Remifentanil versus remifentanil/midazolam for ambulatory surgery during monitored anesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to define the appropriate dose of remifentanil hydrochloride alone or combined with midazolam to provide satisfactory comfort and maintain adequate respiration for a monitored anesthesia care setting. METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine patients scheduled for outpatient surgery participated in this multicenter, double-blind study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: remifentanil, 1 microgram/kg, given over 30 s followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil), remifentanil, 0.5 microgram/kg, given over 30 s followed by a continuous infusion of 0.05 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil+midazolam). Five minutes after the start of the infusion, patients received a loading dose of saline placebo (remifentanil) or midazolam, 1 mg, (remifentanil+midazolam). If patients were not oversedated, a second dose of placebo or midazolam, 1 mg, was given. Remifentanil was titrated (in increments of 50% from the initial rate) to limit patient discomfort or pain intraoperatively, and the infusion was terminated at the completion of skin closure. RESULTS: At the time of the local anesthetic, most patients in the remifentanil and remifentanil+midazolam groups experienced no pain (66% and 60%, respectively) and no discomfort (66% and 65%, respectively). The final mean (+/-SD) remifentanil infusion rates were 0.12 +/- 0.05 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil) and 0.07 +/- 0.03 microgram.kg-1.min-1 (remifentanil+midazolam). Fewer patients in the remifentanil+midazolam group experienced nauses compared with the remifentanil group (16% vs. 36%, respectively; P < 0.05). Four patients (5%) in the remifentanil group and two patients (2%) in the remifentanil+midazolam group experienced brief periods of oxygen desaturation (SpO2 < 90%) and hypoventilation (< 8 breaths/ min). CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil alone or combined with midazolam provided adequate analgesia and maintained adequate respiration at the doses reported. The low dose of remifentanil combined with 2 mg midazolam, compared with remifentanil alone, resulted in fewer side effects, slightly greater sedation, and less anxiety.

Droperidol/ondansetron combination controls nausea and vomiting after tubal banding.

The antiemetic activity of droperidol is attributed to antagonizing the dopaminergic neurons of the chemoreceptor trigger zone. Ondansetron is a serotonin (5HT) receptor antagonist at both peripheral and central 5-HT3 receptor sites with no known action on dopamine-mediated activity. We hypothesized that the combination of these two antiemetics would be more effective than droperidol alone. Women with ASA classified physical status I or II, scheduled for laparoscopic tubal banding, participated in a randomized double-blind clinical trial using a standardized anesthesia regimen. Within 15 min after induction of anesthesia, Group 1 (n = 60) received IV droperidol 1.25 mg and ondansetron 4 mg and Group 2 (n = 60) received IV droperidol 1.25 mg and saline. Before surgery and during recovery at 1, 2, and 24 h, emetic episodes, nausea, pain, drowsiness, medications taken, and adverse events were recorded. The complete response (no emesis, no rescue) for Group 1 was 55 of 60 (91.6%) versus 47 of 60 (78.3%) in Group 2 (P = 0.04). No patient needed rescue antiemetic medication in Group 1, whereas 5 of 60 (8.3%) patients were rescued in Group 2 (P = 0.03). There were seven emetic episodes in five patients in Group 1 and 30 emetic episodes in 12 patients in Group 2 over the 24-h study period (P = 0.03). The time to the first emetic episode was more than twice as long for Group 1 than Group 2 (P = 0.03) and total nausea scores were lower in Group 1 than Group 2 (P = 0.01). The droperidol/ondansetron combination was significantly superior to droperidol in complete response, time to and number of emetic episodes, and the incidence and severity of nausea in women having tubal banding.

Delayed side effects of droperidol after ambulatory general anesthesia.

The incidence of postoperative effects of droperidol, in the hospital and at home the following night, after general anesthesia for minor outpatient procedures was evaluated in two groups of 50 patients each. Anesthetic techniques were identical except for the presence or absence of 1.25 mg of IV droperidol. There were no differences between the groups with regard to postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain, or time to discharge. In 23% of patients given droperidol, anxiety or restlessness developed after discharge from the ambulatory care unit. No patient not receiving droperidol had these reactions. It is suggested that the routine use of droperidol in all outpatients receiving general anesthesia may not be appropriate.

Topical bupivacaine and etidocaine analgesia following fallopian tube banding.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of etidocaine and bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after laparoscope sterilization. The study was performed in 22 healthy patients who received either one per cent etidocaine, 2 mg.kg-1, or bupivacaine 1.5 mg.kg-1 in a double-blind, randomized fashion. The local anaesthetic was dropped onto the fallopian tubes from uterus to fimbriae before tubal occlusion. To establish safety, blood concentrations of the parent drug and its metabolites were measured before application and at 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 30, 60 and 120 min. The mean peak concentrations were 501.8 +/- 71.3 (SEM) for etidocaine with a range of 225 to 905 ng.ml-1. For bupivacaine, the mean peak concentration was 468 +/- 73.8 SEM with a range from 191 to 1005 ng.ml-1. The mean values are one eighth of the toxic convulsive dose for humans. Etidocaine was metabolized at a faster rate than bupivacaine with a rapid appearance of 2-amino-2'-butyroxylidide (ABX). The bupivacaine metabolite 2,6-pipecoloxylidide (PPX) was detected in low concentrations in the 60-minute samples. We conclude that the topical application of either etidocaine or bupivacaine is a safe procedure in the doses and concentrations used during general anaesthesia for laparoscopic tubal banding.

Decreasing post-succinylcholine myalgia in outpatients.

The effectiveness of four pretreatment regimens in decreasing succinylcholine-induced myalgias was studied in healthy outpatients undergoing general anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery. Four hundred and forty adult females were randomly assigned to one of four pretreatment groups. Three hundred and ninety-five patients completed the study. One of the following pretreatments was given prior to injection of 1.5 mg X kg-1 of succinylcholine: normal saline IV three minutes and again immediately prior to succinylcholine; 0.06 mg X kg-1 d-tubo-curarine (dTc) IV three minutes prior and normal saline IV immediately prior; normal saline IV three minutes prior and 1.5 mg X kg-1 lidocaine IV immediately prior; 0.06 mg X kg-1 dTc IV three minutes prior and 1.5 mg X kg-1 lidocaine IV immediately prior. Fasciculations after injection of succinylcholine were observed and recorded. Patients were contacted by telephone 40-48 hours postoperatively and questioned about the presence of muscle pains. These pains, if present, were graded either mild or moderate to severe. The patients in the two dTc-containing groups exhibited less fasciculations than patients in the other two experimental groups. The dTc-lidocaine group had a lower incidence of moderate to severe fasciculations than in any of the other three groups. Patients in the dTc, lidocaine, and dTc-lidocaine experimental groups reported a higher incidence of absence of muscle pain and a lower incidence of moderate-severe pain than did patients in the saline group. The dTc-lidocaine group had more patients without myalgia and less patients with moderate to severe myalgias than any of the other groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Topical etidocaine during laparoscopic tubal occlusion for postoperative pain relief.

Narcotic requirements in 51 day-surgery patients following laparoscopic tubal occlusion were significantly reduced (P less than .01) by the use of 1% etidocaine 5 mL, dropped on each fallopian tube from uterus to fimbrias before tubal banding when compared with a control group of 51 day-surgery patients who had no topical anesthetic agent. All patients received general anesthesia. Although there was no significant difference in nausea rate, the incidence of vomiting was decreased. Eight of 51 patients (16%) having topical etidocaine and 19 of 51 (37%) who had no etidocaine vomited during the postoperative period. The frequency of overnight stay was significantly reduced in the topical etidocaine group of patients (P less than or equal to .01).

Antiemetic effectiveness of intramuscular hydroxyzine compared with intramuscular droperidol.

In a double-blind randomized study 150 outpatients receivng the same anesthetic for first trimester therapeutic abortions were equally divided into three groups: control; droperidol, 2.5 mg IM; or hydroxyzine, 100 mg IM. The injection was given immediately after thiamylal (Surital) induction of anesthesia, and the incidence of nausea, retching, or vomiting (NRV) was recorded at 15-minute intervals for 3 hours after surgery. NRV occurred in 56% of control patients, in 44% of patients given droperidol, and in 10% of patients given hydroxyzine. The patients receiving hydroxyzine and droperidol were more sedated and experienced a delay in return of hand-eye coordination as measured by the time for the Trieger motor test to reach preoperative levels. All patients equaled their preoperative performance during the 3rd hour after surgery and were discharged 4 hours following general anesthesia. We conclude that intramuscular hydroxyzine hydrochloride, 100 mg, is a significantly better antiemetic than intramuscular droperidol, 2.5 mg.