Use of a disposable acupressure device as part of a multimodal antiemetic strategy for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: There is still controversy regarding the optimal strategy for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk surgical populations. Although acustimulation at the P6 acupoint has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing PONV, the effect of this nonpharmacologic therapy on the patient's recovery with respect to resumption of normal activities of daily living has not been previously assessed when it is used as part of a multimodal antiemetic regimen. Therefore, we designed this randomized, sham-controlled, and double-blind study to assess the efficacy of a disposable acupressure device (Pressure Right®; Pressure Point Inc., Grand Rapids, MI) on the incidence of emetic episodes and quality of recovery when used in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. METHODS: One hundred ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing major laparoscopic procedures were randomly assigned to either a control group (n = 50) receiving a "sham" acustimulation device or an acupressure group (n = 50) receiving a disposable Pressure Right device placed bilaterally at the P6 point 30 to 60 minutes before induction of anesthesia. All patients received a standardized general anesthetic. A combination of ondansetron, 4 mg IV, and dexamethasone, 4 mg IV, was administered during surgery for antiemetic prophylaxis in both study groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the need for "rescue" antiemetic therapy were assessed at specific time intervals for up to 72 hours after surgery. The recovery profiles and quality of recovery questionnaires were evaluated at 48 hours and 72 hours after surgery. Patient satisfaction with the management of their PONV was assessed at the end of the 72-hour study period. RESULTS: The 2 study groups did not differ in their demographic characteristics or risk factors for PONV. The incidence of vomiting at 24 hours was significantly decreased in the acupressure group (10% vs 26%, P = 0.04, 95% confidence interval for absolute risk reduction 1%-31%). The overall incidence of vomiting from 0 to 72 hours after surgery was also significantly decreased from 30% to 12% in the acupressure group (P = 0.03, 95% confidence interval 2%-33%). Furthermore, adjunctive use of the acupressure device seemed to enhance patient satisfaction with their PONV management and quality of recovery at 48 hours after surgery. However, the recovery times to hospital discharge, resumption of normal physical activities, and return to work did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups. CONCLUSION: Use of the Pressure Right acupressure device in combination with antiemetic drugs provided a reduction in the incidence of vomiting from 0 to 72 hours after surgery with an associated improvement in patient satisfaction with their PONV management. However, recovery and outcome variables failed to demonstrate any improvement with the addition of the acupressure device.

The effects of oral ibuprofen and celecoxib in preventing pain, improving recovery outcomes and patient satisfaction after ambulatory surgery.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs have become increasingly popular as part of multimodal analgesic regimens for pain management in the ambulatory setting. We designed this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of postoperative administration of either a nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (ibuprofen) or the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor (celecoxib when administered as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen) on the severity of pain, the need for rescue analgesics, and clinically relevant patient outcomes after ambulatory surgery. The primary end point was the time to resumption of normal activities of daily living. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients undergoing outpatient surgery were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: group 1 (control) received either 2 placebo capsules (matching celecoxib) or 1 placebo tablet (matching ibuprofen) in the recovery room and 1 placebo tablet at bedtime on the day of surgery, followed by 1 placebo capsule or tablet 3 times a day for 3 days after discharge; group 2 (celecoxib) received celecoxib 400 mg (2 capsules) orally in the recovery room and 1 placebo capsule and tablet at bedtime on the day of surgery, followed by celecoxib 200 mg (1 capsule) twice a day + placebo capsule every day at bedtime for 3 days after surgery; or group 3 (ibuprofen) received ibuprofen 400 mg (1 tablet) orally in the recovery room and 400 mg orally at bedtime on the day of surgery, followed by 400 mg orally 3 times a day for 3 days after surgery. Recovery times, postoperative pain scores, and the need for rescue analgesics were recorded before discharge. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 7 days, and 30 days after surgery to assess postdischarge pain, analgesic requirements, resumption of normal activities, opioid-related side effects, as well as quality of recovery and patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management using a 5-point verbal rating scale. RESULTS: The 3 groups did not differ with respect to their demographic characteristics. Compared with the placebo treatment, both celecoxib and ibuprofen significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesic medication after discharge (P < 0.05). The effect sizes (celecoxib and ibuprofen versus control group) were 0.73 to 1 and 0.3 to 0.8, respectively. Quality of recovery scores and patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management were also improved in the celecoxib and ibuprofen groups compared with the control group (P < 0.05, effect size [vs control group] = 0.67). The incidence of postoperative constipation was significantly higher in the control group (28%) compared with the celecoxib (5%) and ibuprofen (7%) groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Both active treatments were well tolerated in the postdischarge period. However, the time to resumption of normal activities of daily living was similar among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both ibuprofen (1200 mg/d) and celecoxib (400 mg/d) significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesic medication in the early postdischarge period, leading to an improvement in the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction with their pain management after outpatient surgery.

Desflurane versus sevoflurane for maintenance of outpatient anesthesia: the effect on early versus late recovery and perioperative coughing.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the relative perioperative benefits of desflurane versus sevoflurane when used for maintenance of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. Although studies have consistently demonstrated a faster emergence with desflurane (versus sevoflurane), the impact of this difference on the later recovery end points has not been definitively established. Furthermore, the effect of desflurane (versus sevoflurane) on the incidence of coughing is also controversial. METHODS: We randomized 130 outpatients undergoing superficial surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia to one of two maintenance anesthetic treatment groups. All patients were induced with propofol, 2 mg/kg IV, and after placement of a laryngeal mask airway, anesthesia was maintained with either sevoflurane 1%-3% or desflurane 3%-8% in an air/oxygen mixture. The inspired concentration of the volatile anesthetic was varied to maintain hemodynamic stability and a Bispectral Index value of 50-60. Analgesia was provided with local anesthetic infiltration and ketorolac (30 mg IV). Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of a combination of ondansetron (4 mg), dexamethasone (4 mg), and metoclopramide (10 mg) at the end of surgery. Assessments included recovery times to eye opening, response to commands, orientation, fast-track score of 14, first oral intake, sitting, standing, ambulating unassisted, and actual discharge. Patient satisfaction with anesthesia, the ability to resume normal activities on the first postoperative day, adverse side effects (e.g., coughing, purposeful movement, oxygen desaturation <90%, sore throat, postoperative nausea, and vomiting), and the requirement for postoperative analgesic and antiemetic drugs were recorded in the early postoperative period and during the initial 24-h period after discharge. RESULTS: The two study groups had comparable demographic characteristics. Although the overall incidence of coughing during the perioperative period was higher in the desflurane group (60% versus 32% in the sevoflurane group, P < 0.05), the incidences of coughing during the actual administration of the volatile anesthetics (i.e., the maintenance period) did not differ between the two groups. Emergence from anesthesia was more rapid after desflurane; however, all patients achieved fast-track recovery criteria (fast-track score >or=12) before leaving the operating room. Finally, the time to discharge home (90 +/- 31 min in sevoflurane and 98 +/- 35 min in desflurane, respectively) and the percentage of patients able to resume normal activities on the first postoperative day (sevoflurane 48% and desflurane 60%) did not differ significantly between the two anesthetic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of desflurane for maintenance of anesthesia was associated with a faster emergence and a higher incidence of coughing. Despite the faster initial recovery with desflurane, no significant differences were found between the two volatile anesthetics in the later recovery period. Both volatile anesthetics should be available for ambulatory anesthesia.

The impact of current antiemetic practices on patient outcomes: a prospective study on high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study, we evaluated the incidence and time course of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), assessed prophylactic and rescue antiemetic use in high-risk patients, and determined population-based effectiveness of antiemetics, including the impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and American Society of Perianesthesia Nurses (ASPAN) guideline compliance. METHODS: Eligible patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or major plastic surgery possessed two or more of the following Apfel PONV risk factors: female gender, history of PONV or motion sickness, and nonsmoking status. Antiemetic use, emetic episodes, severity of nausea, and functional interference due to PONV were documented during the first 72 h after surgery. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, and complete control was defined as CR and no moderate-severe nausea. The effect of compliance (versus noncompliance) with ASA and ASPAN guidelines on PONV outcomes was also analyzed. RESULTS: The proportion of patients experiencing postoperative emesis ranged from 18% to 40% depending on the number of antiemetics administered. The rate of rescue medication (45%) was similar to the reported incidences of moderate-to-severe nausea (47%) and functional interference due to emetic symptoms (44%). The administration of three or more antiemetics produced better patient outcomes overall compared to <1 prophylactic antiemetic. CR rates were <70% despite adherence to current organizational PONV management guidelines (ASA: 69%; ASPAN: 63%). The complete control rates were 10% lower than CR rates over the 3 day study period. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of three or more prophylactic antiemetics had the most positive impact on emetic outcomes over 72 hrs in patients at risk of developing PONV. Although compliance with organizational PONV management guidelines improved patient outcomes, postoperative emetic symptoms and interference with patient functioning still occurred in more than 30% of these high-risk patients.

Transdermal scopolamine: an alternative to ondansetron and droperidol for the prevention of postoperative and postdischarge emetic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Given the controversy regarding the use of droperidol and the high cost of the 5-HT3 antagonists, a cost-effective alternative for routine use as a prophylactic antiemetic would be desirable. We designed two parallel, randomized, double-blind sham and placebo-controlled studies to compare the early and late antiemetic efficacy and adverse event profile of transdermal scopolamine (TDS) 1.5 mg, to ondansetron 4 mg IV, and droperidol 1.25 mg IV for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in "at risk" surgical populations. METHODS: A total of 150 patients undergoing major laparoscopic (n = 80) or plastic (n = 70) surgery procedures received either an active TDS patch (containing scopolamine 1.5 mg) or a similar appearing sham patch 60 min before entering the operating room. All patients received a standardized general anesthetic technique. A second study medication was administered in a 2-mL numbered syringe containing either saline (for the two active TDS groups), droperidol, 1.25 mg, or ondansetron, 4 mg (for the sham patch groups), and was administered IV near the end of the procedure. The occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting/retching, need for rescue antiemetics, and the complete response rates (i.e., absence of protracted nausea or repeated episodes of emesis requiring antiemetic rescue medication) was reported. In addition, complaints of visual disturbances, dry mouth, drowsiness, and restlessness were noted up to 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the emetic outcomes or need for rescue antiemetics among the TDS, droperidol, and ondansetron groups in the first 72 h after surgery. The complete response rates varied from 41% to 51%, and did not significantly differ among the treatment groups. The overall incidence of dry mouth was significantly more frequent in the TDS groups than in the droperidol and ondansetron groups (21% vs 3%). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with TDS was as effective as droperidol (1.25 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) in preventing nausea and vomiting in the early and late postoperative periods. However, the use of a TDS patch is more likely to produce a dry mouth.

A comparison of state and response entropy versus bispectral index values during the perioperative period.

Cerebral monitoring indices are associated with a large degree of inter-patient variability and electrical signal interference during surgery. We designed this clinical study to test the hypothesis that use of the spectral entropy (Entropy) module is associated with less frequent intraoperative interference with the displayed indices than the bispectral index (BIS) monitor when used during general anesthesia with propofol and desflurane. Thirty consenting patients scheduled for major laparoscopic surgery procedures were enrolled in this prospective study. The elapsed time to obtain a baseline index value was recorded, as well as the simultaneous state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and BIS values at specific time intervals during the induction, maintenance, and emergence periods in patients administered a standardized general anesthetic technique. During the maintenance period, the changes in these indices were evaluated after a bolus dose of propofol (20 mg IV) and a 2% increase or decrease in the inspired concentration of desflurane. As expected, the baseline SE values were less than the RE and BIS values (88 +/- 2 versus 96 +/- 3 and 96 +/- 4, respectively). However, the SE and RE values correlated with the BIS value during the induction (r = 0.77 and 0.78, respectively) and emergence (r = 0.86 and 0.91, respectively) periods. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detection of consciousness also indicated a similar performance of the SE (0.93 +/- 0.04) relative to the RE (0.98 +/- 0.04) and BIS (0.97 +/- 0.04). During the maintenance period, the responses to changes in propofol and desflurane concentrations were consistent with all three indices. Finally, the entropy indices were less interfered with by the electrocautery unit during the operation (12% versus 62% for the BIS monitor). Because the average selling prices of the Entropy and BIS disposable electrode strips (14.25 dollars versus 14.95 dollars USD, respectively) are comparable, we conclude that the Entropy module is a cost-equivalent alternative to the BIS monitor.

The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: the effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery.

Based on comparative studies in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, it has been suggested that granisetron would be more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). However, there have been no direct comparisons of these two popular 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to PDNV and quality of recovery. We designed this randomized, double-blind study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of oral granisetron (1 mg) to a standard IV dose of ondansetron (4 mg) when administered for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in a laparoscopic surgical population. A total of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this prospective study at two major medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic treatment groups: the control (ondansetron) group received an oral placebo 1 h before surgery and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, at the end of the surgery, and the granisetron group received granisetron, 1 mg per os, 1 h before surgery, and normal saline, 2 mL IV, at the end of the surgery. The early recovery profiles, requirement for rescue antiemetics, incidence of PDNV, and the side effects were recorded over the 48 h study period. In addition, nausea scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal rating scale at specific intervals in the postoperative period. The quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores were recorded at 48 h after surgery. The demographic characteristics were similar in the two prophylaxis treatment groups, as well as the recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, and hospital discharge. The incidences of PDNV, requirements for rescue antiemetics, and quality of recovery did not differ between the two study groups. The antiemetic drug acquisition costs to achieve comparable patient satisfaction with ondansetron and granisetron were US 25.65 dollars and 47.05 dollars, respectively. Therefore, ondansetron (4 mg IV) was more cost-effective than granisetron (1 mg per os) for routine antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of three video laryngoscopy devices to direct laryngoscopy for intubating obese patients: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare three different video laryngoscope devices (VL) to standard direct laryngoscopy (DL) for tracheal intubation of obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. HYPOTHESIS: VL (vs DL) would reduce the time required to achieve successful tracheal intubation and improve the glottic view. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized and controlled. SETTING: Preoperative/operating rooms and postanesthesia care unit. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-one obese patients (ASA physical status I-III), aged 18 to 80 years, body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m(2) undergoing elective bariatric surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were prospectively randomized assigned to one of 4 different airway devices for tracheal intubation: standard Macintosh (Mac) blade (DL); Video-Mac VL; Glide Scope VL; or McGrath VL. MEASUREMENTS: After performing a preoperative airway evaluation, patients underwent a standardized induction sequence. The glottic view was graded using the Cormack Lehane and percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scoring systems at the time of tracheal intubation. Times from the blade entering the patient's mouth to obtaining a glottic view, placement of the tracheal tube, and confirmation of an end-tidal CO2 waveform were recorded. In addition, intubation attempts, adjuvant airway devices, hemodynamic changes, adverse events, and any airway-related trauma were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: All three VL devices provided improved glottic views compared to standard DL (p < 0.05). Video-Mac VL and McGrath also significantly reduced the time required to obtain the glottic view. Video-Mac VL significantly reduced the time required for successful placement of the tracheal tube (vs DL and the others VL device groups). The Video-Mac and GlideScope required fewer intubation attempts (P< .05) and less frequent use of ancillary intubating devices compared to DL and the McGrath VL. CONCLUSION: Video-Mac and GlideScope required fewer intubation attempts than standard DL and the McGrath device. The Video-Mac also significantly reduced the time needed to secure the airway and improved the glottic view compared to standard DL.

Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to a flexible fiberoptic scope for intubation with cervical spine immobilization.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the standard flexible fiberoptic scope (FFS) with an eye piece (but without a camera or a video screen) for intubation of patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with manual inline stabilization. The primary end point was the time to achieve successful tracheal intubation. Secondary end points included glottic view at intubation and number of intubation attempts. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. PATIENTS: One hundred forty patients (American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status I-III), aged 18 to 80years undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were prospectively randomized to undergo tracheal intubation using either an FFS (n=70) or the C-MAC video laryngoscope (n=70). MEASUREMENTS: After performing a preoperative airway evaluation, patients underwent a standardized induction sequence. The glottic view was assessed at the time of tracheal tube placement using the Cormack-Lehane and percentage of glottic opening scoring systems. In addition, the time required for successful insertion of the tracheal tube, number of intubation attempts to secure the airway, the need for adjuvant airway devices, hemodynamic changes, adverse events, and any airway-related trauma were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: The glottic view at the time of intubation did not differ significantly with the 2 devices; however, the C-MAC facilitated more rapid tracheal intubation compared with the FFS (P=.001). The peak heart rate response following insertion of the tracheal tube was also reduced (P=.004) in the C-MAC (vs FFS) group. CONCLUSION: The C-MAC may offer an advantage over the FFS with respect to the time required to obtain glottic view and successful placement of the tracheal tube in patients requiring cervical spine immobilization.

Propofol versus midazolam for premedication: a placebo­controlled, randomized double­blinded study.

BACKGROUND: It has been previously reported that subhypnotic doses of propofol could offer an advantage over midazolam for premedication. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that a 20 mg IV dose of propofol would be more effective than a standard 2 mg IV dose of midazolam for reducing acute anxiety prior to induction of anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred twenty outpatients scheduled to undergo orthopedic surgery were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: control (saline); propofol (20 mg); or midazolam (2 mg). Immediately before administering the study medication, each patient evaluated their level of acute anxiety and sedation on 11­point verbal rating scales (VRSs) 0=none- 10=highest, and they were also shown a picture. Upon arrival in the OR ~5 min after administering the study medication, anxiety and sedation levels were reassessed and a second picture was shown. At discharge from the recovery area, anxiety and sedation levels and their ability to recall the two pictures were reassessed. RESULTS: Compared to the saline group, both propofol and midazolam produced significant increases in the patient's level of sedation upon entering the OR (+2.5±2.4 vs. +4.6±2.5 and +5.2±2.3, respectively [p<0.001]). Propofol was effective as midazolam compared to saline in reducing the patient's level of preinduction anxiety (from 3.2±2.2 to1.8±1.8 vs. 3.1±2.2 to 2.3±2.1 and 2.7±1.8 to 2.8±2.1, respectively). Propofol produced more pain on injection and midazolam significantly reduced recall of the second picture. CONCLUSIONS: When administered ~5 min prior to entering the OR, propofol, 20mg IV, was as effective as midazolam 2mg IV in reducing anxiety.

Effect of maintenance bolus on the recovery profile of a short-acting nondepolarizing muscle relaxant.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different maintenance boluses of a short-acting nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drug on its spontaneous recovery profile during anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study. SETTING: University-based medical center. PATIENTS: 69 ASA physical status I and II consenting adult outpatients undergoing general anesthesia with an anticipated duration of at least 2 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to one of three study groups. Following induction of anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl, rapacuronium 1.5 mg x kg(-1) intravenously (i.v.), was administered to facilitate tracheal intubation. Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane 4% end-tidal in combination with nitrous oxide 67% in oxygen. When the first twitch (T(1)) in the train-of-four (TOF) returned to 25% of its baseline value, a maintenance dose of rapacuronium 0.25 mg x kg(-1) i.v. (Group 1), 0.5 mg. kg(-1) i.v. (Group 2), or 0.75 mg. kg(-1) i.v. (Group 3) was administered. The time course of neuromuscular block was monitored at the wrist using standard electromyography. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The times for recovery of the T(1) to 25% of the baseline value following different maintenance doses of rapacuronium were only 6.3 +/- 2.2, 7.5 +/- 2.3, and 9.6 +/- 2.5 minutes, in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. However, the times for the TOF ratio to return to 0.7 were 44 +/- 15, 53 +/- 20, and 66 +/- 30 minutes in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Although recovery times were significantly longer after rapacuronium 0.75 mg x kg(-1) i.v. (Group 3), there were no significant differences in any of the recovery variables between Groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous recovery of the T(1) to 25% of the baseline value occurred 6 to 10 minutes after a maintenance bolus dose of rapacuronium 0.25 to 0.75 mg x kg(-1) i.v. However, recovery to a TOF>0.7 required 44 to 66 minutes during desflurane anesthesia.

Do current antiemetic practices result in positive patient outcomes? Results of a new study.

PURPOSE: The problem of perioperative nausea and vomiting (including postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting [PONV/PDNV]) among people undergoing general anesthesia is discussed. SUMMARY: Nausea and vomiting are not limited to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) or the hospital, but can persist long after the patient has been discharged and has returned home. This underscores the need for new antiemetic agents that not only offer greater efficacy and proven safety, but also provide an extended duration of action. The Prospective Observational Study of Treatments, Outcomes and Patterns of Care (POSTOP), was designed to assess the impact that current antiemetic practices have on patient outcomes in the postoperative and postdischarge settings. The investigation assessed the treatments, outcomes, and patterns of care for PONV and PDNV in high-risk patients over the course of 72 hours following surgery. Based on this observational study, despite the availability of current guidelines there is no current standard of care for managing PONV and PDNV. CONCLUSION: Increasing the adherence to guidelines and the rational use of prophylaxis based on patient stratification will reduce the incidence of PONV, as will the development of new antiemetic agents with greater efficacies and longer durations of action that can provide extended protection from nausea and vomiting throughout the 72-hour postsurgical period.

Is the patient state analyzer with the PSArray2 a cost-effective alternative to the bispectral index monitor during the perioperative period?

New disposable electrodes, the PSArray and XP sensor, have been developed for the patient state analyzer (PSA) and the bispectral index (BIS) monitors, respectively. We designed this clinical study to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the patient state index (PSI) with the BIS during the perioperative period when the new electrode sensors were used. Twenty-two consenting patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic procedures were enrolled in this prospective study. The elapsed time to apply electrodes and obtain a baseline index value was recorded, as were the comparative PSI and BIS values at specific time intervals during the induction, maintenance, and emergence periods in patients who were administered a standardized general anesthetic. In addition, the changes in these indices were recorded after a bolus dose of propofol (20 mg IV) or a 2% increase or decrease in the inspired concentration of desflurane during the maintenance period. The total elapsed time to obtain an index value was similar with both devices (66 +/- 32 s versus 72 +/- 41 s for the PSA and BIS, respectively). By using logistic regression models, both the BIS and PSI were found to be equally effective as predictors of unconsciousness (i.e., failure to respond to verbal stimuli). The PSI also correlated with the BIS during both the induction of (R = 0.85) and the emergence from (R = 0.74) general anesthesia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detection of consciousness also indicated a similar performance with the PSI (0.98 +/- 0.05) and the BIS (0.97 +/- 0.05). During the maintenance period, the PSI values tended to be lower than the BIS value; however, the responses to changes in propofol and desflurane were similar. Finally, the PSI (versus BIS) values showed less interference from the electrocautery unit during the operation (31% versus 73%, respectively). Although the list price of the PSArray(2) disposable electrode strip (USD $24.95) was higher than that of the BIS XP sensor (USD $17.50), the average sale price (USD $14.95) was identical for both electrode systems. Therefore, we conclude that the PSA monitor with the PSArray(2) is a cost-effective alternative to the BIS monitor with the XP sensor for evaluating consciousness during the induction of and emergence from general anesthesia, as well as for titrating propofol and desflurane during the maintenance period.

Does the use of electroencephalographic bispectral index or auditory evoked potential index monitoring facilitate recovery after desflurane anesthesia in the ambulatory setting?

BACKGROUND: Analogous to the Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor, the auditory evoked potential monitor provides an electroencephalographic-derived index (AAI), which is alleged to correlate with the central nervous system depressant effects of anesthetic drugs. This clinical study was designed to test the hypothesis that intraoperative cerebral monitoring guided by either the BIS or the AAI value would facilitate recovery from general anesthesia compared with standard clinical monitoring practices alone in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Sixty consenting outpatients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: (1) control (standard practice), (2) BIS guided, or (3) AAI guided. Anesthesia was induced with 1.5-2.5 mg/kg propofol and 1-1.5 microg/kg fentanyl given intravenously. Desflurane, 3%, in combination with 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen was administered for maintenance of general anesthesia. In the control group, the inspired desflurane concentration was varied based on standard clinical signs. In the BIS- and AAI-guided groups, the inspired desflurane concentrations were titrated to maintain BIS and AAI values in targeted ranges of 50-60 and 15-25, respectively. BIS and AAI values, hemodynamic variables, and the end-tidal desflurane concentration were recorded at 5-min intervals during the maintenance period. The emergence times and recovery times to achieve specific clinical endpoints were recorded at 1- to 10-min intervals. The White fast-track and modified Aldrete recovery scores were assessed on arrival in the PACU, and the quality of recovery score was evaluated at the time of discharge home. RESULTS: A positive correlation was found between the AAI and BIS values during the maintenance period. The average BIS and AAI values (mean +/- SD) during the maintenance period were significantly lower in the control group (BIS, 41 +/- 10; AAI, 11 +/- 6) compared with the BIS-guided (BIS, 57 +/- 14; AAI, +/- 11) and AAI-guided (BIS, 55 +/- 12; AAI, 20 +/- 10) groups. The end-tidal desflurane concentration was significantly reduced in the BIS-guided (2.7 +/- 0.9%) and AAI-guided (2.6 +/- 0.9%) groups compared with the control group (3.6 +/- 1.5%). The awakening (eye-opening) and discharge times were significantly shorter in the BIS-guided (7 +/- 3 and 132 +/- 39 min, respectively) and AAI-guided (6 +/- 2 and 128 +/- 39 min, respectively) groups compared with the control group (9 +/- 4 and 195 +/- 57 min, respectively). More importantly, the median [range] quality of recovery scores was significantly higher in the BIS-guided (18 [17-18]) and AAI-guided (18 [17-18]) groups when compared with the control group (16 [10-18]). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard anesthesia monitoring practice, adjunctive use of auditory evoked potential and BIS monitoring can improve titration of desflurane during general anesthesia, leading to an improved recovery profile after ambulatory surgery.

The effect of intraoperative use of esmolol and nicardipine on recovery after ambulatory surgery.

UNLABELLED: There is controversy regarding the optimal technique for maintaining hemodynamic stability during anesthesia. We designed this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to test the hypothesis that the technique used for maintaining hemodynamic stability during general anesthesia can influence recovery after ambulatory surgery. Forty-five healthy consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy procedures were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: Group 1 (control, n = 15) received normal saline 5 mL and 1 mL, followed by a saline infusion at a rate of 0.005 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1); Group 2 (n = 15) received esmolol 50 mg and saline 1 mL, followed by an esmolol infusion 5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1); and Group 3 (n = 15) received esmolol 50 mg and nicardipine 1 mg, followed by an esmolol infusion 5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). The study drugs were administered after the induction of anesthesia with fentanyl 1.5 microg/kg, and propofol 2 mg/kg I.V. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with vecuronium 0.12 mg/kg I.V. Anesthesia was initially maintained with desflurane 2% end-tidal and N(2)O 67% in oxygen in all 3 groups. During surgery, the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was maintained within +/-15% of the baseline value by varying the study drug infusion rate and the inspired concentration of desflurane. In addition to MAP and heart rate values, electroencephalogram bispectral index values were recorded throughout the perioperative period. Recovery times and postoperative side effects were assessed. Compared with the control group, adjunctive use of esmolol and nicardipine attenuated the increase in heart rate (in Group 2) and MAP (in Group 3) after tracheal intubation. Furthermore, the use of an esmolol infusion as an adjunct to desflurane to control the acute autonomic responses during the maintenance period significantly decreased emergence times (4 +/- 2 versus 7 +/- 4 min), decreased the need for postoperative opioid analgesics (43% versus 80%), and reduced the time to discharge (209 +/- 89 versus 269 +/- 100 min). We conclude that the adjunctive use of esmolol alone or in combination with nicardipine during the induction of anesthesia reduced the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. Furthermore, use of an esmolol infusion as an adjuvant to desflurane-N(2)O anesthesia for controlling the acute hemodynamic responses during the maintenance period improved the recovery profile after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. IMPLICATIONS: The adjunctive use of the beta-adrenergic blocker esmolol to control the acute sympathetic responses during desflurane-based anesthesia provided a more rapid awakening from anesthesia, reduced the postoperative opioid analgesic requirement, and decreased the time to discharge home after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery.

A comparison of patient state index and bispectral index values during the perioperative period.

UNLABELLED: The patient state index (PSI), a quantitative electroencephalographic index, has been recently introduced into clinical practice as a monitor for assessing consciousness during sedation and general anesthesia. We designed this observational study to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the PSI with that of the bispectral index (BIS) with respect to their ability to predict the loss of consciousness and emergence from anesthesia, as well as to assess changes in IV (propofol) and inhaled (desflurane) anesthetics during the maintenance period. Twenty consenting patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgical procedures were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. Anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg IV and fentanyl 1 micro g/kg IV, and tracheal intubation was facilitated with cisatracurium 0.3 mg/kg IV. Desflurane 4% in combination with nitrous oxide 60% in oxygen was administered for the maintenance of anesthesia. Comparative PSI and BIS values were obtained at specific time intervals during the induction, maintenance, and emergence periods. The changes in these indices were recorded after the administration of propofol (20 mg IV) or with 2% increases or decreases in the inspired concentration of desflurane during the maintenance period. With logistic regression models, both the BIS and PSI were found to be effective as predictors of unconsciousness (i.e., failed to respond to verbal stimuli) (P < 0.01). The PSI also correlated with the BIS during both the induction of (r = 0.78) and emergence from (r = 0.73) general anesthesia. However, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for detection of consciousness indicated a better performance with the PSI (0.95 +/- 0.04) than the BIS (0.79 +/- 0.04). During the maintenance period, the PSI values were comparable to the BIS in response to changes in propofol and desflurane but displayed greater interpatient variability. Finally, the PSI (versus BIS) values were less interfered with by the electrocautery unit during surgery (16% versus 65%, respectively). In conclusion, the PSI may prove to be a viable alternative to the BIS for evaluating consciousness during the induction of and emergence from general anesthesia, as well as for titrating the administration of propofol and desflurane during the maintenance period. However, further studies with the PSA device are needed to determine its role in anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: The patient state index could be a useful alternative to the bispectral index for assessing level of consciousness during the induction of and emergence from anesthesia, as well as for titrating IV and volatile anesthetics during surgery.

Perioperative rofecoxib improves early recovery after outpatient herniorrhaphy.

UNLABELLED: Non-opioid analgesics have become increasingly popular as part of a multimodal regimen for pain management in the ambulatory setting. We designed this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of perioperative administration of the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor rofecoxib on patient outcome after inguinal herniorrhaphy procedures. Sixty consenting outpatients undergoing elective hernia repair surgery were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: control (vitamin C, 500 mg) or rofecoxib (rofecoxib, 50 mg). The first oral dose of the study medication was administered 30-40 min before entering the operating room, and a second dose of the same medication was given on the morning of the first postoperative day. Recovery times, postoperative pain scores, the need for "rescue" analgesics, and side effects were recorded at 1- to 10-min intervals before discharge from the recovery room. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 36 h, 7 days, and 14 days after surgery to assess postdischarge pain, analgesic requirements, resumption of normal activities, as well as patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management. Rofecoxib significantly decreased the early recovery times, leading to an earlier discharge home after surgery (88 +/- 30 vs 126 +/- 44 min, P < 0.05). When compared with the control group, the patients' median [range] quality of recovery score was also significantly higher in the rofecoxib group (18 [14-18] vs 16 [13-18], P < 0.05). In the predischarge period, a significantly larger percentage of patients required rescue pain medications in the control group (67% vs 37% in the rofecoxib group, P < 0.05). At the 36-h follow-up assessment, rofecoxib-treated patients reported significantly reduced oral analgesic requirements (0 [0-20] vs 9 [1-33] pills, P < 0.05) and lower maximal pain scores, resulting in improved patient satisfaction with their postoperative pain management (3 [1-4] vs 2 [0-3], P < 0.05). However, there were no differences in the times required to resume their activities of daily living. In conclusion, perioperative rofecoxib, 50 mg per os, significantly decreased postoperative pain and the need for analgesic rescue medication, leading to a faster and improved quality of recovery after outpatient hernia surgery. However, perioperative use of rofecoxib failed to improve recovery end points in the postdischarge period. IMPLICATIONS: Rofecoxib (50 mg per os), given before and after surgery, was effective in improving postoperative pain management, as well as the speed and quality of recovery after outpatient inguinal herniorrhaphy. However, it failed to accelerate the postdischarge resumption of normal activities of daily living.

Effect of parecoxib, a novel intravenous cyclooxygenase type-2 inhibitor, on the postoperative opioid requirement and quality of pain control.

BACKGROUND: The analgesic efficacy and side effect profile of intravenous parecoxib, a novel cyclooxygenase type-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, was assessed in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study involving patients undergoing major gynecologic surgical procedures. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, 60 consenting women, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III, undergoing lower abdominal surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were randomly assigned to receive one of three study medications: group 1 (control) received normal saline; group 2 received intravenous parecoxib, 20 mg; and group 3 received intravenous parecoxib, 40 mg. The initial dose of study medication was administered when the patient first requested pain medication after surgery. All patients had access to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine, 1 or 2 mg, with a 6-min lockout period. Subsequent doses of the same study medication were administered at 12-h and 24-h intervals after the initial dose. The postoperative opioid analgesic requirement (PCA morphine usage), pain scores, pain relief scores, side effects, and need for supplemental medications (e.g., antiemetics, antipruritics, laxatives) were recorded. RESULTS: Compared with saline, intravenous parecoxib, 20 mg and 40 mg every 12 h, significantly decreased the PCA morphine usage during the first 6 h postoperatively (group 1, 25 +/- 13 mg; group 2, 16 +/- 11 mg; group 3, 17 +/- 10 mg) and at 12 h (group 1, 34 +/- 18 mg; group 2, 24 +/- 14 mg; group 3, 23 +/- 13 mg) and 24 h (group 1, 51 +/- 27 mg; group 2, 34 +/- 20 mg; group 3, 33 +/- 21 mg) after surgery. However, there were no significant differences in the patients' global evaluation of the study medications at 12 h and 24 h between those who received intravenous parecoxib (20 or 40 mg) and saline. Moreover, the postoperative pain scores and side effect profiles were similar in the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Intravenous parecoxib (20 or 40 mg) was effective in decreasing the PCA opioid requirement after lower abdominal surgical procedures. However, it failed to improve pain management or reduce opioid-related side effects in the early postoperative period.

The effect of clonidine on gastrointestinal side effects associated with ultra-rapid opioid detoxification.

IMPLICATIONS: Clonidine, an alpha(2)-adrenergic agonist, is used to minimize withdrawal symptoms related to ultra-rapid opioid detoxification procedures. These preliminary data suggest that clonidine possesses dose-related antidiarrheal activity.