Simplified algorithm for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to guidelines aimed at reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is well known. In a before-and-after study, we tested the effectiveness of a simplified algorithm for PONV prophylaxis on the incidence of PONV. METHODS: In the first audit, we examined the adherence to our institutional guidelines for PONV prevention. In response to the results of this audit, we introduced a simplified algorithm for PONV prevention [female patients receiving triple prophylaxis (dexamethasone and ondansetron plus either a target-controlled infusion with propofol or droperidol) and male patients receiving double prophylaxis, dexamethasone, and ondansetron]. The impact of the simplification of the PONV algorithm was evaluated in a second audit. In both audits, we reviewed the medical records of all adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiac non-day-case surgery under general anaesthesia and being admitted to our post-anaesthesia care unit during two arbitrarily chosen weeks. We assessed the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and PONV after 1 and 24 h, and the compliance with the departmental algorithm for PONV prophylaxis. RESULTS: After simplification of the PONV algorithm, the overall incidence of PONV within 24 h after surgery was significantly lower than before the implementation of the simplified PONV algorithm (22% vs 33%, P=0.02). The PONV incidence within 1 h was comparable between the audits (11% vs 14%, P=0.45). The adherence to departmental guidelines for PONV prophylaxis was significantly higher after the implementation of the simplified PONV algorithm (46% vs 18%, P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A simplified algorithm for PONV prophylaxis resulted in a significant reduction in the PONV incidence and better compliance with the PONV algorithm.

Intraoperative administered tramadol reduces the need for piritramide in the immediate postoperative period in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy: A retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Adenotonsillectomy is a frequently performed procedure in pediatric day-case surgery causing significant pain for which adequate analgesia is required. Our aim was to investigate if the intraoperative administration of IV tramadol decreases the need for postoperative pain medication in children. Because tramadol has well-known pro-emetic effects, we also assessed the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study in 314 children aged 1-13 years undergoing elective adenotonsillectomy. We identified 160 children who had received standard pain medication consisting of IV paracetamol and ketorolac and compared them with a group of 154 children who had received in addition a perioperative infusion of tramadol. RESULTS: 32.5% of the patients in the tramadol group versus 83.8% of the patients in the standard group required postoperative administration of piritramide (p < 0.0001). Groups did not differ with respect to the postoperative need for anti-emetics but in the tramadol group more patients had received prophylactic therapy with odansetron or dexamethasone (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this retrospective study indicate that intraoperative tramadol administration in combination with prophylactic antiemetic therapy decreases the need for piritramide in the immediate postoperative period without increasing the incidence of PONV after tonsillectomy in children.

A randomized trial comparing low-dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and conventional epidural anesthesia for cesarean section in severe preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A prospective, randomized study was designed to compare the maternal and neonatal effects of conventional epidural anesthesia and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic patients. Additionally, two strategies in the prophylactic management of hypotension in severe preeclamptic patients were evaluated: fluid preloading or prophylactic ephedrine. METHODS: Thirty nonlaboring women with severe preeclampsia (PET), scheduled for an elective Cesarean section, were randomised into three groups: epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (EA-F), combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (CSE-F), or combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic ephedrine (CSE-V). Hemodynamic data were recorded prior and after induction of regional anesthesia at five-minute intervals. The total amount of intravenous administered fluid and the total dose of vasopressors were recorded. RESULTS: Hemodynamic data were similar between the three groups. The incidence and duration of hypotension was similar in all three groups. Significantly more ephedrine was used in the CSE-V group as compared to the CSE-F group. More lactated Ringer's solution was used in the CSE-F group as compared to the CSE-V group. There were no hypertensive episodes and none of the patients developed pulmonary edema. The time period from induction until the start of surgery and the duration of surgery were significantly shorter in both CSE-groups. Neonatal outcome was comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSE) is a safe alternative to conventional epidural anesthesia in severe preeclamptic women and that the prophylactic use of ephedrine is effective and safe to prevent and treat spinal hypotension after combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic women.

General anaesthesia with target controlled infusion of propofol for planned caesarean section: maternal and neonatal effects of a remifentanil-based technique.

The present case series evaluated maternal and neonatal effects of remifentanil, combined with propofol, during general anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. Following written informed consent, ten patients scheduled for semi-elective caesarean section were recruited to this prospective, unblinded trial. All patients with non-reassuring fetal status were excluded. A 0.50-micrograms/kg bolus of remifentanil was given intravenously, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.20 micrograms.kg(-1)min(-1). Anaesthesia was induced using propofol target controlled infusion set at a blood concentration of 5 micrograms/mL, 45 s after the remifentanil bolus. Following tracheal intubation the propofol target was reduced to 2.5 micrograms/mL and remifentanil maintained at 0.20 micrograms.kg(-1)min(-1). Mean arterial pressure remained stable throughout anaesthesia. Two patients experienced episodes of hypotension (mean arterial pressure decrease >20%). Although neonatal depression occurred in six babies and assisted mask ventilation was required briefly, recovery was rapid without the need for naloxone or tracheal intubation. Umbilical artery pH was >7.20 in all infants. We conclude that the results of the present case series using a remifentanil/propofol-based technique of general anaesthesia for caesarean section provide a basis to study the safety of this technique in a larger population. Under the conditions of the present trial, this anaesthetic technique seems safe for mother and infant, provided adequate precautions are taken to manage brief, self-limiting infant respiratory depression. At the moment we cannot advise the routine use of this technique, especially since it has not been studied in situations of fetal compromise.

Remifentanil for foetal immobilisation and maternal sedation during endoscopic treatment of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome : a preliminary dose-finding study.

Twin to twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) affects 10 to 15% of monochorionic twin pregnancies. Untreated, perinatal loss exceeds 80%, of which survivors have a great risk for long-term neurological disorders as psychomotor retardation or cerebral palsy. TTTS can be treated using foetoscopy and selective ablation of the twin-to-twin blood vessels under local or regional anaesthesia. However, local or regional anaesthesia does not always result in excellent maternal comfort, nor does it provide foetal immobilisation, necessary for optimal surgical conditions. Using a continuous infusion rate of remifentanil 0.1 microg/kg/min, perfect foetal immobilisation and excellent maternal sedation was achieved. Only mild respiratory acidosis was observed as a result of mild respiratory depression. In no mother apnoe occurred. All haemodynamic parameters, both foetal and maternal, remained stable during the procedure. Maternal sedation, respiratory depression and foetal immobilisation were quickly reversible following cessation of the remifentanil infusion.

Risk and safety of anesthesia outside the operating room.

More and more frequently anaesthetists must be able to provide complete, integrated anaesthetic care outside the traditional environment of the operating room. Providing non-operating room anaesthesia (NORA) has gained widespread popularity. Both the number and the complexity of these therapeutic and diagnostic procedures is increasing. Performing NORA cannot, in most cases, be compared with traditional anaesthesia care inside the operating room. NORA might carry a higher risk as opposed to anaesthesia inside the operating room. It has its specific logistical problems resulting in specific patient selection, pre-operative patient assessment, per-operative morbidity and mortality and post-operative patient follow-up and treatment. From what is available in the literature paediatric patients carry a high risk of complications; monitored anaesthesia care is associated with more complications and substandard care is often present. Despite these potential risks, the mortality and morbidity related to NORA is infrequently studied and poorly described. Most authors agree that improvements in monitoring are essential to decrease the complication rate.

Intrathecal sufentanil and fetal heart rate abnormalities: a double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial comparing two forms of combined spinal epidural analgesia with epidural analgesia in labor.

UNLABELLED: Combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSE) for labor pain relief has become increasingly popular. However, the effect of intrathecal sufentanil on the incidence of uterine hyperactivity and fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities remains controversial. We hypothesized that the use of intrathecal sufentanil in a dose of 7.5 microg is more likely to induce a nonreassuring FHR tracing than a small dose of spinal sufentanil combined with bupivacaine or epidural analgesia. Three-hundred parturients were randomized into three groups. In the first group, epidural analgesia was initiated with 12.5 mg of bupivacaine, 12.5 microg of epinephrine, and 7.5 microg of sufentanil in a volume of 10 mL (EPD group). In Group 2, initial intrathecal analgesia consisted of 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, 2.5 microg of epinephrine, and 1.5 microg of sufentanil (BSE group); in Group 3, spinal analgesia consisted of 7.5 microg of sufentanil (SUF group). Analgesia was maintained in all groups with patient-controlled epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.125%, 1.25 microg/mL of epinephrine, and 0.75 microg/mL of sufentanil (bolus, 4 mL; lockout, 15 min). Cardiotocography was monitored continuously 15 min before analgesia and for 60 min after the start of analgesia. The quality of analgesia, labor, and neonatal outcome and side effects were recorded. Twenty-four percent of patients in the SUF group developed FHR abnormalities (bradycardia or late decelerations) during the first hour after initiation of analgesia compared with 12% in the BSE group and 11% in the EPD group. Uterine hyperactivity occurred in 12% of parturients in the SUF group but in only 2% in the other groups. Onset of analgesia was more rapid in both CSE groups as compared with the EPD group. However, 29% of patients in the BSE group developed severe hypotension, requiring IV ephedrine (29% in the BSE group versus 7% and 12% in the EPD and SUF groups, respectively). All these differences reached statistical significance. The present data corroborate previous recommendations of caution when performing CSE using a large dose (7.5 microg or more) of spinal sufentanil because of the risk of uterine hyperactivity and FHR abnormalities. IMPLICATIONS: Combined spinal epidural analgesia (CSE) produces pain relief during labor. Fetal heart rate changes after CSE using intrathecal sufentanil have been reported. We performed a randomized, blinded trial confirming that fetal heart rate changes are more frequent after CSE using 7.5 micro g of intrathecal sufentanil as compared with other forms of neuraxial labor analgesia.

Low-dose combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia vs. conventional epidural anaesthesia for Caesarean section in pre-eclampsia: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Epidural anaesthesia is the preferred technique of anaesthesia for Caesarean section in pre-eclampsia. Spinal anaesthesia is considered by some as a safe and effective alternative, which is especially useful in emergency situations. Combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia, using low doses of local anaesthetics with opioids, is effective and reduces the incidence of hypotension in normal pregnancy. We performed a retrospective chart analysis to evaluate the effects of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia on maternal haemodynamics and fetal outcome compared to conventional epidural anaesthesia. METHODS: A retrospective anaesthesia chart analysis of all pre-eclamptic patients who underwent Caesarean section over a 4 yr period was performed. Patient characteristic, obstetric, haemodynamic, fetal and neonatal data were gathered and analysed according to the anaesthetic technique used. RESULTS: Seventy-seven pre-eclamptic parturients undergoing Caesarean section were identified (26 women were severely pre-eclamptic and 51 demonstrated mild pre-eclampsia). Epidural anaesthesia was performed in 62 patients and combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia was performed in 15. No differences in patient characteristic and obstetric data were noted. Highest mean arterial pressure prior to anaesthesia was comparable between the groups (epidural: 106 +/- 12 vs. combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia: 109 +/- 18 mmHg) as well as the lowest recorded mean arterial pressure following anaesthesia (epidural: 93 +/- 13 vs. combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia: 98 +/- 17 mmHg). In the combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia group more ephedrine was used compared to the epidural group (14.6 +/- 4.4 vs. 3.6 +/- 4.6 mg, P < 0.05). However, more lactated Ringer's was used in the epidural group. Umbilical artery pH was lower in the epidural group (7.26 +/- 0.01 vs. 7.29 +/- 0.02, P < 0.05). Similar results were noted in 26 severely pre-eclamptic patients. Seven women underwent combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia and 19 underwent epidural anaesthesia in the severely pre-eclamptic group. Also more ephedrine was used in the combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia group. A tendency towards a lower umbilical artery pH was observed in the epidural group but this difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia appears to be safe as anaesthetic technique for pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia. However, it is important to consider the retrospective design of the study and the large number of epidural anaesthetics performed.

Post dural puncture headache following combined spinal epidural or epidural anaesthesia in obstetric patients.

A retrospective review of obstetric anaesthesia charts was performed for all parturients receiving regional anaesthesia over a 22-month period. The incidence of headache, post dural puncture headache (PDPH) and various other complications of regional anaesthesia that had been prospectively assessed were noted, as was the anaesthetic technique used (epidural or combined spinal epidural (CSE)). PDPH was rare (0.44%) and occurred with similar frequency in those managed with either epidural or CSE anaesthesia or analgesia. The pencil-point spinal needle gauge (27 or 29) did not influence the incidence of PDPH. Following a CSE technique, the epidural catheter more reliably produced effective analgesia/anaesthesia as compared with a standard epidural technique (1.49% versus 3.18% incidence of replaced catheters respectively). We conclude, based on the results of this retrospective review, that CSE is acceptable with respect to the occurrence of PDPH and that it is possible it is advantageous in relation to the correct placement of the epidural catheter