Pethidine in low doses versus dipyrone for pain relief in labor: a randomized controlled trial / Petidina em doses baixas versus dipirona para alívio da dor no trabalho de parto: um ensaio clínico randomizado

Abstract Objective To compare low doses of pethidine with dipyrone in labor analgesia. Methods In a randomized prospective study conducted by Universidade de Fortaleza, in the state of Ceará, Brazil, between May and December 2016, 200 full-term parturients, with very painful uterine contractions and exhibiting uterine cervix dilatation ≥ 5 cm, were selected to receive a single intravenous dose of either 0.25 mg/kg of pethidine (n = 100) or of 25 mg/kg of dipyrone (n = 100). Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale. The data were analyzed using the Student t-test, the chi-square test and the likelihood ratio. Results There was a significant improvement in pain in 35% of the parturients. Both drugs presented a similar analgesic effect 1 hour after the intervention (p = 0.692). There was no analgesic effect during the evaluation of the second hour after the intervention with pethidine or dipyrone. There were no adverse effects, such as maternal drowsiness, nausea or vomiting, related to the drugs used. Conclusion Pethidine in low doses and dipyrone presented equivalent analgesia during labor. Public Registry of Clinical TrialsRBR-4hsyy4.

Resumo Objetivo Comparar doses baixas de petidina com dipirona na analgesia de parto. Métodos Em um estudo prospectivo randomizado realizado pela Universidade de Fortaleza, Ceará, Brasil, entre maio e dezembro de 2016, 200 parturientes a termo, com contrações uterinas muito dolorosas e apresentando dilatação do colo uterino ≥ 5 cm, foram selecionadas para receber dose única intravenosa de 0,25 mg/kg de petidina (n = 100) ou 25 mg/kg de dipirona (n = 100). A dor foi avaliada pela escala visual analógica. Os dados foram analisados por meio dos testes t de Student, qui-quadrado e razão de verossimilhança. Resultados Houve melhora significativa da dor em 35% das parturientes. Ambas as drogas apresentaram efeito analgésico semelhante 1 hora após a intervenção (p = 0.692). Inexistiu efeito analgésico durante a avaliação da segunda hora após a intervenção com a petidina ou com a dipirona. Não houve efeitos adversos, como sonolência, náuseas ou vômitos maternos, relacionados aos medicamentos utilizados. Conclusão A petidina em doses baixas e a dipirona apresentaram analgesia equivalente durante o trabalho de parto. Registro público de testes clínicosRBR-4hsyy4.

Seguridad en la administración de propofol dirigido por gastroenterólogo entrenado en procedimientos endocópicos: experiencia de 10 años en clínica privada en Lima, Perú / Safety of gastroenterologist-directed propofol administration for endoscopic procedures: 10-year experience in a private clinic in Lima, Peru

Objetivo: Evaluar la seguridad de propofol combinado con meperidina y midazolam en colonoscopías, endoscopías y ecoendoscopía administrado por una enfermera supervisada por un gastroenterólogo entrenado y comparar su requerimiento en pacientes menores y mayores de 75 años. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo, que incluyó a pacientes mayores de 18 años de edad que recibieron propofol durante la endoscopía, colonoscopía (o endoscopía+colonoscopía) y ecoendoscopía. A los pacientes se les administró una dosis inicial de Meperidina (25 mg) y Midazolam (1-3 mg) por vía intravenosa (IV). Después de 2-3 minutos recibieron un bolo IV de propofol entre 10-30 mg. Se administraron bolos repetidos de 10-20 mg a intervalos no menores a 60 segundos durante cada procedimiento, titulado según necesidad y tolerancia del paciente. Resultados: Entre septiembre del 2006 y septiembre del 2016, se realizaron 9 704 procedimientos endoscópicos: 1 598 endoscopías, 3 065 colonoscopías, 2 492 endoscopía + colonoscopía y 57 eco-endoscopías. Hubo 3 912 mujeres (59,1%), la edad promedio fue de 57,1 ± 14,6 años, 880 pacientes (12,5%) mayores de 75 años. La dosis media de propofol para todos los procedimientos fue de 83,2 ± 48,1 mg, para la endoscopía y colonoscopía fue de 59,7 ± 36,2 mg y 77,2 ± 41 mg respectivamente. La dosis media utilizada en pacientes mayores de 75 años en endoscopía fue de 47,5 ± 37,8 mg, colonoscopías de 58,3 ± 33,4 mg y endoscopía + colonoscopía de 78,7 ± 42,7 mg en comparación con pacientes < 75 años en los que la dosis promedio de endoscopía fue de 61,1±35,8 mg (p <0,05), en colonoscopías de 80,5±41,3 mg (p<0,05) y en endoscopías+colonoscopías 105,9 ± 50,2 mg (p<0,05). No hubo complicaciones relacionadas con la sedación. Conclusiones: Propofol combinado con meperidina y midazolam en procedimientos endoscópicos, administrado por enfermera y dirigidos por un gastroenterólogo entrenado, es seguro. Los pacientes mayores de 75 años, necesitaron dosis significativamente menores de propofol para endoscopía, colonoscopia, endoscopía + colonoscopia y ecoendoscopía.

Objective: To evaluate safety of propofol combined with Meperidine and Midazolam in colonoscopies, upper endoscopies (EGD) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) administered by a nurse supervised by a trained gastroenterologist. To compare the required doses of propofol among older and younger than 75 years old. Materials and methods: Retrospective descriptive study including patients 18 years of age and older who received propofol for EGD, colonoscopy (or EGD + colonoscopy) and EUS. The patients were given a baseline dose of Meperidine (25 mg) and Midazolam (1-3 mg) intravenously (IV). After 2-3 minutes, they received an IV bolus of propofol between 10-30 mg. Repeat boluses of 10-20 mg were administered at intervals no lesser than 60 seconds during the procedure, as needed according to patient`s tolerance to the procedure. Results: Between September 2006 and September 2016, 9,704 procedures were performed, of which 1,598 were EGD, 3,065 colonoscopies, 2,492 EGD + colonoscopies and 57 EUS. There were 3,912 women (59.1%), and the average age was 57.1 ± 14.6 years. Eight hundred eighty (12.5%) were older than 75 years. The average dose of propofol for all the procedures was 83.2 ± 48.1 mg, for EGD and colonoscopy was 59.7 ± 36.2 mg and 77.2 ± 41 mg respectively. The average dose used in patients >75 years for EGD was 47.5 ± 37.8 mg, for colonoscopies 58.3 ± 33.4 mg and for EGD + colonoscopies was 78.7 ± 42.7 mg compared to patients <75 years in whom the average dose for EGD was 61.1 ± 35.8 mg (p<0.05), in colonoscopies was 80.5 ± 41.3 mg (p<0.05) and in EGD + colonoscopies 105.9 ± 50.2 mg (p<0.05). There were no sedation-related complications. Conclusions: Propofol combined with meperidine and midazolam in endoscopic procedures directed by a trained gastroenterologist is safe. Elderly patients (>75 years old) required significantly less doses of propofol for EGD, colonoscopy, EGD/colonoscopy and EUS.

Comparison of the postoperative analgesic effects of naproxen sodium and naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate for arthroscopic meniscus surgery / Comparação dos efeitos analgésicos pós-operatórios de naproxeno sódico e naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína em artroscopia de menisco

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used to control arthroscopic pain. Addition of oral effective opioid "codeine" to NSAIDs may be more effective and decrease parenteral opioid consumption in the postoperative period. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of naproxen sodium and a new preparation naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate when administered preemptively for arthroscopic meniscectomy. METHODS: Sixty-one patients were randomized into two groups to receive either oral naproxen sodium (Group N) or naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate (Group NC) before surgery. The surgery was carried out under general anesthesia. Intravenous meperidine was initiated by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for all patients. The primary outcome measure was pain score at the first postoperative hour assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Sedation assessed by Ramsey Sedation Scale, first demand time of PCA, postoperative meperidine consumption, side effects and hemodynamic data were also recorded. RESULTS: The groups were demographically comparable. Median VAS scores both at rest and on movement were significantly lower in Group NC compared with Group N, except 18th hour on movement (p < 0.05). The median time to the first demand of PCA was shorter in Group N compared with Group NC (p < 0.001). Meperidine consumption was higher in Group N compared with Group NC (p < 0.001). There was no difference between groups with respect to side effects (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of naproxen sodium-codeine phosphate provided more effective analgesia than naproxen sodium and did not increase side effects.

RESUMO JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Os anti-inflamatórios não esteroides (AINEs) são frequentemente usados para controlar a dor após artroscopia. A adição de um opiáceo oral eficaz (codeína) aos AINEs pode ser mais efetiva e diminuir o consumo de opiáceo parenteral no pós-operatório. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a eficácia e os efeitos colaterais de naproxeno sódico e uma nova preparação, naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína, quando administrados preventivamente para meniscectomia artroscópica. MÉTODOS: Foram randomicamente divididos em dois grupos 61 pacientes para receber naproxeno sódico por via oral (Grupo N) ou naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína (Grupo NC) antes da cirurgia. A cirurgia foi feita sob anestesia geral. Meperidina intravenosa foi iniciada por meio de analgesia controlada pelo paciente (ACP) para todos os pacientes. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor na primeira hora de pós-operatório, avaliada com a escala visual snalógica (EVA). A sedação foi avaliada com a escala de sedação de Ramsey. A primeira demanda de ACP, o consumo de meperidina no pós-operatório, os efeitos colaterais e os dados hemodinâmicos também foram registrados. RESULTADOS: Os grupos foram demograficamente comparáveis. As medianas dos escores EVA tanto em repouso quanto em movimento foram significativamente menores no Grupo NC comparado com o Grupo N; exceto para movimento na avaliação de 18 horas (p < 0,05). A mediana do tempo até a primeira demanda de ACP foi menor no Grupo N em comparação com o Grupo NC (p < 0,001). O consumo de meperidina foi maior no Grupo N em comparação com o Grupo NC (p < 0,001). Não houve diferença entre os grupos em relação aos efeitos colaterais (p > 0,05). CONCLUSÕES: A combinação de naproxeno sódico-fosfato de codeína forneceu analgesia mais efetiva que naproxeno sódico, sem aumentar os efeitos colaterais.

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 ...

Safety and Effectiveness of Successive Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pancreatolithiasis under Intravenous Bolus Pethidine Administration Alone / 대한소화기학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for pancreatolithiasis on successive days under intravenous bolus of pethidine alone. METHODS: Ninety patients with calcified pancreatic stones (> or =5 mm) presenting with abdominal pain were selected for ESWL. ESWL was performed with an electroconductive lithotripter under fluoroscopic target systems. Fragmented calculi after ESWL were removed by endotherapy. RESULTS: A mean of 4.2 ESWL sessions were performed for each patient, with a mean of 2,984 shocks at a mean power setting of 12.8 kV. Eighty-four (89.3%) patients underwent ESWL for three or more days in a row. Fragmentation of the stones were achieved in 83/90 (92.2%) patients. Complete clearance of the main pancreatic duct was achieved in 54/90 (60.0%) patients, and partial clearance was achieved in 27 (30.0%) patients. The mean dose of pethidine used during ESWL was 53.5+/-20.7 mg per session. As ESWL-related complications, four (4.3%) patients developed mild acute pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: In case of endoscopically difficult-to-treat pancreatic duct stones, combined therapy with ESWL is an effective method, and treatment with multiple sessions of ESWL on successive days under intravenous bolus of pethidine alone is safe and well tolerated.

First-line Treatment for Chronic Pancreatitis with Stones: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy? / 대한소화기학회지

No abstract available.

Comparison of propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy / Comparación de protocolos de sedación basados en propofol para obtener sedación durante endoscopias

Background: The ideal sedative agent for endoscopic procedures should allow a rapid modification ofthe sedation level and should not have any adverse effects. Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of some propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy. Material and Methods: One hundred twenty one patients scheduled for elective outpatient colonoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to four groups to evaluate the administration of dexmedetomidine, sufentanil, meperidine and midazolam in combination with propofol to maintain sedation during the procedure. Evaluated outcomes were efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of sedation procedures. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine achieved a higher degree of sedation when compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). The lapse to recoverprotective reflexes and motor function, was significantly shorter in groups receiving dexmedetomidine or sufentanil than in groups receiving meperidine or midazolam (p < 0.05). Therewere no differences between groups in pre-sedation and post-sedation neurophysiologic performance, measured by the Trail MakingA and B tests. Conclusions: Sedation for endoscopy can be safely and effectively accomplished with low doses of propofol combined with dexmedetomidine, intranasal sufentanil, IV meperidine and IV meperidine with midazolam.

Antecedentes: El protocolo de sedación ideal para procedimientos endoscópi-cos es aquel que permita efectuar modificaciones rápidas del nivel de sedación y no tenga efectos secundarios. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia, seguridad, costos y satisfacción del paciente con protocolos de sedación basados en propofol, durante colonoscopias. Material y Métodos: Ciento veinte pacientes programados para una colonoscopia fueron aleatorizados en cuatro grupos en que se evaluó la administración de dexmedetomidina, sufentanil, meperidina y midazolam en combinación con propofol, para mantener la sedación durante el procedimiento. Se evaluó la eficacia, seguridad, costo y satisfacción del paciente con los diferentes protocolos de sedación. Resultados: Los pacientes que recibieron dexmedetomidina, alcanzaron un mayor nivel de sedación que el resto de los grupos. El lapso necesario para recuperar reflejos y funciones motoras protectoras, fue significativamente menor en los grupos que recibieron dexmedetomidina o sufentanil comparado con los grupos que recibieron meperidina o midazolam (p < 0,05). No hubo diferencias entre los grupos en la capacidad neuro-cognitiva, medida con los Tests de Reitan A y B, antes o después de la sedación. Conclusiones: Se puede obtener una buena sedación para endoscopia combinando dosis bajas de propofol con dexmedetomidina, sufentanil intranasal, meperidina endovenosa con o sin midazolam.

Paracetamol e dipirona por via endovenosa aplicados à analgesia pós-operatória de pacientes pediátricos submetidos à amigdelectomia em hospital-dia: um estudo prospectivo, randomizado, duplo-cego, placebo controlado / Intravenous paracetamol and dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after day-case tonsillectomy in children: a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study

O manejo da dor pós-amigdelectomia pode ser feito com uma série de medicamentos. OBJETIVO: O presente estudo duplo-cego placebo controlado pretendeu avaliar a eficácia de paracetamol e dipirona administrados por via endovenosa na analgesia de pacientes pediátricos pós-amigdelectomia. MÉTODO: Cento e vinte crianças com idades entre três e seis anos submetidas à amigdelectomia com ou sem adenoidectomia e/ou entubação foram randomizadas para receber infusões de paracetamol (15 mg/kg), dipirona (15 mg/kg) ou placebo (0,9% NaCl) durante a cirurgia. As avaliações foram executadas com 0,25, 0,50, 1, 2, 4, 6h de pós-operatório. Petidina 0,25 mg/kg foi utilizada como analgésico de resgate. Dose acumulada de petidina foi o desfecho primário. Medições de intensidade da dor, alívio da dor, nível de sedação, náusea e vômitos, hemorragia no pós-operatório e outros efeitos adversos foram anotados. RESULTADOS: Nenhuma diferença significativa foi encontrada na dose acumulada de petidina entre os grupos paracetamol e dipirona. A dose acumulada de petidina foi significativamente menor nos grupos paracetamol e dipirona em comparação ao grupo placebo. Nenhuma diferença significativa foi observada entre os escores de dor no pós-operatório dos grupos durante o estudo. CONCLUSÃO: Paracetamol endovenoso tem eficácia analgésica semelhante à da dipirona endovenosa; ambos ajudam a reduzir a necessidade de opioides na analgesia pós-operatória de pacientes pediátricos submetidos à amigdelectomia em hospital-dia.

Tonsillectomy is associated with severe postoperative pain for which, several drugs are employed for management. OBJECTIVE: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous paracetamol and dipyrone when used for post-tonsillectomy analgesia in children. METHOD: 120 children aged 3-6 yr, undergoing tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy and/or ventilation tube insertion were randomized to receive intraoperative infusions of paracetamol (15 mg/kg), dipyrone (15 mg/kg) or placebo (0.9% NaCl). Evaluation was carried out at 0.25, 0.50, 1, 2, 4, 6h postoperatively. Pethidine 0.25 mg/kg was utilized as rescue analgesic. Cumulative pethidine requirement was the primary outcome. Pain intensity measurement, pain relief, sedation level, nausea and vomiting, postoperative bleeding and any other adverse effects were noted. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in pethidine requirement between paracetamol and dipyrone groups. Cumulative pethidine requirement was significantly less in paracetamol and dipyrone groups vs. placebo. No significant difference was observed between groups in postoperative pain intensity scores throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Intravenous paracetamol is found to have a similar analgesic efficacy as intravenous dipyrone and they both help to reduce the opioid requirement for postoperative analgesia in pediatric day-case tonsillectomy.

Sedación, seguridad y utilidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta en pediatría / Sedation, safety and usefulness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in pediatrics

Introduction: Upper gastrointestinal studies are routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In pediatrics, however, they are limited by the need for sedation and monitoring. Objectives: Po evaluate sedation, indication, and parent perception of these exams. Patients and Methods: A prospective study of 190 pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopies was undertaken. Demographic data, as well as information regarding the exam was obtained. Results: Patients' average age was 8.5 +/- 4.2, mostly referred by pediatricians (60 percent) Main reason for referral was recurrent abdominal pain (29.8 percent). Patients were classified according to ASA criteria (93 percent ASA I and II). Most patients required two or more medications for optimal sedation, with satisfactory procedure in over 90 percent. Over 75.5 percent had complete amnesia, 42.7 percent presented minor discomfort after the procedure. Findings of these procedures included 61 percent of normal exams, 13.9 percent esophagitis. More findings were there result of analyses according to children's weight (over or under 14 kg), age, ASA, reason for referral, nurse's evaluation of sedation. Conclusion: Ambulatory endoscopio procedures can be performed safely in children, with moderate sedation. Requirements are adequate monitoring, and deep knowledge of resuscitation techniques.

Introducción: El estudio endoscópico alto es un procedimiento diagnóstico y terapéutico considerado de rutina, pero su realización en pediatría se encuentra limitada dada la necesidad de sedación y monitoreo adecuados. Objetivos: Evaluar la sedación, indicación y percepción de los padres del examen. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de 190 niños sometidos a endoscopia digestiva alta. Se obtuvieron datos bio-demográficos, tipo de sedación y resultados del examen. Resultados: La edad fue 8,5 + 4,2 años, la mayoría referidos por pediatra (60 por ciento). La principal indicación del estudio fue el dolor abdominal recurrente (29,8 por ciento). Los pacientes fueron clasificados de acuerdo al ASA (93 por ciento ASA I y II). En la mayoría se requirió de 2 ó más drogas para lograr sedación óptima. La calidad del procedimiento fue satisfactoria en más del 90 por ciento. Un 75,5 por ciento presentaron amnesia completa y un 42,7 por ciento molestias leves posterior al procedimiento. Entre los hallazgos destacaron signos de esofagitis en el 13,9 por ciento, observándose un 61 por ciento de los exámenes normales. Al analizar los pacientes por peso (mayores y menores de 14 kg), se encontraron diferencias en edad (p < 0,00001), ASA (p = 0,001), indicación de endoscopia (p = 0,001) y evaluación de la sedación por enfermera (p = 0,038). Conclusión: Procedimientos endoscópicos en niños pueden realizarse de manera segura en forma ambulatoria mediante sedación moderada. Una adecuada monitorización y conocimiento de técnicas de reanimación son básicos al momento de realizar dichos procedimientos.

Dose efetiva de sedação em ecocardiograma transesofágico: relação com idade, área de superfície e função do ventrículo esquerdo / Effective dose of sedation in transesophageal echocardiography: relation to age, body surface area and left ventricle function / Dosis efectiva de sedación en ecografía transesofágica: relación con edad, área de superficie y función del VI

Fundamento: A sedação com midazolam e meperidina é amplamente utilizada em ecocardiografia transesofágica, entretanto, não existe dose média estabelecida para cada caso. Objetivo: Correlacionar as doses médias de midazolam e meperidina para sedação adequada em ecocardiografia transesofágica com faixa etária, área de superfície corpórea e fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo envolvendo 1.841 pacientes submetidos à sedação baseada na escala de Ramsay, com solução contendo midazolam 1,5 mg (1,5 ml), meperidina 1 mg (1 ml) e água destilada (7,5 ml). Analisamos quatro grupos etários: G1: < 24 anos; G2: 25 a 44 anos; G3: 45 a 64 anos; e G4: > 65 anos. Obtivemos a área de superfície corpórea pela fórmula: {[(altura x 100)0,725] x (peso0,425) x 0,0071}. Com relação à fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo, estudamos dois grupos: GA: < 55 por cento; e GB: > 55 por cento. Na análise estatística utilizamos o teste de Kruskal-Wallis para correlação com idade e fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo, e correlação linear simples para área de superfície corpórea. Resultados: No estudo da idade, as doses médias de sedação necessárias foram significativamente menores no G3 e G4 (p < 0,01). Na análise da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo, esta foi significativamente menor no GA (p < 0,01). O coeficiente de correlação linear entre dose de sedação e área de superfície corpórea foi 0,09 (nulo). Conclusão: Houve menor dose média necessária de sedativos nos indivíduos com maior idade e em portadores de disfunção sistólica do ventrículo esquerdo, e não houve correlação com área de superfície corpórea.

Background: Sedation with midazolam and meperidine is widely used in transesophageal echocardiography. However, no mean dose is established for each individual case. Objective: To correlate the mean midazolam and meperidine doses for proper sedation for transesophageal echocardiography with age range, body surface area, and left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: Retrospective study comprising 1,841 patients undergoing sedation based on the Ramsay scale, with a solution containing midazolam 1.5 mg (1.5 ml), meperidine 1 mg (1 ml) and distilled water (7.5 ml). Four age groups were analyzed: G1: < 24 years; G2: 25 to 44 years; G3: 45 to 64 years; and G4: > 65 years. Body surface area was calculated using the formula {[(height x 100)0.725] x (weight0.425) x 0.0071}. As regards the left ventricular ejection fraction, two groups were studied: GA: < 55 percent; and GB: > 55 percent. The statistical analysis was carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test for the correlation with age and left ventricular ejection fraction, and simple linear correlation for body surface area. Results: As regards age, the mean doses of sedation required were significantly lower in G3 and G4 (p<0.01). The analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction showed that this was significantly lower in GA (p<0.01). The linear correlation coefficient between dose of sedation and body surface area was 0.09 (null). Conclusion: The mean dose of sedatives required was lower in older individuals and in those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. No correlation with body surface area was found.

Fundamento: La sedación con midazolam y meperidina es ampliamente utilizada en ecografía transesofágica, no obstante, no existe dosis media establecida para cada caso. Objetivo: Correlacionar la dosis media de midazolam y meperidina para sedación adecuada en ecografía transesofágica con intervalo de edades, área de superficie corporal y fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo involucrando 1.841 pacientes sometidos a sedación basada en la escala de Ramsay, con solución conteniendo midazolam 1,5 mg (1,5 ml), meperidina 1 mg (1 ml) y agua destilada (7,5 ml). Analizamos cuatro grupos etarios: G1: < 24 años; G2: 25 a 44 años; G3: 45 a 64 años; y G4: > 65 años. Obtuvimos el área de superficie corporal mediante la fórmula: {[(altura x 100)0,725] x (peso0,425) x 0,0071}. Con relación a la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo, estudiamos dos grupos: GA: < 55 por ciento; y GB: > 55 por ciento. En el análisis estadístico utilizamos el test de Kruskal-Wallis para correlación con edad y fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo, y correlación lineal simple para área de superficie corporal. Resultados: En el estudio de la edad, las dosis medias de sedación necesarias fueron significativamente menores en el G3 y G4 (p < 0,01). En el análisis de la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo, ésta fue significativamente menor en el GA (p < 0,01). El coeficiente de correlación lineal entre dosis de sedación y área de superficie corporal fue 0,09 (nulo). Conclusión: Hubo menor dosis media necesaria de sedantes en los individuos con mayor edad y en portadores de disfunción sistólica del ventrículo izquierdo, y no hubo correlación con el área de superficie corporal.

Comparison of prophylactic use of intrathecal meperidine and intravenous ketamine plus midazolam for preventing of shivering during spinal anesthesia

Shivering associated with spinal anesthesia is uncomfortable and may interfere with monitoring, we performed this randomized study to compare the efficacy of intrathecal [IT] 0.2 mg/kg meperidine [group M] with that of intravenous [I.V] low dose combination of ketamine 0.25 mg and midazolam 37.5 microg/kg [group KM] in the preventing of shivering caused by spinal anesthesia .This study was carried out on forty patients [ASA I - II]. patients were randomly distributed into two groups 20 patients each submitted to orthopedic surgery were included. Spinal anesthesia was performed in all with bupivacaine and fentanly. During Surgery a Shivering Score was recorded at 5 min intervals. Tympanic and axillary temperature was recoded at 10 min intervals during the perioperative period. After 15 min the incidences of shivering in groups [M] and [K.M] were 25%, 10% respectively. The differences between group KM and group M were statistically significant p=0.026 No patient with shivering Score of >/= 3 was reported in this study. Prophylactic use of ketamine 0.25 mg/kg + midazolam 37.5 microg/kg I.V. was more effective than meperidine 0.2 mg/kg IT in preventing shivering developed during spinal anesthesia

Prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in individuals without typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND: Barrett’s esophagus, the major risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, is detected in approximately 10 percent-14 percent of individuals submitted to upper endoscopy for the assessment of gastroesophageal reflux disease related symptoms. Prevalence studies of Barrett’s esophagus in individuals without typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease have reported rates ranging from 0.6 percent to 25 percent. AIM: To determine the prevalence of Barrett’s in a Brazilian population older than 50 years without typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: A total of 104 patients (51 men), mean age of 65 years, with an indication for upper endoscopy but without symptoms of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation (determined with a validated questionnaire) were recruited. Subjects submitted to upper endoscopic examination in the last 10 years or using antisecretory medication (proton pump inhibitors) during the last 6 months were not included. Methylene blue chromoscopy was performed during the endoscopic exam to facilitate identification of the metaplastic epithelium. RESULTS: Barrett’s esophagus was diagnosed endoscopically and confirmed by histology in four patients, all of them males. The metaplastic segment was short (less than 3 cm) and free of dysplasia in all patients. The prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus was 7.75 percent in the male population and 3.8 percent in the general population studied. CONCLUSION: Due to the low prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus found in the present study, associated with the finding of short-segment Barrett’s esophagus in all cases diagnosed and the absence of dysplasia in the material analyzed, endoscopic screening for Barrett’s esophagus in patients above the age of 50 without the classical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease is not indicated for the Brazilian population.

RACIONAL: O esôfago de Barrett, principal fator de risco para o adenocarcinoma do esôfago, é uma complicação da doença por refluxo gastroesofágico de longa duração, sendo detectado em, aproximadamente, 10 por cento-14 por cento dos indivíduos submetidos a endoscopia digestiva alta para avaliação de sintomas relacionados à doença por refluxo gastroesofágico. Estudos de prevalência do esôfago de Barrett em indivíduos sem sintomas típicos de doença por refluxo gastroesofágico mostram taxas oscilando entre 0,6 por cento e 25 por cento. OBJETIVO: Determinar a prevalência do esôfago de Barrett em indivíduos maiores de 50 anos sem os sintomas clássicos da doença por refluxo gastroesofágico. MÉTODOS: Foram recrutados 104 pacientes (51 homens e 53 mulheres), idade média 65 anos, com indicação de se submeterem a endoscopia digestiva alta, porém sem sintomas de pirose e/ou regurgitação ácida (certificados através de questionário validado). Foram excluídos indivíduos com exame endoscópico prévio nos últimos 10 anos ou que fizeram uso de medicação anti-secretora nos últimos 6 meses. Durante o exame endoscópico foi realizada cromoscopia com azul de metileno, para facilitar a identificação do epitélio metaplásico. RESULTADOS: O esôfago de Barrett foi diagnosticado por endoscopia e confirmado pela histologia em quatro pacientes, todos do sexo masculino. Os segmentos metaplásicos eram curtos (inferior a 3 cm) e livre de displasia em todos os pacientes. A prevalência encontrada foi de 7,75 por cento na população masculina e 3,8 por cento na população geral avaliada. CONCLUSÃO: Diante da baixa prevalência do esôfago de Barrett encontrada no presente estudo, associada ao achado de segmento curto de Barrett em todos os casos diagnosticados e ausência de displasia no material analisado, rastreamento endoscópico para o esôfago de Barrett em pacientes acima de 50 anos sem os sintomas clássicos da doença por refluxo gastroesofágico não se justificaria na população...

Comparison of meperidine alone with meperidine plus dexmedetomidine for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia

To investigate if the addition of dexmedetomidine to meperidine in a patient-controlled analgesia [PCA] device would reduce postoperative meperidine consumption when compared with meperidine alone. Forty patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery under general anesthesia in Suleyman Demirel University Medical School, Isparta, Turkey between February and September 2006, were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Group I: meperidine 0.25 mg kg[-1] intravenous bolus and dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg kg[-1] in 50 ml of saline solution infusion before the end of surgery. Group II: meperidine 0.25 mg kg[-1] intravenous bolus and 50 ml of saline solution infusion. In the postanesthesia care unit [PACU] patients in both groups received intravenous meperidine 10 mg with 5 -minutes intervals until the patients verbal pain score is lower than 2. Patients in both groups received PCA during the 24 hours after surgery [meperidine 5 mg + dexmedetomidine 10 mcg bolus for group I, meperidine 5 mg for group II]. The verbal rating score of pain and meperidine requirement is recorded during PACU stay. Meperidine consumption with PCA is recorded until 24 hours postoperatively. Verbal rating score of pain in the PACU was lower in group I than group II [p<0.05]. Meperidine consumption was lower in group I than group II during the PACU stay and until 24 hours postoperatively [p<0.01]. When compared with meperidine PCA, meperidine-dexmedetomidine PCA reduces postoperative meperidine consumption

Comparing the effect of intramuscular injection of pethidine and diclofenac suppository in relief of pain following laminectomy surgery

Pain, particularly after surgery, can create a variety of side effects including delay in wound healing. Different drugs such as pethidine and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used for relieving patient's pain after surgery. The purpose of this research was to compare effect of pethidine vs. diclofenac suppository in relief of pain after laminectomy. A total of 100 patients who underwent laminectomy entered this study. They were divided into pethidine and diclofenac groups. The patients' pain score was measured with visual analog scale [VAS] method. The mean pain score 24 hours after surgery was 2.8 +/- 2.0 in pethidine group and 4.46 +/- 2.30 in diclofenac group. There was a significant statistical difference between pain score after surgery in two groups [P < 0.05]. Nausea was the most common side effect observed in pethidine group [20%] and epigastric pain was the most common one in diclofenac group [18%]. There wasn't any statistical significant difference between side effects in these two groups. It seems that pethidine injection is more effective than diclofenac suppository in relieving pain after laminectomy

comparison of effects of lidocaine 5% lidocaine 5% plus pethidine 5% and pethidine 5% in spinal anesthesia for cesarean section

Spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section using drugs such as lidocaine has long been used with reports of various complications. To reduce these complications, many methods such as administration of sympathetic stimulating drugs like ephedrine, and using other drugs including pethidine have been recommended. The present study was aimed to evaluate comparatively the effects of separate and combined administration of pethidine and lidocaine on spinal anesthesia in candidates for cesarean surgery. In this double blind clinical trial study, 150 cases with ASA I - II and full term neonatal, candidate for elective cesarean surgery from Zahedan Ghods Hospital and AH-Ebene-Abitaleb Hospital, were subjected to the study during 2001-2004. They were randomly divided into three groups of 50, for using 5% lidocaine, 5% lidocaine plus 5% pethidine and 5% pethidine, respectively. A number of variables, including duration of postoperative analgesia, variation of homodynamic, heart rate, hypotension, nausea and vomiting were assessed. Statistical descriptive methods, one way AN OVA and X[2] were used for the data analysis. Breath depression was not seen in the neonates. The Apgar score was >/= 8. Duration of post operating analgesia was 453 minutes in pethidine group, 344.3 minutes in lidocaine plus pethidine group and 141.4 minutes in lidocaine group with significant differences [P<0.05]. Differences of nausea and vomiting between groups were not significant. The longest duration of analgesia was seen with pethidine usage. The combination of pethidine and lidocaine was intermediately effective and seems to be suitable choice in anesthesia comparing to lidocaine alone

Post-thoracotomy analgesia comparison epidural fentanyl to intravenous pethidine

To evaluate the efficacy of post-thoracotomy analgesia with intermittent epidural fentanyl. 50 patients were allocated randomly into 2 groups. The first group received intermittent epidural fentanyl and the second group received intermittent intravenous analgesia using pethidine. The variables studied were: pain score; total amount of additional intravenous opioid analgesia, and ventilatory function parameters [forced vital capacity [FVC], forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV[1]] and FEV[1]/FVC ratio]. In the first postoperative day, pain scores were higher in the epidural group [P = 0.034], but there was no significant difference between mean pain scores in the second and third days [P = 0.61, P = 0.15, respectively]. On all three days, significantly more additional analgesics were required in the epidural group. A difference was found between both groups in the post- to pre-operative FEV[1], FVC and FEV[1]/FVC ratios, with the better preservation of the ventilatory function in the epidural group [P= 0.001, 0.013, O.0001, respectively]. The analgesic effect of intermittent epidural fentanyl is not adequate, and postoperative pain relief has not any significant advantage over the more easily-applied intravenous analgesia. However, better preservation of ventilatory function makes epidural fentanyl a useful adjunct analgesia in reduction of post-thoracotomy pulmonary complications

Clonidina na cineangiocoronariografia: efeitos sedativos sobre a pressão arterial e freqüência cardíaca / Clonidine in cineangiocardiography: sedative effects on blood pressure and heart rate

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os efeitos da clonidina sobre a freqüência cardíaca (FC), pressão arterial (PA) e sedação de pacientes submetidos à cineangiocoronariografia. MÉTODOS: Um ensaio clínico prospectivo, duplo cego, randomizado, controlado, foi realizado com 62 pacientes submetidos a cineangiocoronariografias eletivas, divididos em dois grupos: grupo clonidina que utilizou 0,8 æg/kg desta droga, e o grupo controle que utilizou solução fisiológica a 0,9 por cento. A sedação foi avaliada com base na escala de Ramsay e o consumo de meperidina 0,04 mg/kg que foi utilizada nos pacientes que apresentaram agitação ou ansiedade durante o procedimento. A PA invasiva, a FC e o escore de sedação, de acordo com a escala de Ramsay, foram analisados a cada 5 minutos e quatro diferentes momentos foram considerados para avaliação: M1- inicio do exame; M2- 5 minutos após o início do exame; M3- mediana do tempo do exame e M4 - final do exame. RESULTADOS: O grupo clonidina apresentou maior estabilidade da PA e FC e eficácia na sedação, enquanto o grupo controle apresentou um maior consumo de meperidina (p<0,05). Na análise estatística, para inferência das variáveis contínuas foi utilizado o teste T ou Mann-Whitney e chi2 ou Teste Exato de Fisher para as variáveis categóricas. CONCLUSÃO: Este trabalho mostrou que, nos pacientes submetidos à cineangiocoronariografia, a utilização da clonidina foi eficaz tanto no controle da PA e FC quanto em proporcionar uma sedação consciente.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of clonidine on heart rate (HR), and blood pressure (BP) as well as its sedative effect on patients submitted to a cineangiocardiography. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double blind, prospective clinical trial was conducted on 62 patients submitted to an elective cineangiocardiography. The patients were divided in two groups: the clonidine group, that were administered a 0.8 æg/kg dose of this drug and the control group, that were administered a 0.9 percent saline solution. Sedation was evaluated based on the Ramsay Scale and the administration of a 0.04 mg/kg dose of meperidine that was given to the patients who were agitated or anxious during the procedure. The invasive BP, HR and sedation score based on the Ramsay Scale were analyzed every 5 minutes and four different intervals were considered for the assessment: I1- start of the test; I2- 5 minutes after the start of the test; I3- median time of the test and I4- end of the test. RESULTS: The clonidine group presented better BP and HR stability and sedation efficacy while the control group presented a higher intake of meperidine (p<0.05). In the statistical analysis, the inference of the continuous variables was calculated using the Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test and the chi2 or Fisher Exact Probability test was used for the categorical variables. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that clonidine was an efficient means to control BP and HR and provided a conscious sedation for patients submitted to a cineangiocardiography.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE: To make an objective controlled comparison of pain tolerance in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy using intrarectal topic anesthesia, injectable periprostatic anesthesia, or low-dose intravenous sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized into 4 groups: group I, intrarectal application of 2 percent lidocaine gel; group II, periprostatic anesthesia; group III, intravenous injection of midazolam and meperidine; and group IV, control, patients to whom no sedation or analgesic was given. Pain was evaluated using an analogue pain scale graded from 0 to 5. Acceptance of a repetition biopsy, the side effects of the drugs and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: 18/20 (90 percent) and 6/20 (30 percent) patients reported strong or unbearable pain in the group submitted to conventional biopsy and topical anesthesia (p = 0.23, chi-square = 1.41); whereas those submitted to periprostatic blockade and sedation, severe pain occurred in only 2/60 (3 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 40.19) and 3/60 (5 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 33.34). Acceptance of repetition of the biopsy was present in only 45 percent of the patients submitted to conventional biopsy, 60 percent of those that were given topical anesthesia (p = 0.52, chi-square = 0.4), compared to 100 percent of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (p < 0.01, chi-square = 15.17), and 95 percent of those who were sedated (p < 0.001, chi-square = 25.97 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy is an uncomfortable experience; however application of periprostatic blockade and intravenous analgesia are associated to higher tolerance of the exam and patient comfort. Low dose sedation by association of intravenous meperidine and midazolam is an emerging and safe outpatient option.

Analgesic effects of intra-articular fentanyl, pethidine and dexamethasone after knee arthroscopic surgery

Many different methods have been used in an effort to provide adequate analgesia after knee arthroscopic surgery. In this study analgesic effect of intra-articular fentanyl, pethidine and dexamethasone was compared. In a double blind randomized study 48 male patients undergoing knee arthroscopic meniscectomy were allocated to groups receiving intra-articular fentanyl 50 ig or pethidine 20 mg or dexamethasone 8 mg at the end of arthroscopy during general aesthesia. Postoperative pain scores using visual analogue scale were measured and also analgesic requirements and the time of ability to walk were recorded. Pain scores at one, two, six and 24 h after intra-articular injection were not significantly different for fentanyl and pethidine but were higher significantly for dexamethasone at all four mentioned times. The mean average time of ability to walk was significantly longer for dexamethasone. The analgesic requirements during the first 24 h after intraarticular injection were significantly greater only for dexamethasone too. Better postoperative analgesia, less pain score and shorter time to walk were achieved by fentanyl and pethidine in comparison to dexamethasone but the results were not significantly different between fentanyl group and pethidine