Dose-response relationships of intravenous and perineural dexamethasone as adjuvants to peripheral nerve blocks: a systematic review and model-based network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of perineural over intravenous dexamethasone at extending nerve block analgesia has been suggested but without considering the dose-response relationships for each route of administration. METHODS: Randomised control studies that evaluated intravenous or perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to unilateral peripheral nerve blocks in adults were searched up to October 2023 in MEDLINE, Central, Google Scholar, and reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool was used. A maximum effect (Emax) model-based network meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the dose-response relationships of dexamethasone. RESULTS: A total of 118 studies were selected (9284 patients; 35 with intravenous dexamethasone; 106 with perineural dexamethasone; dose range 1-16 mg). Studies with unclear or high risk of bias overestimated the effect of dexamethasone. Bias-corrected estimates indicated a maximum fold increase in analgesia duration of 1.7 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.4-1.9) with dexamethasone, with no difference between perineural and intravenous routes. Trial simulations indicated that 4 mg of perineural dexamethasone increased the mean duration of analgesia for long-acting local anaesthetics from 11.1 h (95% CrI 9.4-13.1) to 16.5 h (95% CrI 14.0-19.3) and halved the rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A similar magnitude of effect was observed with 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone. CONCLUSIONS: Used as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve block, intravenous dexamethasone can be as effective as perineural dexamethasone in prolonging analgesic duration, but is less potent, hence requiring higher doses. The evidence is limited because of the observational nature of the dose-response relationships and the quality of the included studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42020141689.

Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety. CONCLUSION: The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

Neurodevelopmental Outcomes after Premedication with Atropine/Propofol vs Atropine/Atracurium/Sufentanil for Neonatal Intubation: 2-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

This study followed 173 newborn infants in the PREmedication Trial for Tracheal Intubation of the NEOnate multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of atropine-propofol vs atropine-atracurium-sufentanil for premedication before nonemergency intubation. At 2 years of corrected age, there was no significant difference between the groups in death or risk of neurodevelopmental delay assessed with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01490580.

Real-time visualisation of peripheral nerve trauma during subepineural injection in pig brachial plexus using micro-ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Nerve damage is consistently demonstrated after subepineural injection in animal studies, but not after purposeful injection in patients participating in clinical studies. There is a need to better visualise nerves in order to understand the structural changes that occur during subepineural injection. METHODS: We scanned the brachial plexuses of three anaesthetised pigs using micro-ultrasound imaging (55-22 MHz probe), inserted 21 gauge block needles into the radial, median, and axillary nerves, and injected two 0.5 ml boluses of saline into nerves at a rate of 12 ml min-1. Our objectives were to measure the area and diameter of nerves and fascicles, and to describe changes in nerve anatomy, comparing our findings with histology. RESULTS: Images were acquired at 42 sites across 18 nerves in three pigs and compared dimensions (geometric ratio; 95% confidence interval; P value). As expected, the nerve cross-sectional area was greater in the proximal brachial plexus compared with the mid-plexus (2.10; 1.07-4.11; P<0.001) and the distal plexus (2.64; 1.42-4.87; P<0.001). Nerve area expanded after 0.5 ml injection (2.13; 1.48-3.08; P<0.001). Using microultrasound, subepineural injection was characterised by nerve and fascicle rotation, uniform, or localised swelling and epineural rupture. Micro-ultrasound revealed a unique pattern suggestive of subperineural injection after a median nerve injection, and good face validity with histology. Histology showed epineural trauma and inflammation to the perineurium. CONCLUSION: We accurately identified fascicles and real-time structural changes to peripheral nerves using micro-ultrasound. This is the first study to visualise in vivo and in real-time the motion of nerves and fascicles in response to anaesthetic needle insertion and fluid injection.

Midazolam Premedication Immediately Before Surgery Is Not Associated With Early Postoperative Delirium.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is common among older surgical patients and may be associated with anesthetic management during the perioperative period. The aim of this study is to assess whether intravenous midazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine used frequently as premedication, increased the incidence of postoperative delirium. METHODS: Analyses of existing data were conducted using a database created from 3 prospective studies in patients aged 65 years or older who underwent elective major noncardiac surgery. Postoperative delirium occurring on the first postoperative day was measured using the confusion assessment method. We assessed the association between the use or nonuse of premedication with midazolam and postoperative delirium using a χ2 test, using propensity scores to match up with 3 midazolam patients for each control patient who did not receive midazolam. RESULTS: A total of 1266 patients were included in this study. Intravenous midazolam was administered as premedication in 909 patients (72%), and 357 patients did not receive midazolam. Those who did and did not receive midazolam significantly differed in age, Charlson comorbidity scores, preoperative cognitive status, preoperative use of benzodiazepines, type of surgery, and year of surgery. Propensity score matching for these variables and American Society of Anesthesiology physical status scores resulted in propensity score-matched samples with 1-3 patients who used midazolam (N = 749) for each patient who did not receive midazolam (N = 357). After propensity score matching, all standardized differences in preoperative patient characteristics ranged from -0.07 to 0.06, indicating good balance on baseline variables between the 2 exposure groups. No association was found between premedication with midazolam and incident delirium on the morning of the first postoperative day in the matched dataset, with odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.91 (0.65-1.29), P = .67. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication using midazolam was not associated with higher incidence of delirium on the first postoperative day in older patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery.

The Facilitatory Effects of Adjuvant Pharmaceutics to Prolong the Duration of Local Anesthetic for Peripheral Nerve Block: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve block (PNB) with perineural local anesthetic is used for anesthesia or analgesia with many benefits. To extend these benefits, various adjuvant drugs have been used to prolong the duration of analgesia. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various adjuvants at prolonging the duration of sensory and motor blockade for PNB. METHODS: A network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active randomized controlled trials was performed comparing 10 adjuvants. Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched, with articles before May 21, 2020 included. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were sensory block (SB) and motor block (MB) time, and the secondary outcome was time of first analgesia rescue (FAR). Effect size measures were described as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Confidence in evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study protocol was preregistered with the prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care international database (PROSPERO), as number CRD42020187866. RESULTS: Overall 16,364 citations were identified, of which 53 studies were included with data for 3649 patients. In network meta-analyses, 4 of 7 included treatment strategies were associated with more efficacious analgesia compared with placebo therapy, including dexamethasone (SB time: 5.73 hours, 95% CI, 4.16-7.30; MB time: 4.20 hours, 95% CI, 2.51-5.89; time of FAR: 8.71 hours, 95% CI, 6.63-10.79), dexmedetomidine (SB time: 4.51 hours, 95% CI, 3.52-5.50; MB time: 4.04 hours, 95% CI, 2.98-5.11; time of FAR: 5.25 hours, 95% CI, 4.08-6.43), fentanyl (SB time: 3.59 hours, 95% CI, 0.11-7.06; MB time: 4.42 hours, 95% CI, 0.78-8.06), and clonidine (SB time: 2.75 hours, 95% CI, 1.46-4.04; MB time: 2.93 hours, 95% CI, 1.69-4.16; time of FAR: 3.35 hours, 95% CI, 1.82-4.87). In a subgroup analysis, addition of dexamethasone to ropivacaine significantly increased the time of FAR when compared to dexmedetomidine (time of FAR: 5.23 hours, 95% CI, 2.92-7.54) or clonidine (time of FAR: 6.61 hours, 95% CI, 4.29-8.92) with ropivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence for the consideration of dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, and clonidine as adjuvants to prolong the duration of PNB. The addition of dexamethasone to ropivacaine has a longer time of FAR compared with clonidine or dexmedetomidine.

Outcomes for 298 breastfed neonates whose mothers received ketamine and diazepam for postpartum tubal ligation in a resource-limited setting.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia in lactating women is frequently indicated for time-sensitive procedures such as postpartum tubal ligation. Ketamine and diazepam are two of the most commonly used anesthetic agents in low resource settings, but their safety profile in lactating women has not been established. METHODS: Medical records of post-partum tubal ligations between 2013 and 2018 at clinics of the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit were reviewed for completeness of key outcome variables. Logistic regression identified presence or absence of associations between drug doses and adverse neonatal outcomes: clinically significant weight loss (≥95th percentile) and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy. RESULTS: Of 358 records reviewed, 298 were lactating women with singleton, term neonates. There were no severe outcomes in mothers or neonates. On the first postoperative day 98.0% (290/296) of neonates were reported to be breastfeeding well and 6.4% (19/298) had clinically significant weight loss. Phototherapy was required for 13.8% (41/298) of neonates. There was no association between either of the outcomes and increasing ketamine doses (up to 3.8 mg/kg), preoperative oral diazepam (5 mg), or increasing lidocaine doses (up to 200 mg). Preoperative oral diazepam resulted in lower doses of intraoperative anesthetics. Doses of intravenous diazepam above 0.1 mg/kg were associated with increased risk (adjusted odds ratio per 0.1 mg/kg increase, 95%CI) of weight loss (1.95, 95%CI 1.13-3.35, p = 0.016) and jaundice requiring phototherapy (1.87, 95%CI 1.11-3.13, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In resource-limited settings ketamine use appears safe in lactating women and uninterrupted breastfeeding should be encouraged and supported. Preoperative oral diazepam may help reduce intraoperative anesthetic doses, but intravenous diazepam should be used with caution and avoided in high doses in lactating women.

Perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine: network meta-analysis of adjunctive effects on supraclavicular brachial plexus block.

Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366-435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330-408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160-795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343-480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235-333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236-352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129-448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212-304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448-589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277-679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266-371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.

Sufentanil EC50 for endotracheal intubation with aerosol inhalation of carbonated lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer.

BACKGROUND: Nebulized lidocaine reduced stress response for endotracheal intubation. However, the impact of novel lidocaine aerosol inhalation for intubation by ultrasonic atomizer was unclear. Hence, we designed aerosol inhalation of lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer, to seek whether the dosage of sufentanil for intubation could be less or not. METHODS: Intravenous injection of sufentanil started at 0.5 µg/kg, and sufentanil dosage was increased/decreased (step-size 0.05 µg/kg for sufentanil) using Dixon's up and down method. The observation was terminated after 8 reflexes. RESULTS: The EC50 and EC95 of sufentanil with lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer for intubation were found to be 0.232 µg/kg (95% CI: 0.187-0.270 µg/kg) and 0.447 µg/kg (95% CI: 0.364-0.703 µg/kg). 55.88% out of 34 patients showed hemodynamic index change < 20% of baseline during intubation. CONCLUSION: Aerosol inhalation of lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer reduced the dosage of sufentanil for endotracheal intubation. Lidocaine inhalation by ultrasonic atomizer for airway anesthesia with minimal dosage of sufentanil could be recommended, particularly in patients who need more stable hemodynamic changes or spontaneous respiration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Registry of Central Trial, ChiCTR-IOR-17014198 . Registered 28 December 2017.

General versus general anaesthesia combined with caudal block in laparoscopic-assisted Soave pull-through of Hirschsprung disease: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Caudal block is one of the most preferred regional anesthesia for sub-umbilical region surgeries in the pediatric population. However, few studies are available on caudal block performed in laparoscopic-assisted Soave pull-through of Hirschsprung disease (HD). We aimed to compare general anesthesia (GA) and general anesthesia combined with caudal block (GA + CA) in laparoscopic-assisted Soave pull-through of HD. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in children with HD operated in our hospital between 2017 and 2020. Patients were divided into the GA and GA + CA group. The primary outcome was the duration of operation, and secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic changes, the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale, dose of anesthetics, and incidence of side effects. RESULTS: A total of 47 children with HD were included in the study, including 20 in the GA group and 27 in the GA + CA Group. The two groups were similar in age, gender, weight and type of HD (P > 0.05). The GA + CA group had significantly shorter duration of operation (especially the transanal operation time) (median 1.20 h vs. 0.83 h, P < 0.01) and recovery time (mean 18.05 min vs. 11.89 min, P < 0.01). The mean doses of sufentanil and rocuronium bromide during the procedure and FLACC scores at 1 h and 6 h after surgery were also lower in the GA + CA group (p < 0.01). The hemodynamic changes in the GA + CA group were more stable at time of t2 (during transanal operation) and t3 (10 min after transanal operation), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative side effects between the two groups (P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: General anesthesia combined with caudal block can shorten the duration of operation, and provide more stable intraoperative hemodynamics and better postoperative analgesia.

Comparison of the effects of perineural or intravenous dexamethasone on low volume interscalene brachial plexus block: a randomised equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to prolong interscalene block (ISB) analgesia include the use of local anaesthetic adjuvants such as dexamethasone. Previous work showing prolonged block duration suggests that both perineural and intravenous (i.v.) routes can both prolong analgesia. The superiority of either route is controversial given the design of previous studies. As perineural dexamethasone is an off-label use, anaesthesiologists should be fully informed of the clinical differences, if any, on block duration. This study was designed to test whether perineural vs i.v. dexamethasone administration are equivalent. METHODS: We randomised 182 eligible patients scheduled for arthroscopic shoulder surgery to receive low-dose ISB (0.5% ropivacaine 5 ml) with perineural or i.v. dexamethasone 4 mg. Subjects, anaesthesiologists, and research personnel were blinded. All subjects also received a standardised general anaesthetic and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia analysed as an equivalence outcome (2 h equivalency margin) using the two one-sided test (TOST) method. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, duration of analgesia, and perineural and i.v. administration of dexamethasone were not equivalent. The upper and lower bounds of the 90% confidence interval were 1 h (P=0.12) and -2.5 h (P=0.01), respectively. The observed difference in mean block duration was not clinically relevant (0.75 h longer for i.v. dexamethasone). There were no other clinically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: In the context of low-volume ISB with ropivacaine, perineural and i.v. dexamethasone were not equivalent in terms of their effects on block duration. However, there were no clinically significant differences in outcomes, and there is no advantage of perineural over intravenous dexamethasone. WWW.CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02322242.

Effect of intravenous dexamethasone on the anaesthetic characteristics of peripheral nerve block: a double-blind, randomised controlled, dose-response volunteer study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous dexamethasone is thought to prolong the duration of peripheral nerve block, but the dose-response relationship remains unclear. The aim of this volunteer study was to evaluate the dose-response effect of i.v. dexamethasone on the prolongation of median nerve block. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised controlled study, 18 volunteer subjects received two median nerve blocks separated by a washout period. One block was conducted alongside an infusion of saline and the other alongside i.v. dexamethasone 2, 4, or 8 mg. The primary outcome was time to return of normal pinprick sensation. Secondary outcomes included thermal quantitative sensory testing (QST) for the time to return of cold detection threshold (CDT), warm detection threshold (WDT), cold pain threshold (CPT), heat pain threshold (HPT), area under QST curves, grip strength, and the incidence of adverse effects. RESULTS: The primary outcome, time to recovery of pinprick sensation, was similar between volunteers receiving saline or i.v. dexamethasone, regardless of dose (P=0.99). The time to recovery of QST milestones was similar between groups, although area under QST curves indicated prolongation of CDT (0 vs 8 mg, P=0.002) and WDT (0 vs 2 mg, P=0.008; 0 vs 4 mg, P=0.001; 0 vs 8 mg, P<0.001). There was no difference in motor recovery or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous dexamethasone failed to significantly prolong the duration of pinprick anaesthesia regardless of dose. However, area under QST curve analysis indicated a dose-independent prolongation of CDT and WDT, the clinical significance of which is unclear. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02864602 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Sedation During Endoscopy in Patients with Cirrhosis: Safety and Predictors of Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Sedation during endoscopy in cirrhotic patients is typically via moderate sedation, most commonly using a combination of a benzodiazepine (i.e., midazolam) and narcotic (i.e., fentanyl) or with propofol using monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Here, we examined the safety of moderate sedation and MAC in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy from a large academic medical center between 2010 and 2014 examined extensive clinical data including the following: past history, physical findings, laboratory results, and procedural adverse events. Adverse events were defined a priori and included hypoxia, hypotension, bleeding, and death. RESULTS: We identified 2618 patients with cirrhosis who underwent endoscopic procedures; the mean age was 56 years, 36% were female, the mean Child-Pugh score was 9.3 (IQR: 8, 11), and Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3.2 (IQR: 1, 4); 1157 had MAC; and 1461 had moderate sedation. There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events in MAC and moderate sedation groups, with a total of 15 adverse events (7/1157 MAC and 8/1461 moderate sedation). The most common procedure performed was esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, n = 1667) and was associated with 10 adverse events. Overall, adverse events included bradycardia (1), hypoxia (7), bleeding (5), laryngospasm (1), and perforation (1). The frequency was similar for EGD, ERCP, and colonoscopy-each at a rate of 0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy appeared to be similar with moderate sedation or MAC, and the frequency was the same for different types of procedures.

Local Anesthesia Thoracoscopy with versus without Midazolam: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Medical thoracoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of pleural diseases. To date, no consensus exists regarding the choice of sedative and analgesic agents in patients undergoing local anesthetic thoracoscopy (LAT), and questions are raised as to whether sedatives may add to respiratory side effects. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that administration of midazolam associated with lidocaine versus lidocaine alone in patients with LAT adds to respiratory side effects. METHODS: We randomly assigned 80 patients to a 1:1 study to 2 groups: local anesthesia by lidocaine (n = 40) versus lidocaine and midazolam (n = 40), with the primary end point being the mean lowest oxygen saturation. The secondary end points were cardiovascular parameters, complications, days of drainage, hospital stay, and patients' quality of life (QoL) as assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: The mean age of all patients was 66.6 ± 13.1 years. The study comprised 50 males (62.5%). No difference was observed in the demographics between the 2 groups. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in oxygen saturation (primary end point). A significant difference was observed in favor of the midazolam group regarding the QoL assessed by VAS. CONCLUSION: Midazolam does not add to respiratory side effects when it is used with lidocaine for LAT, while patients' QoL is actually improved in this group. Therefore, in our department, we changed our startegy in favor of the association of lidocaine and midazolam.

Minimum anesthetic concentration of isoflurane and sparing effect of midazolam in Quaker parrots (Myiopsitta monachus).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of midazolam on the minimum anesthetic concentration (MAC) reduction of end-tidal isoflurane concentration (Fe'Iso) measured using an electrical stimulus in Quaker parrots (Myiopsitta monachus). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover experimental study. ANIMALS: A group of six adult Quaker parrots, weighing 98-124 g. METHODS: Birds were anesthetized with isoflurane in oxygen delivered by mask, then tracheally intubated and mechanically ventilated. Three treatments were applied with a 4 day interval between anesthetic events. Each anesthetized bird was administered midazolam (1 mg kg-1; treatment MID1), midazolam (2 mg kg-1; treatment MID2) or electrolyte solution (control) intramuscularly. The treatments were administered using a replicated Latin square design and the observers were blinded. Based on a pilot bird, the starting Fe'Iso was 1.8%. After equilibration for 10 minutes, a supramaximal stimulus was delivered using an electrical current (20 V and 50 Hz for 10 ms) and birds were observed for non-reflex movement. The Fe'Iso was titrated by 0.1% until a crossover event was observed. The MAC was estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: The MAC of isoflurane (MACISO) was estimated at 2.52% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.19-2.85] with a range of 1.85-2.65%. MACISO in MID1 was 2.04% (95% CI, 1.71-2.37) and in MID2 was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.48-2.14); reductions in MACISO from control of 19% (p = 0.001) and 28% (p < 0.001), respectively. Heart rate, temperature, sex and anesthetic time were not different among treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam (1-2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly resulted in a significant isoflurane-sparing effect in response to a noxious stimulus in Quaker parrots without observable adverse effects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Midazolam can be used as part of a balanced anesthetic approach using isoflurane in Quaker parrots, and potentially in other psittacine species.

Pharmacokinetics of midazolam in sevoflurane-anesthetized cats.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam after midazolam administration as an intravenous bolus in sevoflurane-anesthetized cats. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective pharmacokinetic study. ANIMALS: A group of six healthy adult, female domestic cats. METHODS: Anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. After 30 minutes of anesthetic equilibration, cats were administered midazolam (0.3 mg kg-1) over 15 seconds. Venous blood was collected at 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 45, 90, 180 and 360 minutes after administration. Plasma concentrations for midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam were measured using high-pressure liquid chromatography. The heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (fR), rectal temperature, noninvasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pe'CO2) were recorded at 5 minute intervals. Population compartment models were fitted to the time-plasma midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam concentrations using nonlinear mixed effect modeling. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic model was fitted to the data from five cats, as 1-hydroxymidazolam was not detected in one cat. A five-compartment model best fitted the data. Typical values (% interindividual variability where estimated) for the volumes of distribution for midazolam (three compartments) and hydroxymidazolam (two compartments) were 117 (14), 286 (10), 705 (14), 53 (36) and 334 mL kg-1, respectively. Midazolam clearance to 1-hydroxymidazolam, midazolam fast and slow intercompartmental clearances, 1-hydroxymidazolam clearance and 1-hydroxymidazolam intercompartment clearance were 18.3, 63.5 (15), 22.1 (8), 1.7 (67) and 3.8 mL minute-1 kg-1, respectively. No significant changes in HR, MAP, fR or Pe'CO2 were observed following midazolam administration. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In sevoflurane-anesthetized cats, a five-compartment model best fitted the midazolam pharamacokinetic profile. There was a high interindividual variability in the plasma 1-hydroxymidazolam concentrations, and this metabolite had a low clearance and persisted in the plasma for longer than the parent drug. Midazolam administration did not result in clinically significant changes in physiologic variables.

Dexamethasone as an adjuvant for peripheral nerve blockade: a randomised, triple-blinded crossover study in volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of dexamethasone in extending the duration of local anaesthetic block is uncertain. In a randomised controlled triple blind crossover study in volunteers, we tested the hypothesis that neither i.v. nor perineurally administered dexamethasone prolongs the sensory block achieved with ropivacaine. METHODS: Ultrasound-guided ulnar nerve blocks (ropivacaine 0.75% wt/vol, 3 ml, with saline 1 ml with or without dexamethasone 4 mg) were performed on three occasions in 24 male volunteers along with an i.v. injection of saline 1 ml with or without dexamethasone 4 mg. The combinations of saline and dexamethasone were as follows: control group, perineural and i.v. saline; perineural group, perineural dexamethasone and i.v. saline; i.v. group, perineural saline and i.v. dexamethasone. Sensory block was measured using a VAS in response to pinprick testing. The duration of sensory block was the primary outcome and time to onset of sensory block the secondary outcome. RESULTS: All 24 subjects completed the trial. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] duration of sensory block was 6.87 (5.85-7.62) h in the control group, 7.37 (5.78-7.93) h in the perineural group and 7.37 (6.10-7.97) h in the i.v. group (P=0.61). There was also no significant difference in block onset time between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone 4 mg has no clinically relevant effect on the duration of sensory block provided by ropivacaine applied to the ulnar nerve. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS, 00014604; EudraCT, 2018-001221-98.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Propofol Requirements During Anesthesia Administered by Bispectral Index-Guided Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine, a selective α2-adrenergic agonist currently approved for continuous intensive care unit sedation, is being widely evaluated for its role as a potential anesthetic. The closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) is a method to automatically administer propofol total intravenous anesthesia using bi-spectral index (BIS) feedback and attain general anesthesia (GA) steady state with greater consistency. This study assessed whether dexmedetomidine is effective in further lowering the propofol requirements for total intravenous anesthesia facilitated by CLADS. METHODS: After ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 80 patients undergoing elective major laparoscopic/robotic surgery were randomly allocated to receive GA with propofol CLADS with or without the addition of dexmedetomidine. Quantitative reduction of propofol and quality of depth-of-anesthesia (primary objectives), intraoperative hemodynamics, incidence of postoperative adverse events (sedation, analgesia, nausea, and vomiting), and intraoperative awareness recall (secondary objectives) were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant lowering of propofol requirement (by 15%) in the dexmedetomidine group for induction of anesthesia (dexmedetomidine group: mean ± standard deviation 0.91 ± 0.26 mg/kg; nondexmedetomidine group: 1.07 ± 0.23 mg/kg, mean difference: 0.163, 95% CI, 0.04-0.28; P = .01) and maintenance of GA (dexmedetomidine group: 3.25 ± 0.97 mg/kg/h; nondexmedetomidine group: 4.57 ± 1.21 mg/kg/h, mean difference: 1.32, 95% CI, 0.78-1.85; P < .001). The median performance error of BIS control, a measure of bias, was significantly lower in dexmedetomidine group (1% [-5.8%, 8%]) versus nondexmedetomidine group (8% [2%, 12%]; P = .002). No difference was found for anesthesia depth consistency parameters, including percentage of time BIS within ±10 of target (dexmedetomidine group: 79.5 [72.5, 85.3]; nondexmedetomidine group: 81 [68, 88]; P = .534), median absolute performance error (dexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 12% [10%, 14%]; P = .777), wobble (dexmedetomidine group: 10% [8%, 10%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 8% [6%, 10%]; P = .080), and global score (dexmedetomidine group: 25.2 [23.1, 35.8]; nondexmedetomidine group: 24.7 [20, 38.1]; P = .387). Similarly, there was no difference between the groups for percentage of time intraoperative heart rate and mean arterial pressure remained within 20% of baseline. However, addition of dexmedetomidine to CLADS propofol increased the incidence of significant bradycardia (dexmedetomidine group: 14 [41.1%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 3 [9.1%]; P = .004), hypotension (dexmedetomidine group: 9 [26.5%]; nondexmedetomidine group: 2 [6.1%]; P = .045), and early postoperative sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dexmedetomidine to propofol administered by CLADS was associated with a consistent depth of anesthesia along with a significant decrease in propofol requirements, albeit with an incidence of hemodynamic depression and early postoperative sedation.

A comparison of sufentanil vs. remifentanil in fast-track cardiac surgery patients.

We retrospectively compared patients receiving remifentanil with patients receiving sufentanil undergoing fast-track cardiac surgery. After 1:1 propensity score matching there were 609 patients in each group. The sufentanil group had a significantly longer mean (SD) ventilation time compared with the remifentanil group; 122 (59) vs. 80 (44) min, p < 0.001 and longer mean (SD) length of stay in the recovery area; 277 (77) vs. 263 (78) min, p = 0.002. The sufentanil group had a lower mean (SD) visual analogue pain score than the remifentanil group; 1.5 (1.2) vs. 2.4 (1.5), p < 0.001 and consumed less mean (SD) piritramide (an opioid analgesic used in our hospital); 2.6 (4.7) vs. 18.9 (7.3) mg, p < 0.001. The results of our study show that although remifentanil was more effective in reducing time to tracheal extubation and length of stay in the recovery area, there was an increased requirement for postoperative analgesia when remifentanil was used.

Evaluation of two different radiotherapy anaesthetic protocols for dogs: a randomized clinical crossover trial.

OBJECTIVES: To describe alfentanil-propofol admixture for induction of anaesthesia for canine radiotherapy and compare it to alfentanil-atropine followed by propofol induction in terms of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), recovery duration and quality. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, masked, randomized clinical crossover trial. ANIMALS: A group of 40 client-owned dogs anaesthetized from October 2017 to June 2018. METHODS: Dogs were randomly assigned to be administered one of two protocols. For both protocols, IV preanaesthetic medication was given 30 seconds before rapid IV administration of a set volume of induction agent, with further induction agent administered as needed to permit intubation. For protocol ADMIX, the preanaesthetic medication was 0.04 mL kg-1 0.9% sodium chloride and the induction agent was 0.2 mL kg-1 propofol-alfentanil admixture. For protocol ATRO, the preanaesthetic medication was 10 µg kg-1 alfentanil with 12 µg kg-1 atropine (0.04 mL kg-1 total volume) and the induction agent was 0.2 mL kg-1 propofol. Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane. Cardiorespiratory variables, agitation, hypotension, or inadequate depth of anaesthesia requiring supplemental boluses of propofol or increased vaporizer settings were recorded. Time to extubation, sternal recumbency and walking was noted. Videos were recorded for recovery quality scoring. Owner questionnaires gave feedback about recoveries at home. The other protocol was administered for the next radiotherapy session. RESULTS: The only significantly different variable between protocols was mean HR during anaesthesia, which was lower in ADMIX (p < 0.001). Hypotension was recorded in seven (17.5%) dogs in ATRO and three (7.5%) in ADMIX, with an association (p < 0.005) between ATRO and hypotension. Owners reported animals recovered 'normal' behaviour and appetite by the next morning. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both protocols were acceptable for dogs undergoing radiotherapy, with minimal differences in anaesthetic quality, recovery duration and quality. Although MAP did not differ overall, the incidence of hypotension was higher in ATRO.