Minidose Bupivacaine–Fentanyl Spinal Anesthesia for Surgical Repair of Hip Fracture in the Aged

2000 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Ben-David ◽  
Roman Frankel ◽  
Tatianna Arzumonov ◽  
Yuri Marchevsky ◽  
Gershon Volpin
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Systolic Pressure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Vasopressor Support ◽  
Group A ◽  
Blood Pressures ◽  
Group B

Background Spinal anesthesia for surgical repair of hip fracture in the elderly is associated with a high incidence of hypotension. The synergism between intrathecal opioids and local anesthetics may make it possible to achieve reliable spinal anesthesia with minimal hypotension using a minidose of local anesthetic. Methods Twenty patients aged > or = 70 yr undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture were randomized into two groups of 10 patients each. Group A received a spinal anesthetic of bupivacaine 4 mg plus fentanyl 20 microg, and group B received 10 mg bupivacaine. Hypotension was defined as a systolic pressure of < 90 mmHg or a 25% decrease in mean arterial pressure from baseline. Hypotension was treated with intravenous ephedrine boluses 5-10 mg up to a maximum 50 mg, and thereafter by phenylephrine boluses of 100-200 microg. Results All patients had satisfactory anesthesia. One of 10 patients in group A required ephedrine, a single dose of 5 mg. Nine of 10 patients in group B required vasopressor support of blood pressure. Group B patients required an average of 35 mg ephedrine, and two patients required phenylephrine. The lowest recorded systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressures as fractions of the baseline pressures were, respectively, 81%, 84%, and 85% versus 64%, 69%, and 64% for group A versus group B. Conclusions A "minidose" of 4 mg bupivacaine in combination with 20 microg fentanyl provides spinal anesthesia for surgical repair of hip fracture in the elderly. The minidose combination caused dramatically less hypotension than 10 mg bupivacaine and nearly eliminated the need for vasopressor support of blood pressure.

scholarly journals Clinical Comparative Study of Effect of Two Different Doses of Phenylephrine on Spinal Induced Hypotension during Cesarean Section

2021 ◽  
pp. 482-489
Author(s):  
S. Hiruthick ◽  
K. V. L. Sanjana
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Bolus Dose ◽  
Systolic Pressure ◽  
Induced Hypotension ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Different Doses

Background and Aims: During Cesarean section, hypotension occurs in the most of parturients, following spinal anesthesia. This prospective observational study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of two different Bolus Doses of Phenylephrine for Prevention of Spinal-Induced Hypotension during Cesarean Section. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 parturients undergoing cesarean section were divided into two groups of group A and group B with sixty in each group. Group A received phenylephrine 75 mcg IV bolus, while Group B received phenylephrine 100 mcg IV bolus, immediately after giving spinal anesthesia. For the next 20 minutes, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DSP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded every 2 minutes, and APGAR scores at 1 and 5 minutes were recorded. Results: There was no difference between the two groups in terms of preventing hypotension, with 16.6% in Group A and 16.6% in Group B. In the first 2–6 minutes, however, the rise in systolic pressure in Group B was higher than in Group A. Group B (46.66 %) had a higher rate of bradycardia than Group A (25 %). Conclusion: Both phenylephrine dosages were equally effective in preventing hypotension following spinal anesthesia. However, Prophylactic bolus dose of phenylephrine 75 mcg was found to be effective for the management of spinal-induced hypotension and should be preferred over 100 mcg which causes significant bradycardia and reactive hypertension.

scholarly journals EFFICACY OF PHENYLEPHRINE OVER EPHEDRINE IN CONTROLLING FALL OF BLOOD PRESSURE: A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING LOWER SEGMENT CAESAREAN SECTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshav Saran Agrawal ◽  
Aruna Mahanta
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Lower Segment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Lower Segment Caesarean Section ◽  
Block Level ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: most of the lower segment caesarean sections are done under spinal anesthesia and in more that 80% of the cases, maternal fall in blood pressure can be observed intraoperatively. Throughout history many vasopressor drugs have been evaluated for the treatment. Aim: our research was conducted to compare the effect of phenylephrine with ephedrine given for the prophylaxis of prevention of intraoperative fall in blood pressure in females who are undergoing LSCS. Materials and Methods: a total of 100 cases were considered for our study and were randomly distributed in two groups. Group A cases were administered Phenylephrine while ephedrine was given to group B cases just after spinal anesthesia. Results: most of our study subjects were in the age group of 21-25 years who were in the range of 51-55 kgs. Spinal anesthesia was given by using bupivacaine & block level was checked at 2 & 5 mins. Phenylephrine was found to be superior in control of fall in blood pressure as more than 90% of the cases were brought back to their preoperative levels in less than 4 mins after spinal anesthesia. Whereas in group B, ephedrine took much more time of around 10 mins for control of BP. Conclusion: with proper monitoring of heart rate, phenylephrine is superior to ephedrine in controlling the fall in blood pressure. Keywords: Ephedrine, Phenylephrine, Hypotension, Bradycardia.

Arterial stiffness and subclinical aortic damage of reclassified subjects as stage 1 hypertension according to the new 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines

VASA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore G. Papaioannou ◽  
Evangelos Oikonomou ◽  
George Lazaros ◽  
Evangelia Christoforatou ◽  
Georgia Vogiatzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Aortic Stiffness ◽  
Diastolic Pressure ◽  
Systolic Pressure ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Group A ◽  
New Guidelines ◽  
Group B ◽  
Stage 1

Abstract. Background: The 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure (BP) guidelines generated controversies due to the new proposed BP cut-off values defining hypertension. We aimed to assess aortic stiffness of subjects who are reclassified as stage 1 hypertensive according to the new guidelines and compare them with the subjects of “elevated BP” category. Patients and methods. Data from the “Corinthia” study, an observational, cross-sectional survey of 2,043 participants were analyzed. Subjects were classified into 4 groups: group A: systolic pressure (SBP) 120–129 and diastolic pressure (DBP) < 80 mmHg, group B: SBP 130–139 or DBP 80–89 mmHg, group B1: SBP 130–139 and DBP < 80 mmHg and group B2: SBP 130–139 and DBP 80–89 mmHg. Aortic stiffness was assessed by carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). A value of PWV > 10m/s was consider indicative of asymptomatic organ damage while values of PWV exceeded the 90 % percentile for each age group were consider as abnormal. Results: Groups B, B1 and B2 have significantly increased PWV compared to group A, independently from age and other risk factors (PWV: 9.2 ± 2.8 vs 9.4 ± 2.7 vs 8.6 ± 2.5 vs 8.1 ± 2.3 m/s, p < 0.01, respectively). The prevalence of PWV > 10 m/s and abnormal PWV values in group A was significantly lower than the corresponding prevalence in randomly selected, age-matched subjects from group B (13.5 % vs 24.4 %, p = 0.027 and 5.6 % vs 14.2 %, p = 0.022, respectively). Conclusions: The reclassified subjects as stage 1 hypertensive by the new guidelines have a significantly increased aortic stiffness and greater prevalence in asymptomatic aortic damage compared to subjects with elevated BP. This finding may indirectly explain the increased cardiovascular risk of this group.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Propofol and Etomidate on the Haemodynamic Effects During Induction and Endotracheal Intubation

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-15
Author(s):  
Mallika Rayamajhi ◽  
Puja Thapa ◽  
Anjan Khadka ◽  
Biswa Ram Amatya ◽  
Udaya Bajracharya
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Blood Pressures ◽  
Group B ◽  
Induction Agents

Introduction: While most intravenous induction agents decrease arterial blood pressure, laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation increase the heart rate and blood pressure. Propofol causes a decrease in systemic blood pressure whereas etomidate has minimal effects on the cardiovascular system. This study aims to evaluate and compare the hemodynamic effects of propofol and etomidate during induction and endotracheal intubation. Methods: 62 ASA I and II patients, 20-60 years of age, scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled in this prospective, randomised and double blind comparative study. Group A received inj. Propofol (2 mg/kg) and group B received inj. Etomidate (0.3 mg/kg), as induction agents. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial blood pressure were recorded after induction and after intubation at one, three, five and ten minutes and intergroup comparisons were made. Results: After induction the decrease in systolic, diastolic and the mean arterial pressures were more in group A compared to group B (p = 0.003, 0.004 and 0.002). After 1 minute of intubation all haemodynamic parameters increased from the baseline with no significant differences between the two groups (p >0.05). At three minutes the decrease in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure was more in group A than group B with p values of 0.001, 0.002 and 0.05, however systolic blood pressures showed no significant difference (p = 0.144). The decrease in blood pressures showed significant difference between the two groups (p <0.05) at five and ten minutes but the decrease in heart rate remained significant only at five minutes of intubation (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Propofol and etomidate are both effective in preventing the haemodynamic changes due to induction and endotracheal intubation, with etomidate providing more haemodynamic stability.

scholarly journals Comparison of ropivacaine alone or with dexamethasone as an adjuvant for reducing pain during positioning for neuraxial blockade with ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 2270
Author(s):  
Suvir Dubey ◽  
Uday Ambi ◽  
Priya Taank ◽  
Shalendra Singh ◽  
Vikas Marwah
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Gradual Improvement ◽  
Neuraxial Blockade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

Background: Comparison of ropivacaine alone or with dexamethasone as an adjuvant for reducing pain during positioning for neuraxial blockade with ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca compartment block.Methods: In this double-blinded study, a total of 60 patients between 18 to 80 years of age, undergoing surgery for hip fracture were enrolled. Patients in Group A received 40 ml of 0.25% ropivacaine +2 ml saline and patients in Group B received 40 ml of 0.25% ropivacaine +8 mg dexamethasone. USG guided FICB and postoperative monitoring was done by the chief investigator who was unaware of group allotted and drug administered.Results: There is no significant difference in the heart rate between the two groups after 30 min of the block. The variation of systolic blood pressure of both the group for the first 30 min after giving FICB block was not significant (p>0.05). The absolute value of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was significantly lower in Group B compared to group A just before the block, a variation of DBP with time was not significant. There was a gradual improvement of pain score from mean 6.7 in Group A and 6.6 in Group B at 0 min to score of 2 at the end of 30 min in both the group. This improvement was achieved earlier in Group B compared to Group A, although the difference was not significant (p>0.05). Vital parameters like HR, SBP, DBP, SpO2 values were similar in both the groups. No patients in either group required any interventions both pre-operatively and pos-operatively. Time of rescue analgesia was noted with the VAS score was significantly more in Group B (p≤0.004). The incidence of hematoma, accidental intravascular injection, convulsion, and paresthesia were nil in both groups.Conclusions: Although both the groups had comfortable and pain-free positioning for administering spinal anaesthesia before surgery. USG guided FICB is easy to perform block and give excellent analgesia for positioning and mobilization of hip fracture patients pre and post-operatively both, and dexamethasone as an adjuvant to 0.25%ropivavaine prolong its local anesthetic effect significantly.

scholarly journals HYPOTENSION AFTER SPINAL ANAESTHESIA;

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (05) ◽  
pp. 825-831
Author(s):  
AIJAZ ALI ◽  
SHMYLA HAMID ◽  
RAJA MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, ◽  
M. Rashid Iqbal, ◽  
Raza Ali Abidi
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Single Dose ◽  
Mean Arterial Pressure ◽  
Arterial Pressure ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anaesthesia ◽  
Elective Cesarean Section ◽  
Military Hospital ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Objective: Aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of Ephedrine and Phenylephrine for treatment of hypotension afterspinal anaesthesia for elective caesarean section. Study design: Randomized Clinical Trial. Setting: Operation theatre Department ofAnaesthesiology, Combined Military Hospital Quetta. Duration of study: Six month from 16th Sep 2011 to 15th March 2012. Materialand Method: Seventy women undergoing LSCS for singleton pregnancy under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned in group A andB (35 in each group). All patients preloaded with Lactated Ringer’s solution 15ml/kg body weight 10 minutes before administration ofspinal anaesthesia. Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) was recorded before administration of spinal anaesthesia considered as Base-lineMAP and then at 1 Minute, 3 minutes & at 5 minutes after administration of spinal anaesthesia. When hypotension developed (MAP falls>20% from base line), intravenous single dose of ephedrine administered in group A patients, while in group B, Phenylephrine was given.Blood pressure was recorded after 1 minute following drug administration and up to 3 minutes at 1 minute interval. Patient handed over forprocedure after 10 minutes of spinal block. The SPSS version 13 was applied to the data. Mean and standard deviation were computed fornumerical variables like age, weight, height, systolic blood pressure, Diastolic blood pressure, and Mean Arterial pressure; whereasfrequency and percentages were employed to assess the categorical variable like efficacy. Chi-square test was used to compare theefficacy of intravenous bolus of ephedrine and phenylephrine. Statistical significance was taken at p<0.05. Results: There wassignificant difference in the efficacy of both the drugs, in the treatment of maternal hypotension. 74.29% were successfully treated ingroup “A” with a single dose of Ephedrine, as compared to group B where 51.43% were successfully treated with a single dose ofPhenylephrine. (p-value = 0.048). Conclusions: Intravenous ephedrine has more efficacy than phenylephrine in the treatment ofmaternal hypotension after spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section.

Comparative study between isobaric levobupivacaine and isobaric chlorprocaine in patients undergoing ambulatory surgeries under spinal anesthesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14
Author(s):  
Abhishek R ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Motor Block ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Anesthetic Drugs ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: With development of safer local anesthetic agents and advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques, the performance of day care surgeries are increasing in prevalence. Many local anesthetic drugs with varying concentrations and physical properties are used in spinal anesthesia to achieve early recovery, mobilization with minimal adverse effects. In the present study we are comparing the efficacy of Isobaric 0.5% Levobupivacaine with isobaric 1% 2-chlorprocaine in patients undergoing ambulatory surgeries under spinal anesthesia. Material and Methods: Sixty patients aged 18 to 60 years belonging to ASA physical status I-II, scheduled for various elective ambulatory surgeries under spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group A patients received 3ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and Group B received 4ml of 1% chlorprocaine. The time of onset, duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were studied. Results: The time of onset of sensory block and motor block was significantly shorter (p<0.001) in Group B compared to Group A. Similarly, the duration of sensory and motor block in Group B was shorter (p<0.001). Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters including heart rate, systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: Intrathecal isobaric 1% 2- chloroprocaine has a shorter onset and duration of both Sensory and motor blockade compared to Isobaric 0.5% Levobupivacaine thereby, enabling early recovery and ambulation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document