Endotracheal intubation with a lightwand or a laryngoscope results in similar hemodynamic variations in patients with coronary artery disease.

PURPOSE: To asses the cardiovascular changes after either lightwand or conventional laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation (EI) in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Following Institutional approval and informed consent, 80 consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled in this prospective, controlled, single-blinded study. General anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 5 micro x kg(-1) and thiopental 5 mg x kg(-1) followed by pancuronium 0.1 mg x kg(-1). After loss-of-eyelash reflex the lungs were manually ventilated with 2% isoflurane in oxygen for five minutes. Patients were then randomly allocated to receive either the lightwand (lightwand group, n = 41) or direct-vision laryngoscopy (laryngoscopy group, n = 39). Heart rate (HR) and direct blood pressure were recorded before induction, after induction but before EI, during EI, immediately after EI and at ten-second intervals for the following five minutes. Hemodynamic management during induction was standardized. Hypotension was treated with volume replacement, ephedrine, or phenylephrine as indicated; hypertension was treated with iv nitroglycerin; tachycardia was treated with boluses of esmolol; and, bradycardia was treated with atropine or ephedrine. RESULTS: In both groups, mean arterial blood pressures and HR increased significantly after EI. There was a tendency for the lightwand group to have lower arterial blood pressures and slower HR. However, the differences between the two groups did not reach statistical significance. Requirements for drugs to control HR and mean arterial pressure were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease using a lightwand intubation technique does not modify the hemodynamic response associated with EI as compared with standard direct-vision laryngoscopy.

Comparison of total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia for outpatient otorhinolaryngeal surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the recovery characteristics of two widely used anesthetic techniques: remifentanyl-propofol and sevoflurane-fentanyl in a standardized ambulatory population. DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: University-affiliated medical center. PATIENTS: 50 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective ambulatory otorhinolaryngeal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized two groups to receive total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group) with remifentanil and propofol or sevoflurane-fentanyl (SF group). TIVA patients received induction with propofol 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV) and remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg IV. The anesthesia was continued with a continuous infusion of propofol 100 microg/kg/min and remifentanil 0.0625-0.25 microg/kg/min. The SF group received, at induction, fentanyl 2 microg/kg followed by propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV. Maintenance was obtained with 1 to 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane and bolus of fentanyl 1 microg/kg IV as needed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early recovery times (eye opening, response to commands, extubation, orientation, operating room stay after surgery, and Aldrete score > or =9) and patient satisfaction were similar between the two groups. Postanesthetic discharge scoring system (PADSS) > or = 9 was significantly shorter for the TIVA group (135.9 +/- 51 vs. 103 +/- 32 min) (p < 0.01) but this difference was not associated with a shorter postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. CONCLUSION: Early recovery times are comparable between total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-based anesthesia. Even though patients in the TIVA group achieved home readiness criteria in a significantly shorter time, this technique does not shorten PACU length of stay, which depends instead on multiple nonmedical and administrative issues.