Remifentanil improves left ventricular diastolic parameters in patients with impaired diastolic function: a prospective clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction has a significant impact on perioperative morbidity and mortality, and its incidence is high in elderly individuals. Anesthetic agents may impair diastolic function, which may increase the incidence of perioperative complications. The aim of this prospective, clinical, phase 4 study was to investigate the effects of remifentanil on left ventricle (LV) diastolic function in patients with diastolic dysfunction. The study was performed on 30 spontaneously breathing subjects (aged 60-80 years) with diastolic dysfunction. METHODS: Thirty patients (aged 60-80 years) with diastolic dysfunction scheduled for surgery were recruited between November 2019 and March 2023. Left ventricle function was evaluated once the intravenous remifentanil infusion reached a target-controlled concentration of 2 ng/ml with transthoracic echocardiography. Analysis of systolic function focused on left ventricular ejection fraction and mean mitral annular S velocity (Sm), whereas diastolic function focused on changes in transmitral peak flow (E), E/A, mitral septal and lateral e' waves, E/e' ratios and left atrial volume index following remifentanil infusion. RESULTS: Diastolic function measures of LV (mitral E/e', septal and lateral e' waves) statistically significantly improved (E/e' from 10.6 ± 2.9 cm.sn- 1 to 9.5 ± 2.2 cm.sn- 1; p = 0.006) following remifentanil infusion. Left atrial volume index decreased following remifentanil infusion without statistical significance (from 55 ± 14.4 ml.cm- 2 to 51.6 ± 13.3 ml.cm- 2; p = 0.1). Systolic function (ejection fraction and Sm) did not change following remifentanil infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil improves left ventricular diastolic parameters in patients with preexisting diastolic dysfunction. Our study suggests that remifentanil at a plasma concentration of 2 ng.ml- 1 might be used safely in patients with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction.

Hydroxyzine Dihydrochloride Premedication Is a Necessity for Pediatric Patients Undergoing Strabismus Surgery: An Observational Prospective Clinical Trial.

Objective: In this single-blind, observational prospective clinical trial, we aimed to determine and compare the effects of premedication with hydroxyzine plus midazolam and midazolam alone on the incidence of oculocardiac reflex (OCR). Methods: Forty-five patients were divided into three groups. Group M received 0.5 mg/kg midazolam alone, Group H received 0.5 mg/kg hydroxyzine plus 0.5 mg/kg midazolam, and Group HM received 1 mg/kg hydroxyzine plus 0.5 mg/kg midazolam. The Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), the heart rates (HR1: after induction of anesthesia; HR2: before retraction of orbital muscle; and HR3: right after retraction of orbital muscle), the muscles with OCR, and the incidence of OCR (20% decrease of the HR right after the traction) were recorded and compared between the three groups. Results: The mean HR1, HR2, and HR3 values were significantly increased (p=0.002, p < 0.001, p < 0.001) and the incidence of OCR (p=0.004) was significantly decreased in Group H and in Group HM (for all, p < 0.01) compared to Group M. The most common orbital muscle in which OCR occurred was the rectus medialis. Conclusion: Premedication with a combination of 0.5 or 1 mg hydroxyzine with 0.5 mg midazolam significantly reduced the incidence of OCR compared to premedication with midazolam alone. This study was registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ with number NCT03806270.

The 'Cross-Legged Foetal Sitting Neuraxial Position': Is it Beneficial?-A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial Via Ultrasonography.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the present study was to compare the 'cross-legged foetal sitting position' (CFSP) with the 'sitting foetal position' (SFP) sonographically. The secondary aim was to compare their comfort. METHODS: A randomised, consecutive controlled, single-blinded trial was performed in Yeditepe University. A total of 50 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were body mass index (BMI) >40 kg m-2, lumbar hernia, scoliosis, history of spine surgery, lower back pain or trauma, especially pelvic or knee problems related to arthropathy and not able to do one/both of the two position techniques. The two positioning techniques were evaluated by ultrasonography (USG) and 5-point Numerical Rating Scale (5-NRS) patient satisfaction of comfort questionnaire. Seven outcomes via USG were evaluated, subcutaneous tissue (ST), skin to spinous process (S-SP), transverse diameters of right and left paraspinal muscles (RPM and LPM), interspinous gap opening (ISGO), mean of bilateral paraspinal muscle (MPM) and CFSP-SFP change (CFSP-SFP). Stretcher comfort, position comfort, lumbar comfort (LC) and abdominal comfort (AC) were evaluated by participants with the 5-NRS. RESULTS: In the CFSP, the mean ST and S-SP were significantly (p<0.0001) shorter, and LPM, RPM and MPM were significantly (p<0.0001) wider. The mean ISGO in the CFSP was significantly (p<0.0001) broader. The CFSP was significantly more comfortable than the SFP according to the LC (p=0.02). Only ISGO was found to be significantly broader in the male participant group (p=0.01) and in the BMI ≥25 group (p=0.02) according to CFSP-SFP. CONCLUSION: Considering all ultrasonographic anatomical measurements and according to the 5-NRS related to LC, the CFSP appears to be more advantageous than the SFP as a neuraxial positioning technique.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Magnesium Sulfate Reduced Opioid Consumption in Obese Patients Undergoing Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of magnesium sulfate on pain management for pain after sleeve gastrectomy operation. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Visual analog scale for the evaluation of pain, sedation score, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and total analgesic consumption was recorded. Serum magnesium levels were determined before the operation, at the end of the operation, and at 24 h. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to demographics, and sedation scores. Cumulative morphine consumption and pain scores were found to be higher in the control group than the magnesium group. CONCLUSION: Perioperative use of magnesium sulfate reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption in obese patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy operations.

The effects of intra-articular levobupivacain versus levobupivacain plus magnesium sulfate on postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy: A prospective randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compared the effectiveness of intraarticular levobupivacain with levobupivacain and magnesium sulfate. METHODS: In this prospective randomized double blinded study, 96 patients (67 male, 29 female; age range: 18-65 years) with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologist) score I and II, who had undergone arthroscopic meniscectomy operation, were divided to 3 groups that had postoperative analgesia with intra-articular saline injection (control group), levobupivacain injection (L group) or levobupivacain and magnesium sulfate injection (LM group). Patients were compared with postoperative VAS (Visual Analog Score) score during rest and activity, opioid analgesic need, non-opioid analgesic need and other medication needs. RESULTS: Postoperative VAS scores during rest and activation at early postoperative period were significantly lower at LM group when compared with L group and lower than control group at all time periods. Opioid analgesic need, non-opioid analgesic need and other medication needs for non-pain symptoms were lower at LM group when compared with L and control groups at all time periods. CONCLUSION: Intraarticular magnesium sulfate plus Levobupivacain injection is a safe and effective method for post operative pain management after arthroscopic meniscectomy.

Comparison of Dexamethasone-Dimenhydrinate and Dexamethasone-Ondansetron in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Postoperative Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting is one of the most common problems after implementation of general anesthesia. The incidence can reach 80% in high-risk patients, depending on the type of surgery. In our study, we aimed to compare dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone-ondansetron combinations in prevention of nausea and vomiting in postoperative patients. METHOD: Sixty 18-65-year-olds ASAI-II females who underwent rhinoplasty were included in the study. Patients were randomly included in two groups: Dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate group (group DD) and dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO). All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg iv after endotracheal intubation. Anesthesia continuation was established with sevoflurane, air-oxygen mixture and remifentanil infusion. At the 30th minute of the operation, group DO received ondansetron 4 mg iv and group DD received dimenhydrinate 1 mg/kg iv. For postoperative analgesia tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) iv, tenoksikam (20 mg) and afterward for postoperative patient-controlled tramadol was used. In the postoperative recovery room, nausea and vomiting were evaluated at the 30th, 60th, 120th minutes and at the end of 24 h. Total amount of tramadol was recorded. All results were statistically evaluated. OBSERVATIONS: Demographics and Apfel risk scores of both groups were similar. Surgical operation duration (p = 0.038) and total preoperative remifentanil consumption were higher in group DD (p = 0.006). In group DO, nausea at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.001, p = 0.007), retching at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.002, p = 0.006) were higher than group DD. The additional antiemetic need in group DO was significantly higher at 30 min (p = 0.001). Postoperative analgesic consumption was similar in both groups. RESULT: Our study revealed that dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate combination was more effective than dexamethasone-ondansetron in prevention of nausea and vomiting after rhinoplasty operations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .