Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction - target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 µg.mL-1, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg-1. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 µg.kg-1, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (p = 0.85), HR (p = 0.49), SR (p = 0.44), or qCON (p = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, p < 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, p = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.

Analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic tranexamic acid in preventing postpartum bleeding: systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum Hemorrhage (PPH) is one of the main causes of maternal mortality, mainly in the poorest regions of the world, drawing attention to the need for strategies for preventing it. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic administration of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in decreasing blood loss in pregnant women in delivery, preventing PPH. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials. We searched for publications in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, with the uniterms "postpartum, puerperal hemorrhage" and "tranexamic acid", published between January of 2004 and January of 2020. The eligibility criteria were trials published in English with pregnant women assessed during and after vaginal or cesarean delivery about the effect of prophylactic use of TXA on bleeding volume. The random-effects model was applied with the DerSimonian-Laird test and the Mean Difference (MD) was calculated for continuous variables together with each 95% CI. This systematic review was previously registered in the PROSPERO platform under the registration n° CRD42020187393. RESULTS: Of the 630 results, 16 trials were selected, including one with two different doses, performing a total of 6731 patients. The intervention group received a TXA dose that varied between 10 mg.kg-1 and 1g (no weight calculation). The TXA use was considered a protective factor for bleeding (MD: -131.07; 95% CI: -170.00 to -92.78; p = 0.000) and hemoglobin variation (MD: -0.417; 95% CI: -0.633 to -0.202; p = 0.000). In the subgroup analysis related to the cesarean pathway, the effect of TXA was even greater. CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of tranexamic acid is effective in reducing the post-partum bleeding volume. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42020187393.

Analysis of the efficacy of prophylactic tranexamic acid in preventing postpartum bleeding: systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Postpartum Hemorrhage (PPH) is one of the main causes of maternal mortality, mainly in the poorest regions of the world, drawing attention to the need for strategies for preventing it. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic administration of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in decreasing blood loss in pregnant women in delivery, preventing PPH. Methods Systematic review of randomized clinical trials. We searched for publications in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, with the uniterms "postpartum, puerperal hemorrhage" and "tranexamic acid", published between January of 2004 and January of 2020. The eligibility criteria were trials published in English with pregnant women assessed during and after vaginal or cesarean delivery about the effect of prophylactic use of TXA on bleeding volume. The random-effects model was applied with the DerSimonian-Laird test and the Mean Difference (MD) was calculated for continuous variables together with each 95% CI. This systematic review was previously registered in the PROSPERO platform under the registration n° CRD42020187393. Results Of the 630 results, 16 trials were selected, including one with two different doses, performing a total of 6731 patients. The intervention group received a TXA dose that varied between 10 mg.kg−1 and 1g (no weight calculation). The TXA use was considered a protective factor for bleeding (MD: -131.07; 95% CI: -170.00 to -92.78; p= 0.000) and hemoglobin variation (MD: -0.417; 95% CI: -0.633 to -0.202; p= 0.000). In the subgroup analysis related to the cesarean pathway, the effect of TXA was even greater. Conclusion The prophylactic use of tranexamic acid is effective in reducing the post-partum bleeding volume. PROSPERO registration ID CRD42020187393.

Efficacy of ropivacaine versus bupivacaine in preventing peribulbar block failure: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Peribulbar block is considered a standard of care in ophthalmological practice due to its easy execution and minor complications. There is a paucity of studies confirming efficacy between ropivacaine and bupivacaine for this specific technique. We evaluated the efficacy of ropivacaine or bupivacaine in preventing total or partial peribulbar block failure in ophthalmic surgeries. METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, comparing patients submitted to ophthalmic surgeries under peribulbar anesthesia with ropivacaine and bupivacaine. We searched in different databases for articles published until March, 2018. Data on patients, anesthesia, procedures and akinesia were tabulated. After calculating the chi-square of heterogeneity, we adopted a random-effects model with DerSimonian-Laird test, as well as an odds ratio and a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: From the 310 articles identified, 21 studies were selected. The use of ropivacaine was considered a protective factor for ocular akinesia failure in peribulbar block when compared to bupivacaine (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.35-0.81 and p value = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In ophthalmic surgeries, ropivacaine in peribulbar anesthesia is associated with lower rate of block failure when compared to bupivacaine.

[Racemic bupivacaine, levobupi vacaine and ropivacaine in regional anesthesia for ophthalmology -- a comparative study]. / Bupivacaína racêmica, levobupivacaína e ropivacaína em anestesia loco-regional para oftalmologia: um estudo comparativo.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Racemic bupivacaine, used in peribulbar anesthesia owing to its high potential to promote motor blockade, presents a smaller safety margin for cardiotoxicity in relation to ropivacaine and levobupivacaine. The objective of this study was to compare the degree of motor blockade and alteration of intraocular pressure (IOP) produced by racemic bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and ropivacaine in peribulbar block. METHOD: Ninety seven patients, ASA physical status I and II, submitted to peribulbar anesthesia, were randomly allocated into three groups: group A-(n=16) receiving racemic bupivacaine 0.75% with epinephrine 1:200.000; group B -(n=16) levobupivacaine 0.75% with epinephrine 1:200.000; group C -(n=15) ropivacaine 0.75%. A single inferior injection peribulbar anesthesia was performed with 7 ml of the anesthetic solution plus 280 UI of hyaluronidase. The IOP and the degree of motor blockade were registered five minutes before injection and 1,2,3,4,5 and 10 minutes after it. The motor blockade was evaluated according to Nicoll's scale. For statistical analysis, Wilcoxon's test, simple frequency analysis, and Student-t test were used. p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to the degree of motor blockade. The IOP variation between the groups was not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the advanced age of most of these patients and the high concentrations of local anesthetics used in peribulbar blockade, the use of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine produces motor blockade as effective as racemic bupivacaine while minimising risks for cardiotoxicity.

Bupivacaína racêmica, levobupivacaína e ropivacaína em anestesia loco-regional para oftalmologia: um estudo comparativo / Racemic bupivacaine, levobupi vacaine and ropivacaine in regional anesthesia for ophtalmology: a comparative study

OBJETIVO: A bupivacaína racêmica, utilizada largamente em anestesia peribulbar devido à boa qualidade de bloqueio motor, apresenta menor margem de segurança para cardiotoxicidade em relação a ropivacaína e bupivacaína levógira. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar o grau de bloqueio motor e alteração da pressão intra-ocular (PIO) em anestesia peribulbar produzida pela bupivacaína racêmica, levobupivacaína e ropivacaína. MÉTODOS: Noventa e sete pacientes, estado físico I e II da classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologistas, submetidos a anestesia peribulbar, foram divididos em três grupos: grupo A-(n=16) bupivacaína racêmica 0,75 por cento com adrenalina 1:200.000; grupo B -(n=16) bupivacaína levógira 0,75 por cento com adrenalina 1:200.000; grupo C -(n=15) ropivacaína 0,75 por cento. Utilizou-se 7ml da solução anestésica com 280 UI de hialuronidase, em punção única no rebordo orbital inferior. Foram registrados a PIO e grau de bloqueio motor 5 minutos antes da punção e 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 e 10 minutos após a punção. O bloqueio motor foi avaliado pela escala de Nicoll. Para a análise estatística, foram utilizados os testes de Wilcoxon, análise de freqüência simples e t de Student. Foi considerado significativo p<0.05. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferenças significativas entre os grupos quanto ao grau de bloqueio motor. A variação da PIO entre os grupos não apresentou significado clínico. CONCLUSÕES: Considerando-se a idade avançada da maioria dos pacientes e as altas concentrações utilizadas em bloqueio peribulbar, a ropivacaína e a levobupivacaína representam um avanço, pois além de maior segurança em relação à cardiotoxicidade, produzem o mesmo grau de bloqueio motor da bupivacaína racêmica.