Prevention of propofol injection pain: Comparison between lidocaine and ramosetron.

BACKGROUND: Propofol causes a high incidence of pain during intravenous (IV) injection. The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was to determine whether pre-treatment with IV ramosetron, used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), would reduce propofol-induced pain as an equivalent to lidocaine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hundred and twenty American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (ASA) I and II patients were randomly assigned into three groups (40 in each). Group N received 2 ml of 0.9% saline, Group L received 2 ml of lidocaine, and Group R received 2 ml of ramosetron. Mid forearm was occluded manually before injection and released after 1 min and then propofol was injected over 5 s. Patients were observed and questioned 15 s later if they had pain in the arm and pain was scored on a four-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain. Unpaired Student's t-test and chi-square test/Fisher' exact test were used to analyze results. RESULTS: The incidence of pain in groups N, L, and R were 65, 35, and 30%, respectively. Pain was reduced significantly in the groups L and R (P < 0.05). Two patients each in Groups L and R (5% each) had moderate and severe pain. This difference in pain was statistically insignificant, but when compared to Group N (25 and 30%, respectively) it was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with ramosetron 0.3 mg and lidocaine 40 mg are equally effective in preventing pain from propofol injection.

Adherence to safety precautions in the operation theatre among anaesthesiologists in the COVID era.

Background and Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant infections among healthcare workers and deaths warranting the need for personal protective equipment. This study aimed to estimate the proportion of anaesthesiologists adhering to safety precautions and to evaluate their adherence patterns, difficulties faced and coping mechanisms in the operation theatre during the pandemic. Methods: This was a multicentric mixed methods study conducted among anaesthesiologists from two tertiary care hospitals. A paper-based questionnaire was given to all participants. The first part consisted of 21 questions regarding safety measures and extent of adherence. The second part was a response sheet regarding the various difficulties faced and coping mechanisms adopted. Following this, an in-depth interview was conducted to understand the same. The proportion of anaesthesiologists in different categories of adherence, patterns of adherence, difficulties faced, and coping mechanisms were computed and compared. Thematic framework analysis was done for in-depth interview. Results: Sixty participants were included. The adherence levels for N95 masks and face shields were higher. Most participants practised frequent handwashing and took showers after work. Fogging, difficulty in communication, marks on the face were the commonly faced difficulties. Self reassurance, adjusting the fit of masks/face shields, or taking breaks were the coping mechanisms mostly followed. Themes generated from in-depth interview include waning of caution, adaptation through innovative methods and stress due to uncertainty. Conclusion: The N95 mask was the most preferred safety precaution. Ease of use and safety were important considerations for adherence. Physical and mental acclimatisation and improved knowledge of disease played a vital role.

The comparison of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of dexmedetomidine with esmolol for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine, esmolol, and combination of both on control of sympathetic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in coronary artery disease patients. Material and Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study included 90 patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 30 each: dexmedetomidine group (Group D) 1 µg/kg, esmolol group (Group E) 2 mg/kg, and group dexmedetomidine with esmolol (Group DE) 0.5 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine with 1 mg/kg of esmolol. Each drug was diluted with 0.9% normal saline to 20 ml volume and infused in 10 min before induction of anesthesia. Hemodynamic changes (heart rate [HR], arterial blood pressure, and pulmonary artery pressure) were compared at various time intervals as follows-baseline, after study drug, after induction, and 1, 3, and 5 min after intubation. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact test. Results: In Group DE, there was no significant increase in HR at all-time intervals, and the HR was stable compared to Group D and Group E. Blood pressure values were comparable in all groups except in Group E at 5 min. The pulmonary arterial pressures were statistically less in DE group except at 3 and 5 min. Conclusions: The combination of dexmedetomidine and esmolol group has beneficial effect on HR and pulmonary arterial pressures but has no additional advantage with respect to arterial blood pressure when compared with dexmedetomidine and esmolol groups in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting.

Efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine on propofol injection pain: A randomised, double-blind, prospective study in adult cardiac surgical patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Propofol (2, 6-di-isopropylphenol) used for the induction of anaesthesia often causes mild to severe pain or discomfort on injection. We designed this double-blind study to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine in reducing the pain of propofol injection in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. METHODS: A total of 165 adult patients, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, were divided into three groups: saline (group S, n = 55), lignocaine 20 mg (Group L, n = 55) and methylprednisolone 125 mg diluted into 2 ml of distilled water (Group MP, n = 55). Drugs were administered after tourniquet application and occlusion was released after 1 min and 1/4th of the total dose of propofol (2 mg/kg) was administered at the rate of 0.5 ml/s. Pain on propofol injection was evaluated by four-point verbal rating scale. Statistical methods used included Student's t-test and Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The overall incidence of pain was 70.9% in the saline group, 30.9% in the lignocaine group and 36.4% in the methylprednisolone group. The intensity of pain was significantly less in patients receiving methylprednisolone and lignocaine than those receiving saline (P < 0.012). CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone was found to be as effective as lignocaine in reducing propofol injection-induced pain.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct in postoperative analgesia following cardiac surgery: A randomized, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine analgesic efficacy of dexmedetomidine used as a continuous infusion without loading dose in postcardiac surgery patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study in a single tertiary care hospital on patients posted for elective cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Sixty-four patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery under general anesthesia were shifted to intensive care unit (ICU) and randomly divided into two groups. Group A (n = 32) received a 12 h infusion of normal saline and group B (n = 32) received a 12 h infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.4 µg/kg/h. Postoperative pain was managed with bolus intravenous fentanyl. Total fentanyl consumption, hemodynamic monitoring, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain ratings, Ramsay Sedation Scale were charted every 6(th) hourly for 24 h postoperatively and followed-up till recovery from ICU. Student's t-test, Chi-square/Fisher's exact test has been used to find the significance of study parameters between the groups. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine treated patients had significantly less VAS score at each level (P < 0.001). Total fentanyl consumption in dexmedetomidine group was 128.13 ± 35.78 µg versus 201.56 ± 36.99 µg in saline group (P < 0.001). A statistically significant but clinically unimportant sedation was noted at 6 and 12 h (P < 0.001, and P = 0.046 respectively). Incidence of delirium was less in dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.086+). Hemodynamic parameters were statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine infusion even without loading dose provides safe, effective adjunct analgesia, reduces narcotic consumption, and showed a reduced trend of delirium incidence without undesirable hemodynamic effects in the cardiac surgery patients.