Intrathecal hyperbaric 2% prilocaine versus 0.4% plain ropivacaine for same-day arthroscopic knee surgery: a prospective randomized double-blind controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Short-duration spinal anesthesia is a good option for ambulatory knee surgery. Hyperbaric 2% prilocaine has short onset and rapid recovery times and, therefore, may be well suited in this setting. The aim of this study was to compare the times to reach motor block, motor block resolution, and discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) between hyperbaric 2% prilocaine and 0.4% plain ropivacaine. METHODS: In this prospective randomized double-blind study, 140 patients (ages 18-80 yr and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II) scheduled for elective unilateral arthroscopic knee surgery lasting < 45 min were allocated to either 3 mL of 2% prilocaine (60 mg) or 3 mL of 0.4% plain ropivacaine (12 mg). Time to reach complete recovery of motor block, time to reach criteria for discharge, as well as side effects up to 48 hr after discharge were recorded. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to recovery from the motor block was faster in the 2% prilocaine group compared with the 0.4% ropivacaine group (180 [169-240] min vs 240 [180-300] min, respectively; median difference, 60 min, 95% confidence interval (CI), 23 to 97 min; P = 0.036). The median [IQR] time to reach discharge criteria was similar between the two groups (330 [295-365] min vs, 335 [290-395] min; median difference 5 min, 95% CI, -25 to 35 min; P = 0.330). The incidence of side effects was low and similar in both groups. No case of transient neurologic symptoms occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: The recovery of motor block was faster after intrathecal administration of hyperbaric 2% prilocaine compared with 0.4% plain ropivacaine; however, discharge time was similar between the two groups. Both drugs showed a similar risk profile.

Adverse drug events caused by medication errors in medical inpatients.

PRINCIPLES: In view of growing concern in recent years regarding medication errors as causes of adverse drug events (ADEs), we explore the frequency and characteristics of error-associated ADEs in medical inpatients. METHODS: All patients with ADEs or ADErelated hospital admission in a cohort of medical inpatients identified by "event monitoring" (SAS/CHDM database, Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000:49:158-67) were evaluated independently by two experienced physicians. ADEs were first divided into ADEs occurring during cohort stay (incident ADE) and ADE present prior to/at admission. ADEs were then grouped as error-associated ADEs (eADEs: indication error, missed contraindication, wrong dosage regimen or inadequate surveillance) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs: indication established, no contraindications, appropriate dosage regimen and adequate surveillance). RESULTS: Among the 6383 patients analysed (100%), 481 (7.5%) experienced at least one incident ADE. Incident ADRs occurred in 457 (7.2%). Incident eADEs were recorded in 28 patients, corresponding to an eADE incidence of 0.4% (95% CI: 0.2, 0.7). Error types were missing/inappropriate indication (4 cases), missed contraindications (9), relative overdoses (8), absolute overdoses (3) and inadequate clinical surveillance (4). The responsible drugs included antithrombotics (6), cardiovascular drugs (5), antibiotics (5), hypnotics (4) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (3). ADE-related hospital admissions were observed in 262 patients (4.1%); 183 (2.9%) were classified as ADRs and 79 (1.2%) as eADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Incident eADEs were observed in 1 out of 250 patients and accounted for approximately 6% of ADEs. In contrast, eADEs accounted for 30% of ADE-related hospital admissions. Hence, in medical inpatients, eADEs represented a small fraction of total incident ADEs, whereas they contributed significantly to hospital admissions.