scholarly journals Effect of Neosaxitoxin on Epidural Anesthesia in Cats: a Promising Alternative to Conventional Anesthetics

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-10
Author(s):  
Xaviera Varela ◽  
Miguel del Campo ◽  
Robin Piron ◽  
Joaquín Sepulveda ◽  
Tamara Bustamante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Scale ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Physiological Factors ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
High Affinity ◽  
Anesthetic Effect ◽  
Voltage Dependent ◽  
Peripheral Blood Pressure

Neosaxitoxin (NeoSTX) is a specific high-affinity inhibitor of voltage-dependent sodium channels, which has shown excellent results as a local anesthetic in various pathologies and post-operative protocols, since it effect is long-lasting and have virtually no side effects.The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of NeoSTX as an epidural anesthetic in female cats, undergoing ovariohysterectomy, compared to Lidocaine in a randomized and double-blind study. Two groups of 11 female cats were randomly in the NeoSTX group and the lidocaine group. They were administered, respectively, a single dose of NeoSTX (0.5 μg / kg) or lidocaine (4 mg / kg, 2%) by epidural via. Using the UNESP-Botucatu pain assessment scale, which considers multiple behavioral and physiological factors, the epidural anesthetic effect of NeoSTX and lidocaine was evaluated, up to 240 min after the ovariohysterectomy procedure. NeoSTX no altered the peripheral blood pressure during the cut of uterine cervix, and generated lower values on the pain scale as compared to the lidocaine treatment. None of the cats anesthetized with NeoSTX required an extra dose of pain-relieving drugs (2 mg / kg of tramadol) during the first 150 min after surgery, whereas nine cats from the lidocaine group did need an extra dose of analgesic. NeoSTX is a powerful pain blocker, with a long-lasting anesthetic effect when administered by an epidural procedure. Therefore, NeoSTX emerges as a promising alternative to conventional anesthetics for the treatment of postoperative pain.

Combined nitrous oxide 70% with intranasal fentanyl for procedural analgosedation in children: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Seiler ◽  
Georg Staubli ◽  
Markus A. Landolt
Keyword(s):  
Nitrous Oxide ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Scale Score ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Registration Number

ObjectiveNitrous oxide 70% (N2O 70%) is an excellent medication for procedural analgosedation (PAS), yet the limit of its analgesic power remains uncertain; therefore, a combination with intranasal fentanyl (INF) was suggested. However, this combination seems to result in a higher rate of vomiting and deeper sedation. This study aimed at assessing the analgesic efficacy, sedation depth and rate of adverse events of PAS with N2O 70% with and without INF.MethodsPatients aged 2–16 years who qualified for PAS with N2O 70% were randomly assigned to receive either INF or placebo prior to N2O inhalation in this randomised, double-blind study, which was performed in a tertiary children’s hospital ED between September 2015 and October 2017. Behaviour during the procedure was evaluated using the Face, Leg, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale and the Modified Behavioural Pain Scale (MBPS); analgesic efficacy was assessed with a self-reported pain scale. Sedation depth using the validated University of Michigan Sedation Scale and adverse events in the ED and during the following 12 hours were documented.ResultsA total of 402 patients were included; 3 did not tolerate N2O and therefore had to be excluded. Overall, 399 patients were analysed, of whom 201 (50.4%) received INF. No significant group differences with regard to FLACC scale score, self-reported pain, MBPS score and sedation depth were found. In addition, the two groups did not differ with regard to all types of adverse events.ConclusionCombining N2O 70% with INF resulted in no differences with regard to FLACC scale score, self-reported pain, MBPS score, patient and parental satisfaction rate, sedation depth, and adverse events.Trial registration numberNCT02533908

Ropivacaine 0.2% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Outpatient Surgery

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Atanassoff ◽  
Carlos A. Ocampo ◽  
Marcos Castro Bande ◽  
Maximilian W. B. Hartmannsgruber ◽  
Thomas M. Halaszynski
Keyword(s):  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Postanesthesia Care Unit ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia

Background A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. Methods With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. Results Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. Conclusions Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.

The use of Preoperative Lidocaine to Prevent Stridor and Laryngospasm after Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy

1998 ◽  
Vol 118 (6) ◽  
pp. 880-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAN KOÇ ◽  
FALIH KOCAMAN ◽  
ERDINÇ AYGENÇ ◽  
CAFER ÖZDEM ◽  
ALI ÇEKIÇ
Keyword(s):  
Early Postoperative Period ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Intravenous Lidocaine ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Topical Lidocaine ◽  
Plasma Lidocaine ◽  
Sedation Scores

The most important complications from tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are bleeding, stridor, and laryngospasm. This controlled, double-blind study was designed to investigate the effects of topical and intravenous lidocaine on stridor and laryngospasm. A total of 134 patients scheduled for elective tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy were randomly separated into four groups. In the topical lidocaine group 4 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine was applied to subglottic, glottic, and supraglottic areas before endotracheal intubation. Normal saline solution was used topically for the first control group. In the intravenous lidocaine group, patients were given 1 mg/kg of 2% lidocaine before extubation, and the same amount of 0.9% NaCl was given to the second control group. Postoperative stridor, laryngospasm, cyanosis, bleeding, sedation degree, and respiratory depression were observed, and plasma lidocaine levels were measured. Both topical and intravenous lidocaine groups revealed less stridor and laryngospasm than the control groups, and no difference was found between the topical and intravenous lidocaine groups except the higher sedation scores in the early postoperative period for the intravenous lidocaine group. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:880–2.)

scholarly journals The Use of Orbital Morphine for Postoperative Analgesia in Pterygium Surgery

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Wishaw ◽  
D. Billington ◽  
D. O'Brien ◽  
P. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Postoperative Analgesia ◽  
Scale Effects ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Morphine Group ◽  
Corneal Surgery ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pterygium Surgery ◽  
Lower Pain Score

A prospective double-blind study compared the analgesic effectiveness of peribulbar lignocaine with peribulbar morphine and lignocaine for postoperative analgesia in pterygium surgery. Twenty patients were randomly divided to receive a peribulbar injection preoperatively of either 1% lignocaine 2 ml or 1% lignocaine 1.6 ml and 4 mg morphine. Effects on pain at injection and pain at 24 hours and 48 hours postoperatively were measured with a visual analog pain scale. Effects of the injections on sedation, pupil size and unwanted side-effects were also recorded. The groups were comparable for age, weight and surgical technique. There was a significantly lower pain score at 24 hours after operation in the morphine group (P=0.035). There were no significant differences in sedation or side-effects between the groups. The physiological effects of morphine on the eye are reviewed. The study suggests that orbital morphine may be an effective and safe form of analgesia for corneal surgery and further investigation is warranted.

scholarly journals Intraoperative clonidine vs lidocaine on hemodynamic response to laryngoscopic intubation and immune function in gynecological surgeries

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sawsan Gaber Mohamed ◽  
Noha Mahmoud Hamdy ◽  
Amira Abo Elnasr Awad
Keyword(s):  
Total Dose ◽  
Immune Function ◽  
Hemodynamic Response ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
American Society

Abstract Background This prospective randomised double-blind study was carried out on forty patients American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I–II , aged 40–60 years, scheduled for elective abdominal gynecological surgeries under general anesthesia after obtaining the approval of the local institutional ethical committee and oral consent of the patients. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of perioperative intravenous clonidine versus lidocaine on hemodynamic stress response to laryngoscopic intubation, immune function, pain intensity, time to the first request for analgesia, and total dose of analgesic requirement in the first 24 h postoperatively in gynecological surgeries. Results Throughout the study, heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were significantly lower in clonidine group (group C) compared to lidocaine group (group L). Postoperatively, the levels of IL-6 were significantly higher in (group L) compared to (group C). VAS pain scores were lower in the clonidine group in comparison to the lidocaine group. There was a higher total dose of analgesia in the lidocaine group when compared to the clonidine group. Conclusions Both clonidine and lidocaine can be used to attenuate the hemodynamic response; however, clonidine was better in the reduction of postoperative pain scores and the decrease in the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

scholarly journals A prospective, randomized, double blind study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of lidocaine, ramosetron and tramadol pre-medication, in attenuating the pain caused due to propofol injection

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 2644
Author(s):  
Ifra Zahoor ◽  
Aabid Hussain Mir ◽  
Mohmad Syed Qazi ◽  
Zahoor Ahmad Jan ◽  
Abida Yousuf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Induction Agent ◽  
Local Concentration ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Group A

Background: Propofol is a popular induction agent, especially for short cases, day care surgeries and when a laryngeal mask is to be used. It produces a good quality of anaesthesia and rapid recovery. Pain on injection of propofol has been reported and is an important limitation of its use. A multitude of interventions: pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological, have been tried for the attenuation of pain caused due to propofol injection. In our study, we evaluated and compared the efficacy of lidocaine, ramosetron and tramadol in attenuating pain on propofol injection.Methods: A total of 180 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II,  of either sex, aged between 21 to 50 years undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were taken up for the study and were divided into group A, B and C. Group A received 2ml of 2% (40mg) lidocaine, Group B received 2ml of ramosetron (0.3mg) and Group C received 1mg/kg of tramadol in 0.9% normal saline to make a total solution of 2ml. Venous occlusion was done by compressing forearm with tourniquet to increase the local concentration of drug after establishing an intravenous access. The study drug was injected over 10 seconds and then occlusion was removed after 60 seconds, followed by giving 25% of the total calculated dose (2.5mg/kg) of propofol (1% w/v in lipid base) injected over 20 seconds. This was followed by asking the patient about the severity of pain felt. The intensity of pain was graded using verbal rating scale (McCrirrick and Hunter) and was assessed at 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 seconds, as after 20 seconds, the patient would be under the influence of propofol.Results: Lidocaine showed the best efficacy in attenuating propofol injection pain amongst the 3 groups recorded at 5 (95%), 10 (91.7%) and 15 seconds (98.3%). In addition to reducing the incidence of pain, it also reduced its severity, with majority of patients experiencing only mild pain. Ramosetron ranked 2nd in the overall reduction of propofol pain, with lowest incidence of propofol pain amongst 3 groups, recorded at 0 (98.3%) and 20 seconds (95%) of propofol injection. However, ramosetron failed in reducing severity of pain, with a significant number of patients experiencing moderate and severe pain. Tramadol ranked 3rd in the overall attenuation of propofol pain and showed lowest incidence of pain at 0 seconds (93%) of propofol injection.Conclusions: All the three study drugs viz lidocaine, ramosetron and tramadol cause a significant decrease in propofol injection pain with lidocaine as the most efficacious drug amongst the 3 drugs followed by ramosetron and tramadol. Lidocaine has an added advantage of decreasing incidence and severity of pain associated with propofol and ramosetron prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting.

scholarly journals EFFECT of daily antiseptic body wash with octenidine on nosocomial primary bacteraemia and nosocomial multidrug-resistant organisms in intensive care units: design of a multicentre, cluster-randomised, double-blind, cross-over study

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e016251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Meißner ◽  
Dirk Hasenclever ◽  
Oana Brosteanu ◽  
Iris Freya Chaberny
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Multidrug Resistant Organisms

IntroductionNosocomial infections are serious complications that increase morbidity, mortality and costs and could potentially be avoidable. Antiseptic body wash is an approach to reduce dermal micro-organisms as potential pathogens on the skin. Large-scale trials with chlorhexidine as the antiseptic agent suggest a reduction of nosocomial infection rates. Octenidine is a promising alternative agent which could be more effective against Gram-negative organisms. We hypothesise that daily antiseptic body wash with octenidine reduces the risk of intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired primary bacteraemia and ICU-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in a standard care setting.Methods and analysisEFFECT is a controlled, cluster-randomised, double-blind study. The experimental intervention consists in using octenidine-impregnated wash mitts for the daily routine washing procedure of the patients. This will be compared with using placebo wash mitts. Replacing existing washing methods is the only interference into clinical routine.Participating ICUs are randomised in an AB/BA cross-over design. There are two 15-month periods, each consisting of a 3-month wash-out period followed by a 12-month intervention and observation period. Randomisation determines only the sequence in which octenidine-impregnated or placebo wash mitts are used. ICUs are left unaware of what mitts packages they are using.The two coprimary endpoints are ICU-acquired primary bacteraemia and ICU-acquired MDRO. Endpoints are defined based on individual ward-movement history and microbiological test results taken from the hospital information systems without need for extra documentation. Data on clinical symptoms of infection are not collected. EFFECT aims at recruiting about 45 ICUs with about 225 000 patient-days per year.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Leipzig (number 340/16-ek) in November 2016. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberDRKS-ID: DRKS00011282.

scholarly journals Barbiturate Induction for the Prevention of Emergence Agitation after Pediatric Sevoflurane Anesthesia

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 385-392
Author(s):  
Tadasuke Use ◽  
Haruna Nakahara ◽  
Ayako Kimoto ◽  
Yuki Beppu ◽  
Maki Yoshimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Induction Agent ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Sevoflurane Anesthesia ◽  
Emergence Agitation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Inhalational Anesthetic

OBJECTIVES: Emergence agitation (EA) is a common and troublesome problem in pediatric patients recovering from general anesthesia. The incidence of EA is reportedly higher after general anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane, a popular inhalational anesthetic agent for pediatric patients. We conducted this prospective, randomized, double-blind study to test the effect of an intravenous ultra-short–acting barbiturate, thiamylal, administered during induction of general anesthesia on the incidence and severity of EA in pediatric patients recovering from Sevoflurane anesthesia. METHODS: Fifty-four pediatric patients (1 to 6 years of age) undergoing subumbilical surgeries were randomized into 2 groups. Patients received either intravenous thiamylal 5mg/kg (Group T) or inhalational Sevoflurane 5% (Group S) as an anesthetic induction agent. Following induction, general anesthesia was maintained with Sevoflurane and nitrous oxide (N2O) in both groups. To control the intra- and post-operative pain, caudal block or ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric block was performed. The incidence and severity of EA were evaluated by using the Modified Objective Pain Scale (MOPS: 0 to 6) at 15 and 30 min after arrival in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS: Fifteen minutes after arrival in the PACU, the incidence of EA in Group T (28%) was significantly lower than in Group S (64%; p = 0.023) and the MOPS in Group T (median 0, range 0 to 6) was significantly lower than in Group S (median 4, range 0 to 6; p = 0.005). The interval from discontinuation of Sevoflurane to emergence from anesthesia was not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Thiamylal induction reduced the incidence and severity of EA in pediatric patients immediately after Sevoflurane anesthesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document