of the patients with a negative provocative test developed a new postoperative neurologic deficit after embolization. To our knowledge, this is the first review of PT with the use of neurophysiologic IONM techniques under general anesthesia. These data suggest a high specificity comparable to awake testing.

A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing Ketamine and Methohexital Anesthesia for Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled pilot study examines the differences in response to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as defined by an improvement of depressive symptoms between ketamine and methohexital as the primary anesthetic agent. Adverse effects and cognitive tolerability were also examined. METHODS: Subjects undergoing ECT for unipolar or bipolar depression were randomized to receive ketamine or methohexital as the anesthetic agent. Primary outcome measure includes the Hamilton rating scale for depression (17-item). Secondary outcome measures included the mini-mental status examination and Beck depression inventory. All ratings were conducted masked to anesthetic agent. Because of multiple outcome measures obtained over time, mixed models were used to account for the correlations among the measurements within the subjects. Because outcomes were either normally distributed or approximately normally distributed, general linear mixed models were fit with a random intercept specified. RESULTS: A total of 21 subjects were enrolled, and 16 were randomized (methohexital, n = 8; ketamine, n = 8). The 2 treatment groups did not differ statistically in any demographic characteristic. No statistical difference was found between the ketamine and methohexital groups for an improvement in depressive symptoms (P = 0.6); however, subjects in both groups showed significant improvement in depression over time (ketamine, P < 0.0001; methohexital, P < 0.0001). Mini-mental status examination results did not differ between groups, and fatigue was reported more in subjects receiving ketamine (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study are inconclusive because they lack power to support an advantage of ketamine anesthesia compared with methohexital in ameliorating depressive symptoms for electroconvulsive therapy.

A Bayesian framework systematic review and meta-analysis of anesthetic agents effectiveness/tolerability profile in electroconvulsive therapy for major depression.

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability/acceptability of 6 anesthetic agents in ECT for depressive disorders. We systematically reviewed 14 double-blind randomized controlled trials (610 participants). Efficacy was measured by the mean scores on validated depression scales at 6 ECT (or the nearest score if not available), number of responders at the end of treatment and seizure duration. The acceptability was measured by the proportion of patients who dropped out of the allocated treatment, and the tolerability by the number of serious adverse events and post-treatment cognition assessment. After excluding the trials responsible for heterogeneity, depression scores of patients who were administered methohexital were found to be significantly more improved than those who received propofol (p = 0.001). On the contrary, those who were administered propofol had lower depression scores than those with thiopental at the end of treatment (p = 0.002). Compared to propofol, methohexital was found to be significantly associated with higher seizure duration (p = 0.018). No difference was found for the acceptability profile (all p > 0.05). In summary, ketamine and methohexital may be preferred to propofol or thiopental in regard of effectiveness in depression scores and increased seizure duration. Further studies are warranted to compare ketamine and methohexital.

Post-electroconvulsive therapy recovery and reorientation time with methohexital and ketamine: a randomized, longitudinal, crossover design trial.

OBJECTIVES: Methohexital, a barbiturate anesthetic commonly used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), possesses dose-dependent anticonvulsant properties, and its use can interfere with effective seizure therapy in patients with high seizure thresholds. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist with epileptogenic properties not broadly used for ECT inductions, is a commonly used induction agent for general anesthesia. Recent studies suggest that the use of ketamine is effective in allowing successful ECT treatment in patients with high seizure thresholds without an increase in adverse effects. In this preliminary study, we directly compared the recovery and reorientation times of subjects receiving ketamine and methohexital for ECTs. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomized in a crossover design to receive methohexital and ketamine for ECT inductions in alternating fashion in 6 trials. Primary outcome measures were recovery time (voluntary movement, respiratory effort, blood pressure, consciousness, and O2 saturation) and reorientation time. Secondary outcome measures were individual recovery variables, adverse effect occurrence, and seizure duration. RESULTS: Overall recovery time was not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms (F(1, 17) = 0.72; P = 0.41). Reorientation time was faster in the methohexital arm (F(1, 17) = 9.23; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Ketamine inductions resulted in higher number of adverse effects, higher subject dropout rates, and a longer reorientation time with respect to methohexital inductions. No significant difference in postanesthesia recovery time was found between the ketamine and methohexital arms. Intolerability to ketamine affected a significant proportion of subjects and suggests that ketamine should remain as an alternative or adjunctive agent for patients with high seizure thresholds.

The safety of propofol sedation for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of deep sedation provided by pediatric intensivists for elective nonintubated esophagogastroduodenoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The sedation program at the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: A 4-year retrospective analysis was done on all outpatient elective pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures performed in an intensivist run sedation program. Safety was examined by reviewing the occurrence of minor and major adverse effects during esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation. Interventions were studied and reported. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 12,447 sedations were performed by the pediatric sedation program for various procedures. Two thousand one hundred forty-seven patients received 2,325 sedations (18.6%) for esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed for various indications. During the same time period, 53 (one for every 40 esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedations) were screened, found unsuitable for nonintubated sedation, and referred for general anesthesia. There were 2,254 sedations with propofol, 65 methohexital, five ketamine, and one fentanyl/midazolam sedation. Propofol sedation proved safe with a 2.1% prevalence of minor adverse events and no major events. Methohexital, on the other hand, had higher rate (p < 0.001) of minor events and one patient developed an anaphylactic reaction to its use. Regression analysis showed that other sedative agents were 8.6 times more likely to be associated with complications than propofol (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 4.1-18.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that deep sedation for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopies can be provided safely in the appropriately screened patient by nonanesthesiologist physicians in a sedation program. These data suggest that propofol is a safe and effective agent for esophagogastroduodenoscopy sedation.

Anesthetic-induced pain on injection in electroconvulsive therapy: review of the literature and suggestions for prevention.

Pain on injection (angialgia) is a common adverse effect of anesthetic medications, especially propofol and methohexital, which are both used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). In this review, the authors survey some general literature on angialgia incidence, mechanisms, and prevention efforts in non-ECT settings and follow this with a review of similar topics relevant to ECT. They review practical methods of angialgia prevention for ECT patients. The methods with the best research basis include the use of an antecubital vein for intravenous access as well as the local anesthetic lidocaine. Regarding the latter, concerns regarding shortening of seizure duration during ECT have been raised. If lidocaine is used for angialgia in ECT, low doses should be administered to avoid possible interference with ictal electroencephalogram expression. Other methods worth studying further for angialgia during ECT include use of the antiemetic agent metoclopramide and high-potency opiates.

Methohexital-induced seizures during electroconvulsive therapy.

Methohexital is a common anesthetic agent used for electroconvulsive therapy. In the adult literature, there are a few case reports of tonic-clonic seizures occurring immediately after the administration of methohexital. However, to date, there are no reports of this occurrence in children or adolescents. This case documents a generalized tonic-clonic seizure in a 15-year-old girl after receiving 60 mg of methohexital and numerous prior episodes of bitemporal electroconvulsive therapy.

Proteomic changes induced by anaesthesia and muscle relaxant treatment prior to electroconvulsive therapy.

PURPOSE: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a psychiatric treatment in which seizures are electrically induced in patients. Prior to treatment, patients are usually given short-acting anaesthetics and muscle relaxants to avoid harm, e.g. musculoskeletal injury, during the convulsions. However, most molecular studies investigating the mechanism of action of ECT have not explored the potential effects of the pre-treatment with anaesthetic and/ or muscle relaxant. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We have carried out a targeted proteome analysis using multiplex immunoassay platform of serum samples before and 10 min after initiating the administration of the anaesthetic methohexital(®) and the muscle relaxant succinylcholine(®) to eight major depressive disorder patients undergoing ECT. RESULTS: Twenty-six out of 142 analysed molecules showed significant differences in abundance after the methohexital/succinylcholine treatment. Importantly, eight of these molecules (fatty acid-binding protein, insulin, interleukin (IL)1ß, IL-10, IL-4, prolactin, S100 calcium-binding protein B and tumor necrosis factor α) have been associated previously with effects of ECT. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings indicate that caution should be used when interpreting results in existing and future proteome-based biomarkers studies on the effects of ECT in neuropsychiatric disease or the use of anaesthetic/muscle relaxant in major surgical operations related to different therapeutic areas.

[Methohexital for treatment of intracranial hypertension]. / Methohexital zur Therapie des erhöhten intrakraniellen Drucks.

BACKGROUND: Barbiturate coma therapy is a useful method to control increased intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with severe brain damage if standard measures have failed to lower ICP. Pentobarbital (not available in Germany) and thiopental (in Germany only approved for induction of anesthesia) have frequently been used in patients with intracranial hypertension and the effects and side-effects are well-described. However, little is known about the effect of methohexital (the only barbiturate in Germany approved for maintaining anesthesia) in lowering increased ICP. Therefore, the effect of methohexital on ICP was studied in patients where standard measures had failed to control intracranial hypertension. METHOD: A retrospective observational study was carried out with the inclusion criteria of patient age ≥18 years and methohexital therapy for 12 h or more with ICP monitoring in place. Methohexital was administered following a standardized algorithm to patients for whom standard measures, such as deep anesthesia, normoventilation, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) >65 mmHg, osmotherapy, neurosurgical evacuation of mass lesions, had failed to lower ICP. Methohexital was used if the ICP had risen above 20-25 mmHg for more the 20-30 min and otherwise manageable causes for the ICP increase had been ruled out. Methohexital was given continuously in addition to standard analgesia and sedation in doses of 2-4-6 mg/kg body weight (BW), depending on the ICP lowering effect. The records of the patient data management system from the years 2008/2009 were used to compare the ICP and CPP before and during methohexital administration. For statistical analyses Student's t-test was applied for measured values and the χ(2)-test was applied for percentage values whereby p<0.05 was defined as being statistically significant. RESULTS: During the study period 36 patients required methohexital therapy and 30 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 26 out of 30 patients the data were complete and these 26 patients were included in the data analyses. Of the patients 6 (23%) died due to elevated intracranial hypertension and 20 patients (77%) survived. In all patients methohexital lowered the ICP from 25.2 mmHg (standard deviation, SD ±4.3 mmHg) to 19.8 mmHg (SD ±12.5 mmHg) within the first 24 h, this result closely failed to reach a level of significance. In the 20 survivors methohexital lowered the ICP from 25.88 mmHg (SD ±4.8 mmHg) to 14.25 mmHg (SD ±6.9 mmHg) within the first 24 h, which is statistically highly significant. In non-survivors the ICP had risen from 24 mmHg (SD ±2.6 mmHg) to 32 mmHg (SD ±16.3 mmHg) within the first 24 h despite all efforts. Due to the CPP driven volume and vasopressor therapy no significant changes in the CPP during methohexital administration were observed. No significant changes in brain temperature (as possible cause for the decrease of the ICP) were observed. Non-survivors received significantly more methohexital due to increased ICP and required significantly more vasopressor therapy to maintain a sufficient CPP. CONCLUSIONS: Methohexital showed a clear trend for decreasing ICP in patients with intracranial hypertension refractory to standard therapeutic measures. In survivors the effect was highly significant. Patients not responding to methohexital therapy seemed to have an unfavorable outcome.

A comparison of methohexital versus etomidate for endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital has been used for procedural sedation in the emergency department, but its use for endotracheal intubation in intensive care units has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare methohexital with etomidate with respect to their effectiveness and safety of use for endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, single-center cohort study of consecutive patients admitted between December 2006 and August 2007 to a medical intensive care unit in a tertiary-care hospital. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients who received methohexital and 23 who received etomidate for endotracheal intubation were included. The 2 groups differed in age (mean [SD], 55 [13] vs 64 [13] years, P = .03) but not in baseline demographics or illness severity scores. Mean (SD) doses given were 1 (0.2) mg/kg for methohexital and 0.2 (0.1) mg/kg for etomidate. Use of midazolam, fentanyl, and succinylcholine was similar between the groups. Rates of successful intubation after 1 attempt (78% vs 83%), time to successful intubation (mean, 5.9 vs 4 minutes), and number of intubation attempts (mean, 1.5 vs 1.2) also were similar. Change in hemodynamics (delta systolic blood pressure), vasopressor requirements, and amount of fluid resuscitation (normal saline) did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of successful intubation are similar with etomidate and methohexital. Methohexital provides adequate sedation and could be an alternative to etomidate, although both agents were often associated with development of hypotension. Prospective studies are needed to establish the safety of methohexital use in intensive care patients.

Cardiac effects of induction agents in the septic rat heart.

INTRODUCTION: The current debate about the side effects of induction agents, e.g. possible adrenal suppression through etomidate, emphasizes the relevance of choosing the correct induction agent in septic patients. However, cardiovascular depression is still the most prominent adverse effect of these agents, and might be especially hazardous in septic patients presenting with a biventricular cardiac dysfunction--or so-called septic cardiomyopathy. Therefore, we tested the dose-response direct cardiac effects of clinically available induction agents in an isolated septic rat heart model. METHODS: A polymicrobial sepsis was induced via cecal ligation and single puncture. Hearts (n = 50) were isolated and randomly assigned to five groups, each receiving etomidate, s(+)-ketamine, midazolam, propofol, or methohexitone at concentrations of 1 x 10-8 to 1 x 10-4 M. Left ventricular pressure, contractility and lusitropy, and coronary flow were measured. Cardiac work, myocardial oxygen delivery, oxygen consumption, and percentage of oxygen extraction were calculated. RESULTS: All of the induction agents tested showed a dose-dependent depression of cardiac work. Maximal cardiac work dysfunction occurred in the rank order of s(+)-ketamine (-6%)

Thiopental exaggerates ischemic brain damage and neurological deficits after experimental stroke in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Thiopental is an anesthetic used for controlling high intracranial pressure (ICP) caused by brain surgery, brain trauma, and severe stroke. However, it remains controversial whether Thiopental is detrimental or beneficial in ischemic stroke. In this study, we used an animal model of ischemic stroke in spontaneously hypertensive rats to determine whether or not Thiopental is neuroprotective in the setting of brain ischemia. We observed that Thiopental caused a prolonged duration of unconsciousness with a high rate of mortality, that Thiopental created exaggerated neurological deficits that were revealed through limb placement tests at 4 days and 4 weeks after brain ischemia, and that infarct volume was increased in Thiopental-anesthetized rats. These data suggest that Thiopental is detrimental in ischemic stroke. Thus, our findings raise a caution about the use of Thiopental in the setting of ischemic stroke.

Medical homicide and extreme negligence.

Deaths that occur during medical care for the treatment of a disease are rarely certified as homicides. Some "medical" deaths, however, have been criminally prosecuted for manslaughter, reckless endangerment, or reckless homicide. We describe 5 deaths due to medical complications that underwent criminal prosecution. Three of the deaths were certified as homicides. Deaths certified as homicides due to the actions (or inactions) of a caregiver occur in 3 circumstances. The first is when the medical caregiver intentionally causes the death of the patient. The second is a death due to treatment by an unlicensed fraud or quack. The final circumstance is due to extreme medical negligence that involves a gross and wanton disregard for the well-being of the patient and is the most controversial in the medical community. The law defines reckless endangerment as the conscious disregard of a known substantial likelihood of injury to the patient. Criminal neglect typically is defined as the failure to provide timely, safe, adequate, and appropriate services, treatment, and/or care to a patient. In instances of extreme medical negligence, a homicide manner of death is appropriate because the fatality is due to the criminal acts (or inactions) of another. It also furthers one of the major goals of the medicolegal death investigation system, which is to safeguard the public health.

Comparison of methohexital and propofol use in ambulatory procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

PURPOSE: Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as propofol and methohexital, are commonly used for ambulatory procedures in the practices of oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMS). This study compares the safety and anesthetic outcomes of propofol and methohexital. In addition, the study compares the safety and outcomes of these agents when administered either by an OMS who simultaneously provides anesthesia and performs the procedure (anesthetist/surgeon), or by a non-OMS provider of anesthesia (anesthesiologist or certified registered nurse anesthetist; CRNA) whose sole obligation is to provide anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of anesthesia techniques used in an office-based ambulatory setting by OMS throughout the United States, in which either propofol or methohexital was used for sedation/anesthesia. The study variables included demographic information, anesthetic agent, adverse outcomes related to anesthesia, operative procedure, and provider of anesthesia. These variables were compared with the patient group that received a benzodiazepine/narcotics regimen for sedation (control group). Bivariate (contingency tables) and multivariate (logistic regression) analyses were conducted. P < or = .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study included 47,710 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 26,147 (54.8%) patients were in the propofol group, 15,859 (33.2%) were in the methohexital group, and 5,704 (12.0%) were in the benzodiazepine group. Among all study patients, 333 (0.7%) had an adverse event. The most common complication was nausea and vomiting without aspiration. Of the patients in the propofol group, methohexital group, or benzodiazepine group, 0.4%, 1.1%, and 0.8% had an adverse event, respectively. The higher number of complications among patients in the methohexital group compared with patients in the other 2 groups was statistically significant. Of 26,147 patients in the propofol group, 23,799 (91.0%) received anesthesia from an anesthetist/surgeon (OMS), and 2,368 (9.1%) from an anesthesiologist or nurse anesthetist (non-OMS). A total of 109 patients (0.4%) had an adverse event. The majority of patients who received anesthesia from a non-OMS were in the propofol group (2,368 of 2,404 patients; 98.5%). There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of adverse outcomes when comparing patients in the propofol group who received anesthesia from an OMS with those who received anesthesia from a non-OMS (P = .24, bivariate analysis; P = .33, multivariate analysis). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant increase in adverse events related to methohexital compared with propofol or benzodiazepine/narcotics for anesthesia. Propofol appears to have the lowest risk for adverse events. There is no statistically significant difference in the number of adverse outcomes between the administration of propofol for ambulatory surgery by OMS as an anesthetist/surgeon and anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist. It remains critical that our specialty maintains the highest standards, to provide safe anesthesia and to reduce adverse anesthetic events.

Propofol and methohexital as anesthetic agents for electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized, double-blind comparison of electroconvulsive therapy seizure quality, therapeutic efficacy, and cognitive performance.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is often used as an anesthetic agent for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Whether the relatively short seizure duration, resulting from the medication, deteriorates the seizure quality and therapeutic outcomes, or whether propofol might be associated with small but significant post-ECT cognitive impairments, is still a subject of controversy. The purpose of our study was to test these hypotheses in comparison with methohexital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, controlled study, 50 patients with severe major depression who were to be treated with ECT were randomly assigned to anesthesia with propofol (120.9 +/- 50.0 mg) or methohexital (83 +/- 26.3 mg) and were observed for 2 months. The 2 drugs were compared on the basis of electroencephalography-registered seizure duration, mean blood pressure, as well as pulse frequency, seizure efficacy index, and postictal suppression. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and seizure duration and quality were recorded consecutively during ECT treatments. Changes in depressive symptoms and cognitive functions were measured at 5 time points, pre-ECT, after the third to fifth ECT, post-ECT treatment, and at a follow-up examination 2 and 8 weeks after the last ECT treatment. RESULTS: Patients on propofol showed a significantly lower increase in blood pressure post-ECT (P < 0.001), their seizure duration was comparable to patients on methohexital (P = 0.072), and seizure quality was significantly superior, as was measured by the Postictal Suppression Index (P = 0.020), and comparable to the methohexital group as measured by the Seizure Efficacy Index (P = 0.160). The improvement of depressive symptoms and the improvement in cognitive functions were similar in both groups (with the exception of the results from 2 cognition tests). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol, as compared with methohexital, results in a more moderate increase in blood pressure and shorter seizure duration. The seizure quality did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. We detected a tendency toward improved cognitive performance after anesthesia with propofol as compared with methohexital, but with statistical significance in only 2 cognition trials. Therefore, propofol is a safe and efficacious anesthetic for ECT treatment.

Seizures during intracarotid methohexital and amobarbital testing.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital and amobarbital have been used as agents for Wada testing in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy. Previous experience with methohexital as an anesthetic indicates that methohexital may decrease seizure threshold and may trigger seizures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 760 intracarotid amobarbital and methohexital tests was performed to determine the frequency of seizures associated with preoperative intracarotid barbiturate testing for language and memory lateralization. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (2.1%) who had seizures were found. In 3 patients, seizures occurred prior to barbiturate injection, and in 13, following barbiturate injection. After injection of amobarbital, 4 of 538 patients (0.7%) had a seizure. Nine of 222 patients had a seizure after methohexital injection (4.1%) (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with a previous history of epilepsy may be at higher risk for seizures after methohexital injection as compared with amobarbital injection.