scholarly journals A Comparison of Ondansetron and Lidocaine in Reducing Injection Pain of Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wirat Wasinwong ◽  
Sarocha Termthong ◽  
Prae Plansangkate ◽  
Jutarat Tanasansuttiporn ◽  
Riam Kosem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Syringe Pump ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Median Pain

Abstract Background Propofol injection pain is common. Previous studies found that ondansetron can also block sodium channels. Objective The primary outcome was the efficacy of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for the reduction of propofol injection pain. Method This trial was conducted in 240 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III and aged between 18-65 years old, undergoing elective surgery, and having a 20-gauge intravenous catheter at the hand dorsum. Each group of 80 patients received 8 mg of ondansetron in the O Group, 40 mg of lidocaine in the L Group and normal saline in the C Group. The study medications were blindly given then 1 minute later, the propofol was administered via the syringe pump at the rate of 600 ml/hr. for 30 seconds. Thereafter, the syringe pump of propofol was temporarily paused, and the patients were asked to rate his/her pain. Result The incidence of pain was lowest in the L group (66.2%) compared with the O (82.5%) and the C groups (85.0%) (P<0.01). The median pain score in the L, O, and C groups were 2 (0-4), 4 (2-5), and 4.5 (2-6), respectively (P<0.01). The incidences of no pain, mild, moderate, and severe pain were also significantly different in the L group (33.8%, 37.5%, 21.2%, and 7.5%, respectively) compared with those in the O group (17.5%, 31.2%, 31.2%, and 20.0%, respectively) and the C groups (15.0%, 22.5%, 40.0%, and 22.5%, respectively) (P<0.01).. Conclusion Pretreatment with intravenous lidocaine, rather than ondansetron, can reduce the incidence and intensity of propofol-induced pain.

scholarly journals Reliable and rapid smooth extubation after Ketofol for induction of general anesthesia in Laparoscopic Drilling of polycystic ovary: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atef Mohamed Sayed Mahmoud ◽  
Joseph Makram Botros ◽  
Safaa Gaber Ragab
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Polycystic Ovary ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Airway Response ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Background the outcome of ketofol on the hemodynamics and the airway response during induction of general anesthesia has been studied before. Its effect on smoothness of extubation has not been studied before. So, we aimed to assess the effect of ketofol on the smoothness of extubation and compare it with propofol only for induction of general anesthesia. Methods This double-blind, randomized, and controlled study was conducted on one hundred and six American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical status ''ASA PS'' class I and II female patients aged 18–40 years old and scheduled for laparoscopic drilling for polycystic ovary disease under general anesthesia. The patients were assigned into one of two groups (53) patients each; group KP = ketofol and group P = propofol. Results There was good sedation score during suction and extubation in the ketofol group. Airway response and smoothness of extubation were better in the ketofol group better than the propofol group. Conclusion Ketofol as an induction anesthetic agent was effective in attenuating the airway response during extubation more than profofol only. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at the Clinical Trial.gov with the Identification Number: NCT04365686.

scholarly journals Effect of Intravenous Dexamethasone on Propofol Injection Pain: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Muhammad Sazzad Hossain ◽  
Md Afzalur Rahman ◽  
Mamunur Rashid ◽  
Monirul Islam ◽  
Anisur Rahman Babu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Normal Saline ◽  
Saline Group ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Moderate Pain ◽  
Dexamethasone Group ◽  
Group I ◽  
Elective Surgical Procedure ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Background and aim of study: Pain on propofol injection (POPI) is a common problem. None of the commonly used methods completely attenuate the pain. Inflammatory response to propofol contributes to the pain. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone in attenuation of pain following intravenous injection of propofol. Materials and methods: A total of 80 adult patients were scheduled in this study with either sex, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) grade I and II, for routine elective surgical procedure under general anesthesia. The patients enrolled were divided randomly into two groups of 40 patients each. Group I received 0.15 mg/kg of intravenous dexamethasone in 5 ml normal saline and Group II (placebo group) received 5 ml of 0.9% intravenous normal saline, following exsanguination and occlusion of the vein of the arm. This was followed by 0.5 mg/kg of propofol intravenously.The patients were asked to report their pain during injection of propofol according to the McCririck and Hunter scale. Results: The incidence of pain experienced in dexamethasone group was 45% patients and in saline group was 70% patients (p<0.05). The severity of POPI was also lower in dexamethasone group than the saline group (p<0.05). The incidence of mild and moderate pain in dexamethasone groups versus saline group was 30% versus 45% and 15% versus 25% respectively p<0.05. There was no severe pain recorded in any groups. Conclusion: Pretreatment with intravenous dexamethasone (0.15 mg/kg) before injection of propofol is effective and safe in reducing the incidence and severity of pain on propofol injection (POPI). Bangladesh J Otorhinolaryngol; April 2019; 25(1): 28-33

Comparison of the Potency of Different Propofol Formulations

2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan Le Guen ◽  
Stanislas Grassin-Delyle ◽  
Camille Cornet ◽  
Antoine Genty ◽  
Thierry Chazot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Saline Solution ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Verbal Response ◽  
Closed Loop System ◽  
Physical Status ◽  
American Society ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Blinded Trial

Abstract Background Several commercial formulations of propofol are available. The primary outcome of this study was the required dose of propofol alone or combined with lidocaine to achieve induction of general anesthesia. Methods This multicenter, double-blinded trial randomized patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–III) just before elective surgery with the use of a computer-generated list. Three different propofol 1% formulations—Diprivan® (Astra-Zeneca, Cheshire, United Kingdom), Propofol® (Fresenius-Kabi AG, Bad Homburg, Germany), and Lipuro® (B-Braun, Melshungen AG, Germany)—were compared with either placebo (saline solution) or lidocaine 1% mixed to the propofol solution. Depth of anesthesia was automatically guided by bispectral index and by a computerized closed-loop system for induction, thus avoiding dosing bias. The authors recorded the total dose of propofol and duration of induction and the patient’s discomfort through a behavioral scale (facial expression, verbal response, and arm withdrawal) ranging from 0 to 6. The authors further evaluated postoperative recall of pain using a Visual Analog Scale. Results Of the 227 patients enrolled, 217 were available for analysis. Demographic characteristics were similar in each group. Propofol® required a higher dose for induction (2.2 ± 0.1 mg/kg) than Diprivan® (1.8 ± 0.1 mg/kg) or Lipuro® (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/kg; P = 0.02). However, induction doses were similar when propofol formulations were mixed with lidocaine. Patient discomfort during injection was significantly reduced with lidocaine for every formulation: Diprivan® (0.5 ± 0.3 vs. 2.3 ± 0.3), Propofol® (0.4 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.3), and Lipuro® (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3), all differences significant, with P &lt; 0.0001. No adverse effect was reported. Conclusion Plain propofol formulations are not equipotent, but comparable doses were required when lidocaine was concomitantly administered.

scholarly journals Reliable and rapid smooth extubation after Ketofol for induction of general anesthesia in Laparoscopic Drilling of polycystic ovary: A randomized controlled trial.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atef Mohamed Sayed Mahmoud ◽  
Safaa Gaber Ragab ◽  
Joseph Makram Botros
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Polycystic Ovary ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Physical Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Airway Response ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Abstract Background : the outcome of ketofol on the hemodynamics and the airway response during induction of general anesthesia has been studied before. Its effect on the smoothness of extubation has not been studied before. So, we aimed to assess the effect of ketofol on the smoothness of extubation and compare it with propofol only for the induction of general anesthesia. Methods: This double-blind, randomized, and controlled study was conducted on one hundred and six American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical status ''ASA PS'' class I and II female patients aged 18-40 years old and scheduled for laparoscopic drilling for polycystic ovary disease under general anesthesia. The patients were assigned into one of two groups (53) patients each; group KP = ketofol and group P = propofol. Results: There was a good sedation score during suction and extubation in the ketofol group. Airway response and smoothness of extubation were better in the ketofol more than the propofol group. Conclusion: Ketofol as an induction anesthetic agent was effective in attenuating the airway response during extubation more than profofol only. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at the Clinical Trial.gov with the Identification Number: NCT04365686.

scholarly journals Reliable and rapid smooth extubation after Ketofol for induction of general anesthesia in Laparoscopic Drilling of polycystic ovary: A randomized controlled trial.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atef Mohamed Sayed Mahmoud ◽  
Safaa Gaber Ragab ◽  
Joseph Makram Botros
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Polycystic Ovary ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Airway Response ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: The impact of ketofol on the hemodynamics and the airway response during the induction of general anesthesia has been studied before. However, its effect on the smoothness of extubation has not been studied before. Thus, we aimed to assess the effect of ketofol on the smoothness of extubation and compare it with propofol for the induction of general anesthesia.Methods: This double-blind, randomized, and controlled study was conducted on 106 class I and II female patients with the “American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS),” aged 18–40 years and scheduled for laparoscopic drilling for polycystic ovary disease under general anesthesia. The patients were assigned to one of two groups of (53) patients each; group KP = ketofol and group P = propofol. Results: There was a good sedation score during suction and extubation in the ketofol group. Airway response and smoothness of extubation were better in the ketofol than in the propofol group.Conclusion: Ketofol as an induction anesthetic agent was effective in attenuating the airway response during extubation more than only propofol.Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at the Clinical Trial.gov with the Identification Number: NCT04365686.

scholarly journals Comparison of Train of Four Measurements with Kinemyography NMT DATEX and Accelerography TOFscan

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Cyrus Motamed ◽  
Migena Demiri ◽  
Nora Colegrave
Keyword(s):  
Neuromuscular Blockade ◽  
Lower Limit ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Orotracheal Intubation ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Train Of Four ◽  
Surgery First ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Introduction: This study was designed to compare the Datex neuromuscular transmission (NMT) kinemyography (NMTK) device with the TOFscan (TS) accelerometer during the onset and recovery of neuromuscular blockade. Patients and methods: This prospective study included adult patients who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery with general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation. The TS accelerometer was randomly placed at the adductor pollicis on one hand, and the NMTK was placed on the opposite arm. Anesthesia was initiated with remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) and 2.0–3.0 mg/kg of propofol. Thereafter, 0.5 mg/kg of atracurium or 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium was injected. If needed, additional neuromuscular blocking agents were administered to facilitate surgery. First, we recorded the train of four (TOF) response at the onset of neuromuscular blockade to reach a TOF count of 0. Second, we recorded the TOF response at the recovery of neuromuscular blockade to obtain a T4/T1 90% by both TS and NMTK. Results: There were 32 patients, aged 38–83 years, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification I–III included and analyzed. Surgery was abdominal, gynecologic, or head and neck. The Bland and Altman analysis for obtaining zero responses during the onset showed a bias (mean) of 2.7 s (delay) of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [104; −109 s] and a bias of 36 s of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [−21.8, −23.1 min] during recovery (T4/T1 > 90%). Conclusions: Under the conditions of the present study, the two devices are not interchangeable. Clinical decisions for deep neuromuscular blockade should be made cautiously, as both devices appear less accurate with significant variability.

Comparison of the standard and triple airway maneuvering techniques for i-gel™ placement in patients undergoing elective surgery: a randomized controlled study

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 512-518
Author(s):  
İlkay Baran Akkuş ◽  
Fatma Kavak Akelma ◽  
Merve Emlek ◽  
Derya Özkan ◽  
Jülide Ergil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Basilar Artery Occlusion Chinese Endovascular Trial: Protocol for a prospective randomized controlled study

2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110409
Author(s):  
Chuanhui Li ◽  
Chuanjie Wu ◽  
Longfei Wu ◽  
Wenbo Zhao ◽  
Jian Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Basilar Artery ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Infarct Volume ◽  
Artery Occlusion ◽  
Basilar Artery Occlusion ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Rationale There are no randomized trials examining the best treatment for acute basilar artery occlusion in the 6–24-hour time window. Aims To assess the safety and efficacy of thrombectomy for stroke due to basilar artery occlusion in patients randomized within 6–24 h from symptom onset or time last seen well. Sample size For an estimated difference of 20% in proportions of the primary outcome between the two groups, 318 patients will be included for 5% significance and 90% power with a planned interim analysis after two-thirds of the sample size (212 patients) have achieved the 90 days follow-up. Methods and design A prospective, multi-center, randomized, controlled, open-label and blinded-endpoint trial. The randomization employs a 1:1 ratio of mechanical thrombectomy with the detachable Solitaire thrombectomy device and best medical therapy (BMT) vs. BMT alone. Study outcomes The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients achieving modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–3 at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes are: dramatic early favorable response, dichotomized mRS score (0–2 vs. 3–6 and 0–4 vs. 5–6) at 90 days, ordinal (shift) mRS analysis at 90 days, infarct volume at 24 h, vessel recanalization at 24 h in both treatment arms, and successful recanalization in the thrombectomy arm according to the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) classification defined as mTICI 2 b or 3. Safety variables are mortality at 90 days, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates at 24 h, and procedure-related complications. Discussion Results from this trial will indicate whether mechanical thrombectomy is superior to medical management alone in achieving favorable outcomes in subjects with acute stroke caused by basilar artery occlusion presenting within 6–24 h from symptom onset. Trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737189.

Epidural Neostigmine versus Fentanyl to Decrease Bupivacaine Use in Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia during Labor

2017 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Booth ◽  
Vernon H. Ross ◽  
Kenneth E. Nelson ◽  
Lynnette Harris ◽  
James C. Eisenach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Epidural Analgesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Regulatory Compliance ◽  
Epidural Bupivacaine ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Labor Epidural ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background The addition of opioids to epidural local anesthetic reduces local anesthetic consumption by 20% but at the expense of side effects and time spent for regulatory compliance paperwork. Epidural neostigmine also reduces local anesthetic use. The authors hypothesized that epidural bupivacaine with neostigmine would decrease total hourly bupivacaine use compared with epidural bupivacaine with fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Methods A total of 215 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II, laboring parturients requesting labor epidural analgesia consented to the study and were randomized to receive 0.125% bupivacaine with the addition of either fentanyl (2 μg/ml) or neostigmine (2, 4, or 8 μg/ml). The primary outcome was total hourly local anesthetic consumption, defined as total patient-controlled epidural analgesia use and top-ups (expressed as milliliters of 0.125% bupivacaine) divided by the infusion duration. A priori analysis determined a group size of 35 was needed to have 80% power at α = 0.05 to detect a 20% difference in the primary outcome. Results Of 215 subjects consented, 151 patients were evaluable. Demographics, maternal and fetal outcomes, and labor characteristics were similar among groups. Total hourly local anesthetic consumption did not differ among groups (P = 0.55). The total median hourly bupivacaine consumption in the fentanyl group was 16.0 ml/h compared with 15.3, 14.6, and 16.2 ml/h in the 2, 4, and 8 μg/ml neostigmine groups, respectively (P = 0.55). Conclusions The data do not support any difference in bupivacaine requirements for labor patient-controlled epidural analgesia whether patients receive epidural bupivacaine with 2 to 8 μg/ml neostigmine or epidural bupivacaine with 2 μg/ml fentanyl.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document