Dataset Information

Spinal or Intravenous Dexmedetomidine for Spinal Anesthesia with Chloroprocaine in Ambulatory Knee Arthroscopies: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Chloroprocaine provides spinal anesthesia for day-case surgery lasting up to 40 minutes. Intravenous and spinal dexmedetomidine can prolong spinal anesthesia, but no data are available for the combination with chloroprocaine. This double-blind randomized controlled trial compares chloroprocaine with spinal or intravenous dexmedetomidine regarding block characteristics, micturition, and discharge times.

Patients and methods

After ethical approval and informed consent, 135 patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were randomized to receive either 40mg spinal chloroprocaine (Chloro-group), 40mg chloroprocaine with 5 mcg spinal dexmedetomidine (Spinal Dex-group) or 40mg chloroprocaine with 0.5 mcg/kg IV dexmedetomidine (IV DEXgroup). Block characteristics, hemodynamic variables and the use of analgesics were registered. Voiding and discharge times were noted. A scoring system was used for micturition problems and sedation. Transient neurological symptoms (TNS) and other late side effects were evaluated after one week.

Results

Demographic data were similar between groups. Block onset times and intensity of motor block were comparable between groups. The time to L2 and Bromage 1 regression was prolonged in the SpinalDEx-group by approximately 30 minutes compared to the other groups (p < 0.01). First voiding as well as discharge from the hospital was prolonged in the Spinal Dex-group by approximately 40 minutes p < 0.01. There was no significant difference between groups regarding treatment of hypotension, sedation, micturition problems or the use of postoperative analgesics (P > 0.8). One patient experienced TNS.

Conclusion

Intrathecal but not intravenous (0.5 mcg/kg) dexmedetomidine can prolong chloroprocaine (40mg) spinal anesthesia when surgery is expected to last over 40 minutes. Despite a similar incidence of adverse effects, this also led to a postponed hospital discharge time.

SUBMITTER: Breebaart MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8612665 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe ideal local anesthetic for use in ambulatory spinal anesthesia is safe, with minimal adverse effects, and of a duration that does not impede post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. Since its approval for use in spinal anesthesia in Europe in 2012, chloroprocaine has seen a resurgence. Recent studies have investigated the safety and efficacy of preservative-free chloroprocaine for use in spinal anesthesia, but few provide the incidence of adverse events such as urinary retention and transient neurologic symptoms.Questions/purposesWe sought to assess the safety of chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia, including the incidence of adverse events and the duration and quality of its use, in the initial 6 months of its use at our institution. We hypothesized that chloroprocaine would provide effective spinal anesthesia for orthopedic cases of short duration, with a low rate of complications.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients from June to December 2016 at our institution who had ambulatory knee arthroscopy or foot procedures in which chloroprocaine spinal anesthesia was used. For all 445 charts analyzed, data were collected on anesthesia characteristics, office visits, nursing PACU assessment, and nursing post-operative day 1 follow-up phone calls.ResultsThe median chloroprocaine dosage was 44 mg (interquartile range [IQR], 40 to 50). The median duration of sensory block was 156 min (IQR, 128 to 189) and of motor block was 148 min (IQR, 123 to 181). Time to ambulation was 186 min (IQR, 158 to 218) and time to meeting of discharge criteria was 218 min (IQR, 189 to 250). The most common adverse events in the PACU were bradycardia and hypotension. No patients had urinary retention or transient neurologic symptoms.ConclusionsIn 6 months of use at our institution, chloroprocaine provided safe and effective spinal anesthesia for short orthopedic procedures, with no incidence of transient neurologic symptoms, neuropraxia, or urinary retention.

Project description:Background: Propofol injection pain, despite various interventions, still occurs during the anesthesia induction and causes intense discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on propofol injection pain prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C. Methods: A total of 251 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II) who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomly assigned to a combination group (n = 63), lidocaine group (n = 62), dexmedetomidine group (n = 63), and placebo-control group (n = 63); they received 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C, 40 mg lidocaine, 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction, and normal saline, respectively. Incidence of pain, pain intensity, and reaction to the pain stimulus were evaluated by using verbal categorial scoring (VCS), a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), respectively. In addition, hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were also measured. The VCS and NRS were evaluated at 5 s after propofol injection. In addition, SPI, HR, and MAP were evaluated at three time points (before anesthesia induction and 5 and 30 s after propofol injection). Results: The incidence of pain in the combination group (51%) was significantly lower than that in the lidocaine group (71%), dexmedetomidine group (67%), or placebo-control group (94%) (p < 0.001). VCS and NRS scores in the combination group were also lower compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine group and dexmedetomidine group (p > 0.05). The SPI of the combination group decreased significantly in comparison with the other three groups at 5 s after propofol injection (F = 96.23, p < 0.001) and 30 s after propofol injection (F = 4.46, p = 0.005). Further comparisons between HR and MAP revealed no significant differences across the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Because of the sedative nature of dexmedetomidine and analgesic effect of low temperature, this study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C is highly effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of pain during injection compared with lidocaine (40 mg), dexmedetomidine 0.5 ug/kg) and placebo. This approach was not associated with any anesthesia complications. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-2000034663.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:This observational study was designed to assess the use of spinal anesthesia with chloroprocaine in the context of ambulatory surgery. METHODS:A prospective, multicenter, observational study was carried out among 33 private or public centers between May 2014 and January 2015 and adult patients, scheduled for a short ambulatory surgery under spinal anesthesia with chloroprocaine. The primary outcomes were anesthetic effectiveness, defined as performance of the whole surgical procedure without any additional anesthetic agent, and the time to achieve eligibility for hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were the effect of chloroprocaine on motor and sensory blocks, patients' satisfaction, and the use of analgesics in the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS:Among the 615 enrolled patients, 56% were male, the mean age was 47.2?±?15.2 years, and most patients had an ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of 1 (63.7%). Main surgical procedures performed were orthopedic (62.6%) and gynecologic (16.1%), and the mean duration of surgery was 26.7?±?16.7 min. The overall anesthetic success rate was 93.8% (95% CI [91.5%; 95.6%]) for the 580 patients with available data for primary criteria. The failure rate was lower than 7% for all surgical procedures, except for gynecologic surgery (14.8%; 95% CI [8.1%; 23.9%]). The average times of eligibility for hospital discharge and effective discharge were 252.7?±?82.7 min and 313.8?±?109.9 min, respectively. The time of eligibility for hospital discharge is defined as the recovery of the patient's normal clinical parameters and the time of effective discharge is defined as the time for the patient to leave the hospital after surgery. Eligibility for patient's discharge was achieved more rapidly in private than public hospitals (236.3?±?77.2 min vs. 280.9?±?80.7 min, respectively, p?<?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:This study showed positive results on the effectiveness of chloroprocaine as a short-duration anesthetic and could be used to reduce the time to achieve eligibility for hospital discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02152293. Registered on May 6, 2014. Date of enrollment of the first participant in the trial May 7, 2014.

Project description:Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) has been performed under controlled hypotension to increase operating field visibility. Intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine is easy, noninvasive, and possesses lower C max, accompanied by lower pharmacodynamic action, including hypotension, bradycardia, and sedation. This trial aimed to compare IN and intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine for hypotensive anesthesia during FESS. This randomized, controlled, triple-blinded clinical trial involved sixty cases scheduled for FESS. Patients were divided into two equal groups by random manner. 45-60 min before anesthesia induction, group IN: received 1 μg/kg IN dexmedetomidine diluted in 10 ml of saline 0.9 % intranasally preoperative. Group IV: received 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine diluted in 10 ml of saline 0.9 % infused over 10 min. The primary outcome was the total amount of administered atropine. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic, through 1 h before surgery, intraoperatively and postoperatively at different time intervals. The quality of the operative field, sedation, adverse reactions and hemostatic stuffing after FESS were also assessed. The total amount of consumed atropine decreased significantly in group IN compared to group IV. Preoperative Ramsay Sedation scores at T0, T5, T50 and T60 were comparable between the two groups, while at T10, T15, T20, T30, and T40 were lower significantly in the IN group compared with the IV group. Preoperative mean arterial blood pressure at T0, T5 and T60 had comparable differences across both groups while reduced at T10 to T 45 significantly in the IV group than IN group. Both groups had comparable satisfaction, postoperative Ramsey sedation, hemostatic suffering, quality of operative field and complications. In conclusion, IN dexmedetomidine administration is relatively simple and appropriate; moreover, it decreases first-pass metabolism. Onset is prolonged relative to IV dosing; thus, it should be administered nearly 1 h before surgery and recommended in adult patients as they require minor sedation preoperatively.

Project description:BackgroundOphthalmic ambulatory surgery is preferred to be performed under general anesthesia either by total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or by inhalational anesthesia to increase the patient comfort. However, anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) can cause increased non-operative operating room (OR) time which may adversely affect the ORs efficiency. This study was aimed to compare the ACT of desflurane with that of propofol-remifentanil in strabismus ambulatory surgery.MethodsFrom November 2016 to December 2017, a total of 200 strabismus patients (aged 18-60 years old, and scheduled for elective ambulatory surgery at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center) were randomly assigned to receive either propofol-based TIVA (group TIVA) or desflurane anesthesia (group DES) for maintenance of anesthesia. The primary outcome was the extubation time. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, anesthetic time, OR exit time, and Phase I and II recovery time. The intraoperative incidences of hypotension, bradycardia and oculocardiac reflex (OCR), and the incidences of any post-operative complications were recorded. Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square or Fisher exact tests were used to compare the two groups.ResultsWe found that the extubation time (5.5 [3.9-7.0] vs. 9.7 [8.5-11.4] min, P < 0.001) and the incidence of prolonged time to extubation (0 vs. 6%, P = 0.029) in the DES group were significantly decreased compared with those in the TIVA group. The patients in the DES group displayed shorter OR exit time as compared with that in the TIVA group (7.3 [5.5-8.7] vs. 10.8 [9.3-12.3] min, P < 0.001). The patients using desflurane exhibited more stable hemodynamics during surgery than the patients using propofol-based TIVA, as demonstrated by lower incidences of hypotension (1% vs. 22%, P < 0.001), bradycardia (2% vs. 13%, P = 0.002), and OCR (17% vs. 44%, P < 0.001).ConclusionDES enhanced the ophthalmic OR efficiency by reducing the extubation time and OR exit time, and provided more stable hemodynamics intra-operatively than TIVA in patients undergoing strabismus ambulatory surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT02922660; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02922660?id=NCT02922660&draw=2&rank=1.