ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (IPH), defined as core body temperature below 36°C, is associated with various complications. Shoulder arthroscopy is a risk factor of IPH. This study aimed to compare the incidence of IPH between general anesthesia (GA) and interscalene brachial plexus block (ISBPB) for shoulder arthroscopy. METHOD: Patients scheduled for shoulder arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to GA or ISBPB groups. The body temperature of the patients was measured from baseline to the end of anesthesia and in the post-anesthetic care unit to compare the incidence of IPH. RESULTS: Of the 114 patients initially identified, 80 were included in the study (GAâ =â 40, ISBPBâ =â 40). The incidence of IPH differed significantly between the groups, with GA at 52.5% and ISBPB at 30.0% (Pâ =â .04). Profound IPH (defined asâ <â 35.0°C) occurred in 2 patients with GA. Upon arrival at the post-anesthesia care unit, the GA group exhibited a significantly lower mean body temperature (35.9â ±â 0.6°C) than the ISBPB group (36.1â ±â 0.2°C, Pâ =â .04). CONCLUSION: The incidence of IPH in the GA group was higher than that in the ISBPB group during shoulder arthroscopy, suggesting that ISBPB may be a preferable anesthetic technique for reducing risk of IPH in such procedures.
Subject(s)
Anesthetics , Brachial Plexus Block , Hypothermia , Humans , Brachial Plexus Block/adverse effects , Brachial Plexus Block/methods , Shoulder/surgery , Prospective Studies , Hypothermia/epidemiology , Hypothermia/etiology , Hypothermia/prevention & control , Arthroscopy/adverse effects , Arthroscopy/methods , Incidence , Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General/methods , Pain, PostoperativeABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS), it is crucial to maintain hemodynamic stability during the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in maintaining hemodynamic stability during anesthetic induction and maintenance. Cases: TAVI was performed on seven patients with sAS, and remimazolam was administered for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) of general anesthesia with induction (3.0 mg/kg/h) and maintenance (1.0 mg/kg/h). All patients underwent TAVI without major hemodynamic concerns and later recovered. Conclusions: Remimazolam can be safely used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in patients with sAS when performing TAVI.
