The Role of Adrenaline, Noradrenaline, and Cortisol in the Pathogenesis of the Analgesic Potency, Duration, and Neurotoxic Effect of Meperidine.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of adrenaline (ADR), noradrenaline (NDR), and cortisol in the pathogenesis of the analgesic potency, duration, and epilepsy-like toxic effect of meperidine. Materials and Methods: The experimental animals were separated into 11 groups of six rats. In the meperidine (MPD) and metyrosine + meperidine (MMPD) groups, paw pain thresholds were measured before and after the treatment between the first and sixth hours (one hour apart). In addition, ADR and NDR analyses were performed before and after the treatment, between the first and fourth hours (one hour apart). For the epilepsy experiment, caffeine, caffeine + meperidine, and caffeine + meperidine + metyrapone groups were created, and the treatment was applied for 1 day or 7 days. Groups were created in which caffeine was used at both 150 mg/kg and 300 mg/kg. Epileptic seizures were observed in epilepsy groups, latent periods were determined, and serum cortisol levels were measured. Results: In the MPD group, pain thresholds increased only at the first and second hours compared to pre-treatment, while ADR increased at the third hour, leading to a decrease in pain thresholds. In the MMPD group, the increase in paw pain thresholds at 1 and 6 h was accompanied by a decrease in ADR and NDR. In the caffeine (150 mg/kg) + meperidine group, 1-day treatment did not cause epileptic seizures, while seizures were observed and cortisol levels increased in the group in which treatment continued for 7 days. When cortisol levels were compared between the group in which caffeine (300 mg/kg) + meperidine + metyrapone was used for 7 days and the animals receiving caffeine (300 mg/kg) + metyrapone for 7 days, it was found that cortisol levels decreased and the latent period decreased. Conclusions: The current study showed that if serum ADR and cortisol levels are kept at normal levels, a longer-lasting and stronger analgesic effect can be achieved with meperidine, and epileptic seizures can be prevented.

Relationship between molar incisor hypomineralization, intrapartium medication and illnesses in the first year of life.

Molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) affects the first permanent molars and permanent incisors whose formative embryological process develops around birth and the first year of life. This study's main objective is to assess the relationship between MIH, on the one hand, with the administration during childbirth of epidural bupivacaine, intramuscular meperidine with haloperidol, synthetic intravenous oxytocin, and prostaglandins such as dinoprostone vaginally, and on the other hand, with suffered pathologies during the first year of life. Cross-sectional retrospective study was carried out on 111 children who attended dental check-ups. Oral examination was carried out to determine MIH involvement. Data on the administration of medications during delivery and the illnesses suffered by the children in the first year of life were taken from the hospital records. Significant relationship with Pearson's chi-square was found between the presence of MIH and the administration of meperidine with haloperidol intramuscularly and the vaginal administration of dinoprostone during labour. Also in children who have suffered serious infections and those who have received antibiotics in early childhood. In recent years there has been a growing trend in many countries to medicalize childbirth even above what the World Health Organization recommends. Some of the drugs used in these protocols could be involved in the appearance of dental mineralization alterations of the MIH type and this would help to explain the increase in its prevalence.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the very elderly by using a combination of intravenous midazolam, ketamine and pethidine.

AIM: The number of therapeutic endoscopic procedures in elderly individuals keeps increasing and this population has a high risk of adverse events related to sedation and general anesthesia. However, there is a paucity on data about the efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in this population. METHODS: In total, 417 consecutive ERCP procedures were performed in 362 patients between September 2018 and January 2020. Of these, 59 patients (74 sessions) were aged ≥80 years (Group A) and 173 patients (193 procedures) were aged ≤65 years (Group B). We analyzed the prospectively collected data of patient- and procedure-related variables. RESULTS: The procedure time was significantly longer in Group A (P < 0.05). The prevalence of comorbidities, use of anticoagulants and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification levels were significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The incidence of periampullary diverticula, malignancy, rate of difficult cannulation, mean number of stones, use of biliary stents and stent dysfunction was also significantly higher in Group A (P < 0.05). The medication doses used were significantly higher and emergence symptoms were significantly more frequent in Group B (P < 0.05). The rates of bleeding, pancreatitis, perforation, cholangitis, hypoxia, hypotension and the length of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the two groups. The overall success rate of the procedure was comparable in the two groups (P = 0.874). CONCLUSIONS: ERCP can be safely performed in elderly patients using a combination of midazolam and ketamine without propofol. The incidence of complications is comparable with that observed in younger patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 887-892.

Meperidine pharmacokinetics and effects on physiologic parameters and thermal threshold following intravenous administration of three doses to horses.

BACKGROUND: Meperidine is a synthetic opioid that belongs to the phenylpiperidine class and is a weak mu receptor agonist. In horses there are a limited number of published studies describing the analgesic effects of systemically administered meperidine in horses. The objective of this study was to describe the pharmacokinetics, behavioral and physiologic effects and effect on thermal threshold of three doses of intravenously administered meperidine to horses. Eight University owned horses (four mares and four geldings, aged 3-8 years were studied using a randomized balanced 4-way cross-over design. Horses received a single intravenous dose of saline, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg meperidine. Blood was collected before administration and at various time points until 96 hours post administration. Plasma and urine samples were analyzed for meperidine and normeperidine by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and plasma pharmacokinetics determined. Behavioral and physiologic data (continuous heart rate, step counts, packed cell volume, total plasma protein and gastrointestinal sounds) were collected at baseline through 6 hours post administration. The effect of meperidine administration on thermal nociception was determined and thermal excursion calculated. RESULTS: Meperidine was rapidly converted to the metabolite normeperidine. The volume of distribution at steady state and systemic clearance (mean ± SD) ranged from 0.829 ± 0.138-1.58 ± 0.280 L/kg and 18.0 ± 1.4-22.8 ± 3.60 mL/min/kg, respectively for 0.5-1.0 mg/kg doses. Adverse effects included increased dose-dependent central nervous excitation, heart rate and cutaneous reactions. Significant effects on thermal nociception were short lived (up to 45 minutes at 0.5 mg/kg and 15 minutes at 1.0 mg/kg). CONCLUSIONS: Results of the current study do not support routine clinical use of IV meperidine at a dose of 1 mg/kg to horses. Administration of 0.5 mg/kg may provide short-term analgesia, however, the associated inconsistent and/or short-term adverse effects suggest that its use as a sole agent at this dose, at best, must be cautiously considered.

Analgesic Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Meperidine in Managing Postoperative or Labor Pain: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Meperidine, a synthetic opioid, has a rapid onset and short duration of action. Mounting evidence has challenged meperidine's analgesic benefits, and concerns have been raised about its safety profile. Despite recommendations to restrict the prescription of meperidine, the drug remains frequently used. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of meperidine for acute postoperative and labor pain. STUDY DESIGN: This was a narrative review of the analgesic efficacy and side effects of meperidine compared to other analgesic drugs for acute postoperative and labor pain in adults. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy and side effect profile of meperidine versus another analgesic drug in adult patients were evaluated. METHODS: A systemized search of randomized controlled trials studying meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain in the adult patient population from PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE was performed. Included studies reported on different routes of meperidine administration including intramuscular, intravenous, and patient-controlled analgesia in various surgical procedures such as abdominal surgery, Cesarean section, gynecological surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, as well as for labor analgesia. Meperidine's analgesic efficacy and safety profile were compared to other opioids (morphine, tramadol, fentanyl, buprenorphine, nalbuphine, and pentazocine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ketorolac, diclofenac, and indomethacin), dipyrone, ketamine, and bupivacaine. RESULTS: A total of 62 randomized controlled trials published between 1972 and 2018 were reviewed. Meperidine had a similar or inferior analgesic efficacy compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative or labor pain. Meperidine was associated with more sedation and respiratory depression. LIMITATIONS: The sample sizes of many clinical studies were small, and therefore probably insufficiently powered to detect differences in uncommon side effects, such as central nervous system toxicity. In addition, some of the included clinical studies were old. CONCLUSION: Considering the availability of other effective analgesics with potentially fewer side effects, the use of meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain should not be recommended. KEY WORDS: Acute postoperative pain, adverse effects, labor analgesia, meperidine, pethidine.

Creation of a score to predict risk of high conscious sedation requirements in patients undergoing endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The administration of intravenous conscious sedation to patients undergoing GI endoscopy carries a risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events. Our study aim was to create a score that stratifies the risk of occurrence of either high-dose conscious sedation requirements or a failed procedure. METHODS: Patients receiving endoscopy via endoscopist-directed conscious sedation were included. The primary outcome was occurrence of sedation failure, which was defined as one of the following: (1) high-dose sedation, (2) the need for benzodiazepine/narcotic reversal agents, (3) nurse-documented poor patient tolerance to the procedure, or (4) aborted procedure. High-dose sedation was defined as >10 mg of midazolam and/or >200 µg of fentanyl or the meperidine equivalent. Patients with sedation failure (n = 488) were matched to controls (n = 976) without a sedation failure by endoscopist and endoscopy date. RESULTS: Significant associations with sedation failure were identified for age, sex, nonclonazepam benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and procedure type (EGD, colonoscopy, or both). Based on these 5 variables, we created the high conscious sedation requirements (HCSR) score, which predicted the risk of sedation failure with an area under the curve of 0.70. Compared with the patients with a risk score of 0, risk of a sedation failure was highest for patients with a score ≥3.5 (odds ratio, 17.31; P = 2 × 10-14). Estimated area under the curve of the HCSR score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.72) in a validation series of 250 cases and 250 controls. CONCLUSIONS: The HCSR risk score, based on 5 key patient and procedure characteristics, can function as a useful tool for physicians when discussing sedation options with patients before endoscopy.

Efficacy of parecoxib sodium on postoperative shivering: meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Objective To evaluate the effect of parecoxib on preventing postoperative shivering. Methods Main outcomes were the relative risk (odds ratio, OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) relative to the incidence of shivering. Results Fourteen trials with 1,175 patients were analyzed. The pooled evidence suggested that parecoxib sodium, given before anesthesia or postoperatively (only 4 cases), had the potential to prevent postoperative shivering (OR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.16, 0.29). Compared with the placebo, parecoxib sodium significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative shivering as follows: mild shivering [OR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.35, 0.74)]; moderate shivering [OR = 0.28, 95% CI (0.18, 0.45)]; severe shivering [OR = 0.18, 95% CI (0.10, 0.33)]. Compared with placebo, there was no significant association of parecoxib sodium with restlessness [OR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.59, 1.52)] or nausea/vomiting [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.09, 0.66)]. In addition, pethidine rescue was used significantly more often in the control group than in the parecoxib sodium group [OR = 0.22, 95% CI (0.09, 0.53)]. Conclusions Parecoxib sodium may be an effective strategy for preventing postoperative shivering.

Is pethidine safe during labor? Systematic review / A petidina é segura durante o trabalho de parto? Revisão sistemática

Abstract Purpose To verify if pethidine is safe for the conceptus when used during labor. Methods Systematic review in the Capes Periodicals/PubMed and MEDLINE/Virtual Health Library (BVS, in the Portuguese acronym) databases. Results A total of 17 studies published from January 1st, 2000, to September 2nd, 2016, with a total of 1,688 participants involved were included in the present review. There was no record of conceptus vitality decrease associated with low doses of pethidine being administered to mothers during labor. Conclusions Intramuscular (IM) or intravenous (IV) pethidine at low doses, of up to 50 mg, is safe to administer during labor.

Resumo Objetivo Verificar se a petidina é segura para o concepto quando utilizada durante o trabalho de parto. Método Revisão sistemática nas bases de dados dos Periódicos Capes/PubMed e MEDLINE/Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS). Resultados Um total de 17 estudos, publicados de 1° de janeiro de 2000 a 2 de setembro de 2016, totalizando 1.688 participantes envolvidos, foram incluídos nesta revisão. Não houve registro de depressão na vitalidade dos conceptos comdoses baixas de petidina administradas às mães durante o trabalho de parto. Conclusão Petidina intramuscular (IM) ou intravenosa (IV) em baixas doses, de até 50 mg, é segura durante o trabalho de parto.

Simultaneous quantitation of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene in human plasma using solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: Method validation and application to cardiovascular safety of therapeutic doses.

RATIONALE: Several opioid analgesics have been related to the prolongation of cardiac repolarization, a condition which can be fatal. In order to establish a correct estimation of the risk/benefit balance of therapeutic doses of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene, it was necessary to develop an analytical method to determinate plasma concentrations of these opioids. METHODS: Here we describe a method which incorporates strong alkaline treatment to obtain norpropoxyphene amide followed by a one-elution step solid-phase extraction, and without further derivatization. Separation and quantification were achieved by gas chromatography/electron ionization mass spectrometry (GC/EI-MS) in selected-ion monitoring mode. Quantification was performed with 500 µL of plasma by the addition of deuterated analogues as internal standards. RESULTS: The proposed method has been validated in the linearity range of 25-1000 ng/mL for all the analytes, with correlation coefficients higher than 0.990. The lower limit of quantification was 25 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precision, calculated in terms of relative standard deviation, were 2.0-12.0% and 6.0-15.0%, respectively. The accuracy, in terms of relative error, was within a ± 10% interval. The absolute recovery and extraction efficiency ranged from 81.0 to 111.0% and 81.0 to 105.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A GC/MS method for the rapid and simultaneous determination of meperidine, normeperidine, tramadol, propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene in human plasma was developed, optimized and validated. This procedure was shown to be sensitive and specific using small specimen amounts, suitable for application in routine analysis for forensic purposes and therapeutic monitoring. To our knowledge, this is the first full validation of the simultaneous determination of these opioids and their metabolites in plasma samples.

Prospective Analysis of Minor Adverse Events After Colon Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND: The risks of minor adverse events (MAEs) such as abdominal pain and bloating after colon polypectomy (CP) are less clearly documented than major adverse events. However, these complications may cause significant discomfort during the performance of normal activities. We aimed to estimate the incidence of MAE, associated risk factors, and healthcare resource utilization after CP. METHODS: Patients who underwent CP were prospectively enrolled in this study. Trained nurses contacted patients by telephone at 7 and 30 days after the CP and administered a standardized questionnaire to obtain information regarding the development of complications. MAEs were defined as any discomfort the patient experienced after CP excluding major bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome. RESULTS: Among a total of 2716 patients, 2253 patients completed the interview at 7 and 30 days. MAEs occurred in 263 patients (11.7%) before day 7, among which the most common were abdominal pain (4.5%), rectal bleeding (2.8%), and bloating (2.6%). Cumulative incidence of MAEs was in 267 patients (11.9%) at 30 days. On multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-3.18) and use of meperidine (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.27) were risk factors for the occurrence of MAEs. Two patients (0.7%) required hospital admission, 117 patients (43.8%) were treated medically in the outpatient clinic, and the majority at 148 patients (55.4%) experienced resolution of symptoms after observation. CONCLUSIONS: The post-CP MAE rate was as low as 11.8%. The MAEs occurred mainly in the first seven postoperative days and resulted in little use of healthcare resources.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Treating Post Spinal Anesthesia Shivering: A Randomized Clinically Controlled Dose-Finding Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum dose of dexmedetomidine for shivering control with the least hemodynamic derangements is still under research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, hemodynamic and side effects of dexmedetomidine in 3 different doses with those of meperidine for the treatment of shivering in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for minor elective lower abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective double-blind randomized clinically controlled study. SETTING: University hospital. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who developed shivering under spinal anesthesia.On shivering, patients were randomly allocated to receive an intravenous 2 mL bolus dose of meperidine 0.4 mg/kg (meperidine group, n = 30), dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg (DEX I group, n = 30), 0.3 µg/kg (DEX II group, n = 30), or 0.2µg/kg (DEX III group, n = 30). Control of shivering, time taken for cessation of shivering, response rate, recurrence, hemodynamic changes, sedation score, tympanic temperature, and side effects were noted and compared between groups. RESULTS: The groups were comparable regarding demographic profile, tympanic temperature decline, and shivering onset time (P > 0.05). Lower shivering cessation time (P < 0.001) and higher response rate (P < 0.01) were observed in DEX I and II groups compared with DEX III and meperidine groups, with a nonsignificant difference between DEX I and II groups. Recurrence of shivering activity was higher in DEX III group (36.7%, P < 0.01) compared with DEX I (10%), DEX II (6.7%) and meperidine (16.7%) groups. Lower heart rates, systolic and diastolic blood pressure mean values were recorded in DEX I group (P < 0.05). Nine patients (30%) in DEX I group were in levels 3 - 5 of sedation (P < 0.02) compared with 5 (16.66%), 2 (6.66%), and 4 (13.3) patients in DEX II, DEX III, and meperidine groups, respectively. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 3 doses investigated, dexmedetomidine 0.3µg/kg effectively treated shivering associated with spinal anesthesia with modest hemodynamic and sedation effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02382432. KEY WORDS: Dexmedetomidine, hypothermia, shivering, spinal anesthesia.

[Calcinosis cutis treatment with extracorporeal shockwave therapy]. / Calcinosis cutis behandlet medekstrakorporal shockbølgeterapi

Calcinosis cutis is a rare disease entity characterized by deposits of calcium in the skin and subcutaneous tissue causing hard-to-heal ulcers. This is a case report on a patient with femoral ulcers in connection with densely mineralized skin caused by ketobemidon injections. Next to surgical excision of calcified tissue the patient received extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT). On the basis of excellent healing, partial skin transplant was feasible. We advocate for randomized trials on ESWT as an adjunctive therapy for complex non-healing wounds.

Nalbuphine for postoperative pain treatment in children.

BACKGROUND: Several surveys over the past few years have demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is not treated appropriately. One pharmacological treatment option in a multimodal approach for postoperative pain treatment is the systemic administration of opioids. However, opioids are rarely used for postoperative pain treatment in children due to fear of adverse events. One long-standing opioid for systemic use is nalbuphine, a kappa-receptor agonist and µ-receptor antagonist. The efficacy of nalbuphine is believed to be similar to morphine. Increased dosing might result in a ceiling effect, and thus less analgesia than expected. In addition, there might be a lower risk for opioid-induced side effects (nausea, vomiting) and severe adverse events (respiratory depression) due to the antagonistic effect of the µ-receptor. Nalbuphine may be an useful opioid for postoperative use in children, but exact efficacy (e.g. compared to other commonly used opioids) has not been determined yet. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of nalbuphine for acute postoperative pain treatment in children undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Pubmed (January 1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE via Ovid (January 1947 to July 2013). We did not impose any restrictions regarding language or publication date. We checked all reference lists of retrieved articles for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating nalbuphine compared with placebo or other opioids were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently scanned the retrieved articles and made a decision regarding inclusion or exclusion of studies for this review. The same authors also performed the data extraction and the assessment of risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 658 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Five trials compared nalbuphine with placebo. Data from one out of five studies for the outcome moderate/severe pain following nalbuphine compared to placebo gave a risk ratio (RR) 1 hour postoperatively (postop) of 0.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.71; low quality evidence) and a RR 2 hours postop of 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.06; low quality evidence). The estimated RR based on data from a single study indicated that nalbuphine reduced the requirement for analgesia two hours postop (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.84; low quality evidence). Two included trials compared nalbuphine with morphine and showed a nonsignificant lower or comparable RR for moderate/severe pain at 1 hour postop (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.12 to 5.74; low quality evidence), and 2 hours postop (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.01; low quality evidence) for nalbuphine versus morphine. Four trials compared nalbuphine with tramadol for postoperative pain; data from one trial (per outcome) revealed a lower but nonsignificant RR for the need of additional rescue analgesics in children receiving nalbuphine (RR 2 hours postop 0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43; low quality evidence) (RR 12 hours postop 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.77; low quality evidence). One out of three trials comparing nalbuphine with pethidine demonstrated that the RR was not significantly lower following nalbuphine administration compared to pethidine (RR 2 hours postop 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.23; low quality evidence) (RR 24 hours postop 1.13; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.44; very low quality evidence). The most common adverse event was postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only one included trial reported that the RR for PONV in the postoperative care unit (PACU) was not significantly higher following nalbuphine compared to placebo (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.16 to 6.42; low quality evidence) nor to morphine (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.77; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because the overall quality of available evidence was low, this systematic review could not definitively show that the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine is superior compared to placebo. Furthermore, due to the lack of significant results the comparison with other common opioids is also unclear. The same holds true for the evidence focusing on adverse events following nalbuphine compared to placebo or other opioid administration. The evidence is limited, because studies did not report conclusively all important postoperative pain outcomes (e.g. number of patients with the need for rescue analgesia, postoperative pain scores). Thus, a quantitative analysis was not possible for many major aspects (e.g. rescue analgesia, pain scores) and heterogeneity could not be further explored.

A randomized, double blind comparison of pethidine and ketoprofen as adjuvants for lignocaine in intravenous regional anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A review of all the adjuncts for intravenous regional anaesthesia concluded that there is good evidence to recommend NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory agents and pethidine in the dose of 30mg dose as adjuncts to intravenous regional anaesthesia. But there are no studies to compare pethidine of 30mg dose to any of the NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory agents. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double blind study, 45 patients were given intravenous regional anaesthesia with either lignocaine alone or lignocaine with pethidine 30mg or lignocaine with ketprofen 100mg. Fentanyl was used as rescue analgesic during surgery. For the first 6h of postoperative period analgesia was provided by fentanyl injection and between 6 and 24h analgesia was provided by diclofenac tablets. Visual analogue scores for pain and consumption of fentanyl and diclofenac were compared. RESULTS: The block was inadequate for one case each in lignocaine group and pethidine group, so general anaesthesia was provided. Time for the first dose of fentanyl required for postoperative analgesia was significantly more in pethidine and ketoprofen groups compared to lignocaine group (156.7±148.8 and 153.0±106.0 vs. 52.1±52.4min respectively). Total fentanyl consumption in first 6h of postoperative period was less in pethidine and ketoprofen groups compared to lignocaine group (37.5±29.0mcg, 38.3±20.8mcg vs. 64.2±27.2mcg respectively). Consumption of diclofenac tablets was 2.4±0.7, 2.5±0.5 and 2.0±0.7 in the control, pethidine and ketoprofen group respectively, which was statistically not significant. Side effects were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both pethidine and ketoprofen are equally effective in providing postoperative analgesia up to 6h, without significant difference in the side effects and none of the adjuncts provide significant analgesia after 6h.

A randomized, double blind comparison of pethidine and ketoprofen as adjuvants for lignocaine in intravenous regional anaesthesia / Estudo comparativo, randômico e duplo-cego de petidina e cetoprofeno como adjuvantes de lidocaína em anestesia regional intravenosa / Estudio comparativo, aleatorizado y doble ciego, de la petidina y del ketoprofeno como adyuvantes de la lidocaína en la anestesia regional intravenosa

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A review of all the adjuncts for intravenous regional anaesthesia concluded that there is good evidence to recommend NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory agents and pethidine in the dose of 30 mg dose as adjuncts to intravenous regional anaesthesia. But there are no studies to compare pethidine of 30 mg dose to any of the NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory agents. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double blind study, 45 patients were given intravenous regional anaesthesia with either lignocaine alone or lignocaine with pethidine 30 mg or lignocaine with ketprofen 100 mg. Fentanyl was used as rescue analgesic during surgery. For the first 6 h of postoperative period analgesia was provided by fentanyl injection and between 6 and 24 h analgesia was provided by diclofenac tablets. Visual analogue scores for pain and consumption of fentanyl and diclofenac were compared. RESULTS: The block was inadequate for one case each in lignocaine group and pethidine group, so general anaesthesia was provided. Time for the first dose of fentanyl required for postoperative analgesia was significantly more in pethidine and ketoprofen groups compared to lignocaine group (156.7 ± 148.8 and 153.0 ± 106.0 vs. 52.1 ± 52.4 min respectively). Total fentanyl consumption in first 6 h of postoperative period was less in pethidine and ketoprofen groups compared to lignocaine group (37.5 ± 29.0 mcg, 38.3 ± 20.8 mcg vs. 64.2 ± 27.2 mcg respectively). Consumption of diclofenac tablets was 2.4 ± 0.7, 2.5 ± 0.5 and 2.0 ± 0.7 in the control, pethidine and ketoprofen group respectively, which was statistically not significant. Side effects were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both pethidine and ketoprofen are equally effective in providing postoperative analgesia up to 6 h, without significant difference in the side effects and none of the adjuncts provide significant ...

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: uma revisão de todos os adjuvantes para anestesia regional intravenosa concluiu que há boas evidências para recomendar os agentes anti-inflamatórios não esteroides e petidina em dose de 30 mg como adjuvantes para anestesia regional intravenosa. Porém, não há estudos que comparem petidina (30 mg) com quaisquer dos agentes anti-inflamatórios não esteroides. MÉTODOS: em um estudo prospectivo, randômico e duplo-cego, 45 pacientes receberam anestesia regional intravenosa com apenas lidocaína ou lidocaína com petidina (30 mg) ou lidocaína com cetoprofeno (100 mg). Fentanil foi usado como analgésico de resgate durante a cirurgia. Durante as seis primeiras horas de pós-operatório, analgesia foi fornecida via injeção de fentanil e, entre seis e 24 horas, analgesia foi fornecida via comprimidos de diclofenaco. Os escores visuais analógicos para dor e do consumo de fentanil e diclofenaco foram comparados. RESULTADOS: o bloqueio foi inadequado para um caso tanto do grupo lidocaína quanto do grupo petidina; portanto, anestesia geral foi administrada. O tempo para a primeira dose necessária de fentanil para analgesia pós-operatória foi significativamente maior nos grupos petidina e cetoprofeno em comparação com o grupo lidocaína (156,7 ± 148,8 e 153,0 ± 106,0 vs. 52,1 ± 52,4 minutos, respectivamente). O consumo total de fentanil nas primeiras seis horas de pós-operatório foi menor nos grupos petidina e cetoprofeno em comparação com o grupo lidocaína (37,5 ± 29,0 mcg, 38,3 ± 20,8 mcg vs. 64,2 ± 27,2 mcg, respectivamente). O consumo de comprimidos de diclofenaco foi de 2,4 ± 0,7, 2,5 ± 0,5 e 2,0 ± 0,7 no grupo controle, petidina e cetoprofeno, respectivamente, o que não foi estatisticamente significante. ...

JUSTIFICACIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: una revisión sobre todos los adyuvantes para la anestesia regional intravenosa concluyó que hay buenas evidencias para recomendar los agentes antiinflamatorios no esteroideos y la petidina en dosis de 30 mg como adyuvantes para la anestesia regional intravenosa. Sin embargo, no hay estudios comparando la petidina (30 mg) con cualesquiera de los agentes antiinflamatorios no-esteroideos. MÉTODOS: en un estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado y doble ciego, 45 pacientes recibieron anestesia regional intravenosa con solamente lidocaína o lidocaína con petidina (30 mg) o lidocaína con ketoprofeno (100 mg). El fentanilo fue usado como analgésico de rescate durante la cirugía. Durante las 6 primeras horas del postoperatorio, la analgesia fue suministrada vía inyección de fentanilo y entre 6 y 24 h, la analgesia fue suministrada vía comprimidos de diclofenaco. Se compararon las puntuaciones visuales analógicas para el dolor y el consumo de fentanilo y diclofenaco. RESULTADOS: el bloqueo fue inadecuado para un caso tanto del grupo lidocaína como del grupo petidina; por tanto, se administró anestesia general. El tiempo para la primera dosis necesaria de fentanilo para analgesia postoperatoria fue significativamente mayor en los grupos petidina y ketoprofeno en comparación con el grupo lidocaína (156,7 ± 148,8 y 153,0 ± 106,0 vs. 52,1 ± 52,4 min, respectivamente). El consumo total de fentanilo en las primeras 6 h del postoperatorio fue menor en los grupos petidina y ketoprofeno en comparación con el grupo lidocaína (37,5 ± 29,0 mcg; 38,3 ± 20,8 mcg vs. 64,2 ± 27,2 mcg, respectivamente). El consumo de comprimidos de diclofenaco fue de 2,4 ± 0,7; 2,5 ± 0,5; y 2 ± 0,7 en el grupo control, petidina y ketoprofeno, respectivamente, lo que no fue estadísticamente significativo. Los ...

Cerebellar and oculomotor dysfunction induced by rapid infusion of pethidine.

Pethidine is an opioid that gains its popularity for the effective pain control through acting on the opioid-receptors. However, rapid pain relief sometimes brings about unfavourable side effects that largely limit its clinical utility. Common side effects include nausea, vomiting and hypotension. In patients with impaired renal and liver function, and those who need long-term pain control, pethidine may cause excitatory central nervous system (CNS) effects through its neurotoxic metabolite, norpethidine, resulting in irritability and seizure attack. On the contrary, though not clinically apparent, pethidine potentially causes inhibitory impacts on the CNS and impairs normal cerebellar and oculomotor function in the short term. In this case report, we highlight opioid's inhibitory side effects on the cerebellar structure that causes dysmetria, dysarthria, reduced smooth pursuit gain and decreased saccadic velocity.

[Role of pulse oximetric monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Prospective multicenter study of the Gastroenterology Working Group of the Veszprém Regional Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (VEAB)]. / Az endoszkópos vizsgálatok pulzoximetriás monitorozásának jelentosége. Az MTA VEAB Gasztroenterológiai Munkabizottságának prospektív multicentrikus vizsgálata.

INTRODUCTION: Recent guidelines recommend routine pulse oximetric monitoring during endoscopy, however, this has not been the common practice yet in the majority of the local endoscopic units. AIMS: To draw attention to the importance of the routine use of pulse oximetric recording during endoscopy. METHOD: A prospective multicenter study was performed with the participation of 11 gastrointestinal endoscopic units. Data of pulse oximetric monitoring of 1249 endoscopic investigations were evaluated, of which 1183 were carried out with and 66 without sedation. RESULTS: Oxygen saturation less than 90% was observed in 239 cases corresponding to 19.1% of all cases. It occurred most often during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (31.2%) and proximal enteroscopy (20%). Procedure-related risk factors proved to be the long duration of the investigation, premedication with pethidine (31.3%), and combined sedoanalgesia with pethidine and midazolam (34.38%). The age over 60 years, obesity, consumption of hypnotics or sedatives, severe cardiopulmonary state, and risk factor scores III and IV of the American Society of Anestwere found as patient-related risk factors. CONCLUSION: To increase the safety of patients undergoing endoscopic investigation, pulse oximeter and oxygen supplementation should be the standard requirement in all of the endoscopic investigation rooms. Pulse oximetric monitoring is advised routinely during endoscopy with special regard to the risk factors of hypoxemia.

Two dosages of remifentanil for patient-controlled analgesia vs. meperidine during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND STUDY: Combined use of opiates and benzodiazepines often results in delayed discharge after colonoscopy. AIMS: To compare sedation quality of two dosages of patient controlled analgesia remifentanil with one another and with that of a midazolam-meperidine association during colonoscopy. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups. Group M received a meperidine bolus (0.7 mg/kg) and sham patient controlled analgesia. Group R1 received remifentanil 0.5 µg/kg and group R2 remifentanil 0.8 µg/kg together with a patient-controlled analgesia pump injecting further boluses (2-min lock-out). Technical difficulties of the examination, gastroenterologist's and patient's satisfaction with sedoanalgesia were evaluated after colonoscopy on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Patient's satisfaction was assessed 24 h later. RESULTS: Group M had more adverse events (p = 0.044), required more rescue boluses (p = 0.0010), had lower Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale score at the end of the procedure (p = 0.0016) and longer discharge time (p = 0.0001). Groups R1 and R2 did not differ with respect to these variables. Patient's degree of pain and satisfaction with sedo-analgesia, endoscopist's technical difficulty and satisfaction were not different among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is a safe approach to sedation for colonoscopy.