Prospective observational study for perioperative volume replacement with 6% HES 130/0,42, 4% gelatin and 6% HES 200/0,5 in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: the constantly growing amount of different kinds of colloid fluids necessitates comparative investigations with regards to the safety and effectivity in clinical use of these preparations. Hence we compared three colloid fluids in an observational study. The objective was the exploration of the influence of these three colloids on blood coagulation, hemodynamics and renal function of the cardiac surgical patient. METHODS: we included 90 patients undergoing an elective open-heart surgery with the use of the heart-lung machine and observed them consecutively. Group 1 [gelatin 4% (n = 30)], Group 2 [HES 200/0,5 (n = 30)] and Group 3 [HES 130/0,42 (n = 30)]. We measured the perioperative volume replacement, the administration of blood- and coagulation-products, the application of catecholamines, the renal function, blood gas and the platelet aggregation using multiplate electrode analyzer (Multiplate, Dynabyte medical, Munich, Germany). RESULTS: the gelatin-group needed significantly more norepinephrine than the HES 130/0.42 group. The responsible surgeon considered the blood coagulation in the HES 200/0.5 group most frequently as impaired. Furthermore we saw a significant decrease in platelet function in the HES 200/0.5 group when performing the multiplate-analysis (ADP-and COL-test). HES 130/0.4 as well as gelatin 4% showed no significant change in platelet function. The gelatin-group and the HES 200/0.5 needed significantly more aprotinine than the HES 130/0.4 group. We saw no significant difference with regards to administration of blood and coagulation products between the three groups. The urinary excretion during the intervention was significantly higher in the HES 200/0.5 group and in the gelatin group than in the HES 130/0.4 group. CONCLUSIONS: our results confirm the lower stabilizing effect of gelatin on circulation during fluid resuscitation. The blood coagulation was mostly impaired due to HES 200/0.5 confirmed by the multiplate®-analysis as well as by different clinical findings.

Prospective study comparing skin impedance with EEG parameters during the induction of anaesthesia with fentanyl and etomidate.

OBJECTIVE: Sympathetic stimulation leads to a change in electrical skin impedance. So far it is unclear whether this effect can be used to measure the effects of anaesthetics during general anaesthesia. The aim of this prospective study is to determine the electrical skin impedance during induction of anaesthesia for coronary artery bypass surgery with fentanyl and etomidate. METHODS: The electrical skin impedance was measured with the help of an electro-sympathicograph (ESG). In 47 patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, anaesthesia was induced with intravenous fentanyl 10 mug/kg and etomidate 0.3mg/kg. During induction, the ESG (Electrosympathicograph), BIS (Bispectral IndeX), BP (arterial blood pressure) and HR (heart rate) values of each patient were recorded every 20 seconds.The observation period from administration of fentanyl to intubation for surgery lasted 4 min. - RESULTS: The ESG recorded significant changes in the electrical skin impedance after administration of fentanyl and etomidate(p <0.05). During induction of anaesthesia, significant changes of BIS, HR and blood pressure were observed as well (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The electrical skin impedance measurement may be used to monitor the effects of anesthetics during general anaesthesia.

Ondansetron has similar clinical efficacy against both nausea and vomiting.

Ondansetron is widely believed to prevent postoperative vomiting more effectively than nausea. We analysed data from 5161 patients undergoing general anaesthesia who were randomly stratified to receive a combination of six interventions, one of which was 4 mg ondansetron vs placebo. For the purpose of this study a 20% difference in the relative risks for the two outcomes was considered clinically relevant. Nausea was reduced from 38% (969/2585) in the control to 28% (715/2576) in the ondansetron group, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.74, or a relative risk reduction of 26%. Vomiting was reduced from 17% (441/2585) to 11% (293/2576), corresponding to a relative risk of 0.67, or a relative risk reduction of 33%. The relative risks of 0.67 and 0.74 were clinically similar and the difference between them did not reach statistical significance. We thus conclude that ondansetron prevents postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting equally well.

[Nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase. Expert- and evidence-based recommendations for prophylaxis and therapy]. / Ubelkeit und Erbrechen in der postoperativen Phase. Experten- und evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zu Prophylaxe und Therapie.

There are no consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in German speaking countries. This meeting was intended to develop such guidelines on which individual health care facilities can derive their specific standard operating procedures (SOPs). Anesthesiologists reviewed published literature on key topics which were subsequently discussed during two meetings. It was emphasized that recommendations were based on the best available evidence. The clinical relevance of individual risk factors should be viewed with caution since even well proven risk factors, such as the history of PONV, do not allow the identification of patients at risk for PONV with a satisfactory sensitivity or specificity. A more useful approach is the use of simplified risk scores which consider the presence of several risk factors simultaneously. Most individual antiemetic interventions for the prevention of PONV have comparable efficacy with a relative risk reduction of about 30%. This appears to be true for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) as well as for dexamethasone and other antiemetics; assuming a sufficiently high, adequate and equipotent dosage which should be weight-adjusted in children. As the relative risk reduction is context independent and similar between the interventions, the absolute risk reduction of prophylactic interventions is mainly dependent on the patient's individual baseline risk. Prophylaxis is thus rarely warranted in patients at low risk, generally needed in patients with a moderate risk and should include a multimodal approach in patients at high risk for PONV. Therapeutic interventions of PONV should be administered promptly using an antiemetic which has not been used before. The group suggests algorithms where prophylactic interventions are mainly dependent on the patient's risk for PONV. These algorithms should provide evidence-based guidelines allowing the development of SOPs/policies which take local circumstances into account.

Does the efficacy of supplemental oxygen for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting depend on the measured outcome, observational period or site of surgery?

High intra-operative oxygen concentration reportedly reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but recent data are conflicting. Therefore, we tested whether the effectiveness of supplemental oxygen depends on the endpoint (nausea vs. vomiting), observation interval (early vs. late) or surgical field (abdominal vs. non-abdominal). We randomly assigned 560 adult patients undergoing various elective procedures with a PONV risk of at least 40% to intra-operative 80% (supplemental) or 30% oxygen (control). Potential confounding factors were similar between groups. Incidences of nausea were similar in the groups during early (12% (supplemental) vs. 10% (control), p = 0.43) and late intervals, 26%vs. 20%, p = 0.09, as were the incidences of vomiting (early: 2%vs. 3%, p = 0.40; late: 8%vs. 9%, p = 0.75). Supplemental oxygen was no more effective at reducing PONV in abdominal (40%vs. 31%, p = 0.37) than in non-abdominal surgery (25%vs. 21%, p = 0.368). Thus, supplemental oxygen was unable to reduce PONV independent of the endpoint, observational period or site of surgery.

[A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting]. / Eine faktorielle Studie von 6 Interventionen zur Vermeidung von Ubelkeit und Erbrechen nach Narkosen Ergebnisse des "International Multicenter Protocol to assess the single and combined benefits of antiemetic strategies in a controlled clinical trial of a 2x2x2x2x2x2 factorial design" (IMPACT).

BACKGROUND: Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design, 5,199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of 6 prophylactic interventions: 1) 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 2) 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 3) 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; 4) propofol or a volatile anesthetic; 5) nitrogen or nitrous oxide; 6) remifentanil or fentanyl. The primary aim parameter was nausea and vomiting within 24 h after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. RESULTS: Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26%, propofol reduced the risk by 19%, and nitrogen by 12%. The risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics alone. All the interventions acted independently of each other and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. However, absolute risk reduction was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS: Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.