Risk factors of more severe hypotension after spinal anesthesia for cesarean section.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the risk factors associated with the use of vasopressors to prevent hypotension that occurs after spinal anesthesia during cesarean section. Although the prophylactic use of vasopressors is already suggested as routine care in many parts of the world, the occurrence of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension (SAIH) is still common in parturients. METHODS: This retrospective study included parturients receiving elective cesarean deliveries under spinal anesthesia from April 2016 to March 2020. Risk factors related to ephedrine dosage were analyzed using a hurdle model, and risk factors related to SAIH were further analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Five risk factors, namely maternal body mass index (BMI, p < 0.001), baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP, p < 0.001), baseline heart rate (HR, p = 0.047), multiparity ( p = 0.003), and large fetal weight ( p = 0.005) were significantly associated with the requirement for ephedrine. Furthermore, a higher ephedrine dosage was significantly associated with maternal BMI ( p < 0.001), baseline SBP ( p < 0.001), baseline HR ( p < 0.001), multiparity ( p = 0.027), large fetal weight ( p = 0.030), maternal age ( p = 0.009), and twin pregnancies ( p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis also showed that the same five risk factors-maternal BMI ( p = 0.030), baseline SBP ( p < 0.001), baseline HR ( p < 0.001), multiparity ( p < 0.001), and large fetal weight ( p < 0.001)-were significantly associated with SAIH, even in cases where vasopressors were administered. CONCLUSION: These findings can be useful for clinicians when deciding the dose of prophylactic ephedrine or phenylephrine to prevent SAIH.

Intraoperative Use of Phenylephrine versus Ephedrine and Postoperative Delirium: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of intraoperative hypotension with phenylephrine may impair cerebral perfusion through vasoconstriction, which has been linked to postoperative delirium. The hypothesis was that intraoperative administration of phenylephrine, compared to ephedrine, is associated with higher odds of postoperative delirium. METHODS: A total of 103,094 hospitalized adults undergoing general anesthesia for noncardiac, non-neurosurgical procedures between 2008 and 2020 at two tertiary academic healthcare networks in Massachusetts were included in this multicenter hospital registry study. The primary exposure was the administration of phenylephrine versus ephedrine during surgery, and the primary outcome was postoperative delirium within 7 days. Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for a priori defined confounding variables including patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedural factors including magnitude of intraoperative hypotension were applied. RESULTS: Between the two healthcare networks, 78,982 (76.6%) patients received phenylephrine, and 24,112 (23.4%) patients received ephedrine during surgery; 770 patients (0.8%) developed delirium within 7 days. The median (interquartile range) total intraoperative dose of phenylephrine was 1.0 (0.2 to 3.3) mg and 10.0 (10.0 to 20.0) mg for ephedrine. In adjusted analyses, the administration of phenylephrine, compared to ephedrine, was associated with higher odds of developing postoperative delirium within 7 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.71; and adjusted absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.3%; P = 0.015). A keyword and manual chart review-based approach in a subset of 45,465 patients further validated these findings (delirium incidence, 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.37; P < 0.001). Fractional polynomial regression analysis further indicated a dose-dependent effect of phenylephrine (adjusted coefficient, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = 0.013, per each µg/kg increase in the cumulative phenylephrine dose). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of phenylephrine compared to ephedrine during general anesthesia was associated with higher odds of developing postoperative delirium. Based on these data, clinical trials are warranted to determine whether favoring ephedrine over phenylephrine for treatment of intraoperative hypotension can reduce delirium after surgery.

Prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean section: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis based on ephedrine, phenylephrine, and norepinephrine.

AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine, phenylephrine, and norepinephrine for the prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean section. METHODS: The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library were searched until to May 20, 2022. The indicators included incidence of hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, umbilical artery pH, and Apgar scores. RESULTS: About 3125 related records were obtained and 17 RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Based on the results, prophylactic bolus injection of 21-30 mg ephedrine (82%) was the best efficacious option for preventing hypotension, followed by 13-16 µg norepinephrine and 81-120 mg phenylephrine; 121-150 µg phenylephrine had the highest probability (62%) caused reactive hypertension, followed by 11-30 mg ephedrine; phenylephrine was most likely to cause bradycardia in a dose-dependent manner; 81-120 µg phenylephrine had the highest probability (37%) which associated with IONV; 6-12 µg norepinephrine (31%) had the lowest influence on IONV and had highest probability (34%) associated with improving umbilical arterial pH; 13-16 µg norepinephrine had highest probability (67% at 1 min, 49% at 5 min) which associated with improving Apgar scores. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, 5-10 mg ephedrine and 13-16 µg norepinephrine prophylactic bolus injection may be the optimum dosage of three drugs prevent spinal-induced hypotension, which has the least impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Severe blood pressure elevation following ephedrine administration during carotid endarterectomy under general anesthesia: A CARE-compliant case report.

RATIONALE: During carotid endarterectomy (CEA) surgery, blood pressure management is particularly important to prevent cerebrovascular and cardiac complications. Ephedrine is a commonly used vasopressor, however, we report the case of a patient with unusually severe blood pressure elevation following intravenous ephedrine administration during CEA. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 72-year-old man diagnosed with right proximal internal carotid artery stenosis underwent CEA under general anesthesia. After declamping the common carotid artery, blood pressure rapidly increased by 125 mm Hg (from 90 to 215 mm Hg) after ephedrine (4 mg) was administered, but the heart rate was stable. DIAGNOSES: There was an ordinal increase in blood pressure after the same small dose of ephedrine was administered at the early stage of the surgery. And the surgical approach was difficult because he had a high location of carotid bifurcation and a prominent mandibular angle. Because of the anatomical proximity of the cervical sympathetic trunk to the carotid bifurcation and the particularly complicated surgical process in the present case, we postulate the reason for this adverse reaction as transient sympathetic denervation supersensitivity. INTERVENTIONS: Perdipine (0.5 mg) was administered repeatedly to reduce blood pressure. OUTCOMES: After surgery, he was diagnosed with right hypoglossal nerve palsy, and no other abnormal signs were found. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the need for caution in the use of ephedrine, which is commonly used in CEA surgery, wherein blood pressure management is particularly important. Although it is a rare and unpredictable case, α-agonists are considered safer in situations where sympathetic supersensitivity is possible.

Ventricular Tachycardia Following Ephedrine During Dexmedetomidine Dental Procedural Sedation.

We present the case of a 46-year-old man who received ephedrine for hypotension after surgery for a mandibular lesion under intravenous (IV) moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) and experienced transient ventricular tachycardia (VT). The patient was scheduled to have cystectomy and multiple apicoectomies for the mandibular periapical infection and the simple bone cyst. Other than obesity, snoring, and a nonalcoholic fatty liver, he denied any other significant medical history, medications, or allergies. The surgery was successful; however, his blood pressure dropped after stopping the DEX infusion. Ephedrine was administered IV several times, which resulted in the onset of VT on the electrocardiogram (ECG). His blood pressure could not be measured at the time, but he was able to respond and breathe independently. A defibrillator was immediately made available. The ECG revealed a spontaneous transition from VT to atrial fibrillation with ST depression. Because he was unable to revert to a normal sinus rhythm, the patient was transferred to a general hospital, where he underwent additional testing. No abnormalities were observed in his heart or brain. After DEX administration, its long-lasting alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonist effects can cause vasodilation and inhibition of sympathetic activity, leading to hypotension in some patients. Should that occur, ephedrine can be used to increase blood pressure, but it may also provoke transient coronary artery spasms and lead to VT. Consequently, extreme caution should be exercised in patients who develop hypotension following DEX administration. We also recognize the significance of regular training sessions, such as advanced cardiac life support programs.

A randomized comparison of hemodynamic changes in response to a heart rate-dependent phenylephrine/ephedrine protocol versus ephedrine-only for spinal hypotension during elective cesarean section.

AIM: To compare incidences of abnormal heart rate (HR) between the phenylephrine/ephedrine protocol (P/E protocol) against the ephedrine-only (C) protocol, conventionally used for treating predelivery hypotension following spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-eight parturients with pre-delivery hypotension after spinal anesthesia were equally randomized to (1) Group P/E (n = 134), phenylephrine 100 mcg in 10 mL intravenously if HR ≥ 60 beats/min (bpm), or ephedrine 6 mg intravenously if HR < 60 bpm, and 2) Group C (n = 134). The primary outcome was the incidence of the parturients with abnormal HR after vasopressor administration. The secondary outcome was the mean differences of HR and hypotensive periods during the pre-delivery period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of between-group incidences of bradycardia (12.0% in Group P/E vs 6.7% in Group C, p = 0.136) and tachycardia (26.9% vs 35.8%, p = 0.114). Mean HR was 81.9 bpm (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.9, 84.3) in Group P/E, and 88.8 bpm (86.8, 90.6) in Group C (p < 0.001). The duration of hypotension in relation to the time interval from spinal anesthesia to delivery was 20.9% (95% CI 18.4-23.2) in Group P/E, and 26.5% (23.9-29.3) in Group C (p < 0.01). The calculated area under the curve (AUC) of abnormal HR in relation to time was significantly reduced only in Group P/E (p < 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The incidences of out-of-range HR were comparable, but the P/E protocol resulted in a lower mean HR and better control of systolic blood pressure than the ephedrine-only protocol.

Over a century since ephedrine discovery: an updated revisit to its pharmacological aspects, functionality and toxicity in comparison to its herbal extracts.

Ephedrine, a sympathomimetic amine that exhibits several adrenaline actions, is a plant alkaloid that is a common ingredient in several cold, asthma and narcolepsy treatment preparations, and in obesity management and sport medicine. Its principal action mechanism relies on its direct adrenergic actions as well as indirect role that involves the release of epinephrine and norepinephrine, thus increasing the activity of epinephrine and norepinephrine at the postsynaptic α and ß receptors. Nevertheless, its serious side effects, including stroke, heart attack, drug abuse and interactions, have never been comprehensively reviewed. We conducted a systematic review of data on ephedrine, including its occurrence in functional foods, pharmacological aspects, metabolism, pharmaco/toxicokinetics and clinical features. Furthermore, a review of ephedrine natural structural analogues with regards to their differential adrenergic receptor binding affinities, food interaction, and their impact on the pharmacokinetics and effects relative to ephedrine are presented for the first time, and in comparison to its action when present in herbs.

In search of an ideal drug for safer treatment of obesity: The false promise of pseudoephedrine.

Obesity is a major public health problem worldwide. Only relatively few treatment options are, at present, available for the management of obese patients. Furthermore, treatment of obesity is affected by the widespread misuse of drugs and food supplements. Ephedra sinica is an old medicinal herb, commonly used in the treatment of respiratory tract diseases. Ephedra species contain several alkaloids, including pseudoephedrine, notably endowed with indirect sympathomimetic pharmacodynamic properties. The anorexigenic effect of pseudoephedrine is attributable primarily to the inhibition of neurons located in the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN), mediating satiety stimuli. Pseudoephedrine influences lipolysis and thermogenesis through interaction with ß3 adrenergic receptors and reduces fat accumulation through down-regulation of transcription factors related to lipogenesis. However, its use is associated with adverse events that involve to a large extent the cardiovascular and the central nervous system. Adverse events of pseudoephedrine also affect the eye, the intestine, and the skin, and, of relevance, sudden cardiovascular death related to dietary supplements containing Ephedra alkaloids has also been reported. In light of the limited availability of clinical data on pseudoephedrine in obesity, along with its significantly unbalanced risk/benefit profile, as well as of the psychophysical susceptibility of obese patients, it appears reasonable to preclude the prescription of pseudoephedrine in obese patients of any order and degree.

Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) and ephedrine: a dangerous liasion.

The Analgesia Nociception Index is a dimensionless scale derived from the heart rate variability; by analyzing the heart rate variability oscillations, it reflects the activity of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and ultimately helps to evaluate the Nociception-Antinociception balance during anesthesia and surgery. Drugs like ephedrine affect the heart rate variability inducing artifacts in the ANI readings which should be taken into account in the clinical practice and in clinical research.

Determination of the optimal dose of ephedrine in the treatment of arterial hypotension due to general anesthesia in neonates and infants below 6 months old: the ephedrine study protocol for a randomized, open-label, controlled, dose escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypotension induced by general anesthesia is commonly identified as a risk factor of morbidity, especially neurological, after cardiac or noncardiac surgery in adults and children. Intraoperative hypotension is observed with sevoflurane anesthesia in children, in particular in neonates, infants younger than 6 months, and preterm babies. Ephedrine is commonly used to treat intraoperative hypotension. It is an attractive therapeutic, due to its dual action on receptors alpha and beta and its possible peripheral intravenous infusion. There are few data in the literature on the use of ephedrine in the context of pediatric anesthesia. The actual recommended dose of ephedrine (0.1 to 0.2 mg/Kg) frequently leads to a therapeutic failure in neonates and infants up to 6 months of age. The use of higher doses would probably lead to a better correction of hypotension in this population. The objective of our project is to determine the optimal dose of ephedrine for the treatment of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia with sevoflurane, in neonates and infants up to 6 months of age. METHODS: The ephedrine study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled, dose-escalation trial. The dose escalation consists of 6 successive cohorts of 20 subjects. The doses studied are 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2, and 1.4 mg/kg. The dose chosen as the reference is 0.1 mg/kg, the actual recommended dose. Neonates and infants younger than 6 months, males and females, including preterm babies who undergo a surgery with general anesthesia inducted with sevoflurane were eligible. Parents of the subject were informed. Then, the subjects were randomized if presenting a decrease in mean blood pressure superior to 20% of their initial mean blood pressure (before induction of anesthesia), despite a vascular filling with sodium chloride 0.9%. The primary outcome is the success of the therapy defined as an mBP superior to 80% of the baseline mBP (prior to anesthesia) within 10 min post ephedrine administration. The subjects were followed-up for 3 days postanesthesia. DISCUSSION: This study is the first randomized, controlled trial intending to determine the optimal dose of ephedrine to treat hypotension in neonates and infants below 6 months old. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02384876 . Registered on March 2015.

The efficacy of intramuscular ephedrine in preventing hemodynamic perturbations in patients with spinal anesthesia and dexmedetomidine sedation.

Dexmedetomidine is used for sedation during spinal anesthesia. The sympatholytic effect of dexmedetomidine may exacerbate hypotension and bradycardia with spinal anesthesia. This study investigated the effects of prophylactic intramuscular injection of ephedrine in preventing hypotension and bradycardia occurring through combined use of spinal anesthesia and dexmedetomidine. One hundred sixteen patients scheduled for lower extremity orthopedic surgery were randomized into two groups receiving either ephedrine 20 mg intramuscularly or equivalent amount of 0.9% NaCl, both with dexmedetomidine and spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hemodynamic perturbations (hypotension or bradycardia event). The secondary endpoint was a rescue doses of ephedrine and atropine. The incidence of hemodynamic perturbations was significantly lower in the ephedrine group compared with to the saline group (26.3% versus 55.9%, p = 0.001). The rescue doses of atropine (0.09 ± 0.21 versus 0.28 ± 0.41, p = 0.001) and ephedrine (1.04 ± 2.89 versus 2.03 ± 3.25, p = 0.007) were also significantly lower in the ephedrine group. There was no differences in number of patients with hypertensive (7.0% versus 11.9%, p = 0.375) or tachycardia (1.8% versus 3.4% p = 0.581) episodes. The use of ephedrine intramuscular injections may be a safe and efficacious option in preventing hemodynamic perturbations in patients who received spinal anesthesia and sedation using dexmedetomidine.

Treatments for priapism in boys and men with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. The predominant symptom associated with sickle cell disease is pain resulting from the occlusion of small blood vessels by abnormally 'sickle-shaped' red blood cells. There are other complications, including chronic organ damage and prolonged painful erection of the penis, known as priapism. Severity of sickle cell disease is variable, and treatment is usually symptomatic. Priapism affects up to half of all men with sickle cell disease, however, there is no consistency in treatment. We therefore need to know the best way of treating this complication in order to offer an effective interventional approach to all affected individuals. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of different treatments for stuttering (repeated short episodes) and fulminant (lasting for six hours or more) priapism in sickle cell disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 09 September 2019. Date of most recent search of trial registries and of Embase: 01 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing non-surgical or surgical treatment with placebo or no treatment, or with another intervention for stuttering or fulminant priapism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with 102 participants were identified and met the criteria for inclusion in this review. These trials compared stilboestrol to placebo, sildenafil to placebo and a four-arm trial which compared ephedrine or etilefrine to placebo and ranged in duration from two weeks to six months. All of the trials were conducted in an outpatient setting in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK. None of the trials measured our first primary outcome, detumescence. However, all three trials reported on the reduction in frequency of stuttering priapism, our second primary outcome; and from the evidence included in this review, we are uncertain whether stilboestrol, etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the frequency of stuttering priapism as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Additionally, we conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference (low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on immediate side effects and we are uncertain whether etilefrine or ephedrine reduce the occurrence of these (very low-certainty of evidence) and also conclude that sildenafil may make little or no difference in side effects (low-quality evidence). Given that all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence for the benefits or risks of the different treatments for both stuttering and fulminant priapism in sickle cell disease. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions for priapism in sickle cell disease.

Management of spinal-induced hypotension for elective caesarean section: A survey of practices among anesthesiologists from a developing country.

BACKGROUND: In developing countries, more than half of the anesthesia-related maternal deaths are related to spinal hypotension. OBJECTIVE: To explore the practices of management of spinal induced hypotension with respect to fluid and vasopressor administration among anesthesiologists from a developing country. METHODS: After approval from institutional ethics committee, an online questionnaire was sent to anesthesiologists registered with Pakistan Society of Anesthesiologists between July and August 2018 to determine management strategies for prevention and treatment of spinal-induced hypotension. RESULTS: The response rate was 36% (156/433), majority from academic institution (62.8%) with equal representation from attending and trainee anesthesiologist. For prophylaxis 39.1% respondents did not use vasopressors, 32.7% used fluid preloading with crystalloids (54.7%) as fluid of choice followed by combination of co-loading and vasopressor(22.4%). Phenylephrine was the vasopressor of choice for both prophylaxis (33.1%) and treatment (57%). Attending anesthesiologist used a combination of fluid co-loading and vasopressors for prophylaxis as compared to trainee anesthesiologists (37.2% vs. 17.9%; P=0.035) and selected vasopressors according to patient's heart rate (33.3% vs. 19.5%; p=0.05). Prophylactic phenylephrine was used more by respondents from the academic institution (p=0.023). Fluid co-loading was used more by respondents with <30 % compared to those with > 30% of clinical responsibility to obstetric anesthesia (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Phenylephrine as the vasopressor of choice indicates growing awareness of management strategies among anesthesiologists from developing countries but there is a need to increase its use for prophylaxis. Some variation in practice according to the level of anesthesiologist, practice type and responsibilities to obstetric anesthesia are evident.

A randomized double-blind study comparing prophylactic norepinephrine and ephedrine infusion for preventing maternal spinal hypotension during elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: A CONSORT-compliant article.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown the efficacy of norepinephrine in the treatment of maternal hypotension during cesarean section by comparing it to treatment with phenylephrine. However, few studies have compared the efficacy of norepinephrine to ephedrine. METHODS: Ninety-seven women undergoing elective cesarean section were administered norepinephrine at 4 µg/minute (group N; n = 48) or ephedrine at 4 mg/minute (group E; n = 49) immediately postspinal anesthesia, with an on-off titration to maintain systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 80% to 120% of baseline. A rescue bolus of 8 µg norepinephrine was given whenever SBP reached the predefined lower limit. Our primary outcome was the incidence of tachycardia. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, severe hypotension, hypotensive episodes, number of rescue top-ups, hemodynamic performance error including median performance error (MDPE), and median absolute performance error (MDAPE). Neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical arterial (UA) blood gas data were also collected. RESULTS: Women in group N experienced fewer cases of tachycardia (4.2% vs 30.6%, P = .002, odds ratio: 0.11 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.02-0.47]), a lower standardized heart rate (HR) (70.3 ±â€Š11 vs 75 ±â€Š11, P = .04, difference: 4.7 ±â€Š2.2 [95% CI: 0.24-9.1]), and a lower MDPE for HR (1.3 ±â€Š9.6 vs 8.4 ±â€Š13.5 bpm, P = .003, difference: 3.1 ±â€Š1.8 [95% CI: -0.6-6.7]). In addition, the lowest or the highest HR was lower in group N compared to group E (both P < .05). Meanwhile, the standardized SBP in group N was lower than that in group E (P = .04). For neonates, the UA blood gas showed a higher base excess (BE) and a lower lactate level in group N compared to E (both P < .001). Other hemodynamic variables, maternal, and neonatal outcomes were similar. CONCLUSION: Infusion of 4 µg/minute norepinephrine presented fewer cases of tachycardia, less fluctuation and a lower HR compared to baseline values, as well as a less stressed fetal status compared to ephedrine infusion at 4 mg/minute. In addition, norepinephrine infusion presented a lower standardized SBP compared to ephedrine.

[The Adverse Effects of Ephedra Herb and the Safety of Ephedrine Alkaloids-free Ephedra Herb Extract (EFE)].

Ephedra Herb is defined in the 17th edition of the Japanese Pharmacopoeia (JP) as the terrestrial stem of Ephedra sinica Stapf., Ephedra intermedia Schrenk et C.A. Meyer, or Ephedra equisetina Bunge (Ephedraceae). The stems of Ephedra Herb contain greater than 0.7% ephedrine alkaloids (ephedrine and pseudoephedrine). Despite its high effectiveness, Ephedra Herb exert several adverse effects, including palpitation, excitation, insomnia, and dysuria. Both the primary and adverse effects of Ephedra Herb have been traditionally believed to be mediated by these ephedrine alkaloids. However, our study found that several pharmacological actions of Ephedra Herb were not associated with ephedrine alkaloids. We prepared an ephedrine alkaloid-free Ephedra Herb extract (EFE) by eliminating ephedrine alkaloids from Ephedra Herb extract (EHE) using ion-exchange column chromatography. EFE exerted analgesic, anti-influenza, and anticancer activities in the same manner as EHE. Moreover, EFE did not induce adverse effects due to ephedrine alkaloids, such as excitation, insomnia, and arrhythmias, and showed no toxicity. Furthermore, we evaluated the safety of EFE in healthy volunteers. The number of adverse event cases was higher in the EHE-treated group than in the EFE-treated group, although the difference was not significant. Our evidence suggested that EFE was safer than EHE.

Ephedrine-Induced Increases in Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Due to Suspected Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation Supersensitivity in a Patient with Parkinson's Disease Under Spinal Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND Denervation supersensitivity to sympathomimetic drugs has been noted in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) whose cardiac sympathetic nerves are denervated. This phenomenon is not as well recognized as other complications of PD patients, but anesthesiologists should be aware of it because sympathomimetic drugs can sometimes be dangerous to these patients. CASE REPORT A 60-year-old woman was scheduled for total hip joint replacement under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and sedation. She had been diagnosed as PD (stage 4 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale) with a history of orthostatic hypotension. Her ¹²³I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy revealed marked reduction of ¹²³I-MIBG accumulation in the heart. In the operating room, we placed an epidural catheter through the Th12-L1 space, and spinal anesthesia (2.6 mL of 0.5% normobaric bupivacaine) was administered. During the surgery, we infused propofol at 100 mg·hr⁻¹ for sedation. When 4 mg of ephedrine was administered intravenously because of marked decrease in patient's blood pressure, we observed unexpectedly large increases in the systolic blood pressure, from 78 mmHg to 168 mmHg, and the heart rate increased from 52 to 84 beats per minute (bpm). This phenomenon recurred each time 4 mg of ephedrine was administered. CONCLUSIONS We report a case in which ephedrine induced unexpectedly large increases in blood pressure and heart rate in a patient who suffered from PD with severe cardiac sympathetic nerve denervation. We speculate that this phenomenon was caused by denervation supersensitivity of the patient's heart.

Postoperative Acute Angle-Closure Glaucoma: A Rare but Serious Complication: A Case Report.

Acute angle-closure glaucoma is a rare complication of general anesthesia. If not treated in time, acute angle-closure glaucoma can potentially cause permanent loss of vision. Physicians should therefore be vigilant for the possibility of acute angle-closure glaucoma in patients who experience postoperative change or loss of vision. Recently, some reported a case of bilateral acute angle-closure glaucoma after general anesthesia, in which the use of ephedrine was a possible trigger. This report begins by examining a case of unilateral acute angle-closure glaucoma. The potential triggers of this complication are discussed. This article concludes with a flowchart to aid anesthesiologists to accurately diagnose postoperative ophthalmic pathology.

Push dose pressors: Experience in critically ill patients outside of the operating room.

PURPOSE: Evaluate push dose vasopressor (PDP) practice patterns, efficacy, and safety in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients receiving phenylephrine or ephedrine PDP from November 2015-March 2017 were included. Patient demographics, medication administration details, vital signs pre- and post-administration, adverse effects, and medications errors were collected. Descriptive data are presented and comparisons were made with paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-squared analysis or Fisher's Exact Test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients (155 PDP events) were included; mean age 64.5 ±â€¯13.3 years and 66.4% males, respiratory failure (39.8%) or sepsis (24.9%) admission diagnosis. The surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (44.5%) and medical ICU (33.6%) used PDPs most often, and during the peri-intubation period (57.3%) or for other transient hypotension (38.2%). Following PDP, mean systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate (HR) increased 32.5% (80 to 106 mmHg), 27.2% (48 to 61 mmHg), and 6.4% (93 to 99 bpm), respectively. There were 17 (11.6%) adverse events; most often related to excessive increases in BP or HR and one incidence of dysrhythmia. Thirteen patients (11.2%) had a dose related medication error (phenylephrine dose >200 µg or ephedrine dose >25 mg), nine (6.2%) received PDP with normal/elevated hemodynamics (systolic BP > 100 mmHg or HR > 160 bpm) and 15% while on a continuous infusion vasopressor. CONCLUSION: PDPs were used in a variety of patient diagnoses and for select indications. Overall, they were efficacious but associated with adverse drug events and medication errors.