Comparison of arterial hypotension incidence during general anesthesia induction - target-controlled infusion vs. bolus injection of propofol: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of arterial hypotension during induction of general anesthesia is influenced by the method of propofol administration, but there is a dearth of randomized clinical trials comparing bolus injection and target-controlled infusion in relation to arterial hypotension. This study seeks to compare the incidence of arterial hypotension between these two methods of propofol administration. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-center, non-blinded study included 60 patients (aged 35 to 55 years), classified as ASA physical status I or II, who were undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. They were randomly allocated using a computer to two groups based on the method of propofol administration during the induction of general anesthesia: the Target Group, receiving target-controlled infusion at 4 µg.mL-1, and the Bolus Group, receiving a bolus infusion of 2 mg.kg-1. Both groups also received midazolam 2 mg, fentanyl 3 µg.kg-1, and rocuronium 0.6 mg.kg-1. Over the first 10 minutes of anesthesia induction, Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), Heart Rate (HR), level of Consciousness (qCON), and Suppression Rate (SR) were recorded every 2 minutes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients remained in the TCI group, while 28 were in the Bolus group. Repeated measure analysis using mixed-effects models could not reject the null hypothesis for the effect of group-time interactions in MAP (p = 0.85), HR (p = 0.49), SR (p = 0.44), or qCON (p = 0.72). The difference in means for qCON (60.2 for TCI, 50.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), MAP (90.3 for TCI, 86.2 for bolus, p < 0.006), HR (76.2 for TCI, 76.9 for bolus, p = 0.93), and SR (0.01 for TCI, 5.5 for bolus, p < 0.001), irrespective of time (whole period means), revealed some significant differences. CONCLUSION: Patients who received propofol bolus injection exhibited a lower mean arterial pressure, a greater variation in the level of consciousness, and a higher suppression rate compared to those who received it as a target-controlled infusion. However, the interaction effect between groups and time remains inconclusive.

Sympathetic arterial baroreflex hysteresis in humans: different patterns during low- and high-pressure levels.

Fluctuations in diastolic pressure modulate muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) through the arterial baroreflex. A higher sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity (sBRS) to pressure falls compared with rises has been reported; however, the underlying mechanisms are unclear. We assessed whether beat-to-beat falling and rising diastolic pressures operate on two distinct baroreflex response curves. Twenty-two men (32 ± 8 yr) underwent sequential bolus injections of nitroprusside and phenylephrine (modified Oxford test) with continuous recording of heart rate, blood pressure, and MSNA. The weighted negative linear regression slope between falling or rising diastolic pressure and MSNA burst incidence quantified sBRSfall and sBRSrise, respectively. The diastolic pressure evoking a MSNA burst incidence of 50 (T50) was calculated. sBRSfall was greater than sBRSrise (-6.24 ± 2.80 vs. -4.34 ± 2.16 bursts·100 heartbeats-1·mmHg-1, P = 0.01) and had a narrower operating range (14 ± 8 vs. 20 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.01) that was shifted rightward (T50, 75 ± 9 and 70 ± 11 mmHg, P < 0.001). At diastolic pressures below baseline, sBRSfall was less than sBRSrise (-1.81 ± 1.31 vs. -3.59 ± 1.70 bursts·100 heartbeats-1·mmHg-1, P = 0.003) as low absolute pressures operated closer to the saturation plateau on the falling, compared with the rising pressure curve. At pressures above baseline, sBRSfall was greater than sBRSrise (-5.23 ± 1.94 and -3.79 ± 1.67 bursts·100 heartbeats-1·mmHg-1, P = 0.03). These findings demonstrate that the sympathetic arterial baroreflex possesses two response curves for processing beat-to-beat diastolic pressure falls and rises. The falling pressure curve is rightward shifted, which reduces sensitivity to falling pressure at low absolute pressures. This demonstrates that the direction of the hysteresis is influenced by the prevailing pressure level relative to each baroreflex response curve.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The findings show that the arterial baroreflex processes diastolic pressure dependent on the direction of pressure change from the previous beat, yielding two distinct baroreflex response curves to falling and rising pressure. Overall, the falling pressure curve is rightward shifted and more sensitive. The rightward shift caused a hysteresis reversal at hypotensive pressures as the falling pressure saturation plateau of the sigmoid response curve occurred at higher pressures than the rising pressure curve.

Arterial baroreflex regulation of muscle sympathetic single-unit activity in men: influence of resting blood pressure.

The arterial baroreflex has dominant control over multiunit muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) burst occurrence, but whether this extends to all single units or is influenced by resting blood pressure status is unclear. In 22 men (32 ± 8 yr), we assessed 68 MSNA single units during sequential bolus injections of nitroprusside and phenylephrine (modified Oxford). Sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity (sBRS) was quantified as the weighted negative linear regression slope between diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and single-unit spike firing probability and multiple spike firing. Strong negative linear relationships (r ≥ -0.50) between DBP and spike firing probability were observed in 63/68 (93%) single units (-2.27 ± 1.27%·cardiac cycle-1·mmHg-1 [operating range, 18 ± 8 mmHg]). In contrast, only 45/68 (66%) single units had strong DBP-multiple spike firing relationships (-0.13 ± 0.18 spikes·cardiac cycle-1·mmHg-1 [operating range, 14 ± 7 mmHg]). Participants with higher resting DBP (65 ± 3 vs. 77 ± 3 mmHg, P < 0.001) had similar spike firing probability sBRS (low vs. high, -2.08 ± 1.08 vs. -2.46 ± 1.42%·cardiac cycle-1·mmHg-1, P = 0.33), but a smaller sBRS operating range (20 ± 6 vs. 16 ± 9 mmHg, P = 0.01; 86 ± 24 vs. 52 ± 25% of total range, P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of single units without arterial baroreflex control outside this range [6/31 (19%) vs. 21/32 (66%), P < 0.001]. Participants with higher resting DBP also had fewer single units with arterial baroreflex control of multiple spike firing (79 vs. 53%, P = 0.04). The majority of MSNA single units demonstrate strong arterial baroreflex control over spike firing probability during pharmacological manipulation of blood pressure. Changes in single-unit sBRS operating range and control of multiple spike firing may represent altered sympathetic recruitment patterns associated with the early development of hypertension.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Muscle sympathetic single units can be differentially controlled during stress. In contrast, we demonstrate that 93% of single units maintain strong arterial baroreflex control during pharmacological manipulation of blood pressure. Interestingly, the operating range and proportion of single units that lose arterial baroreflex control outside of this range are influenced by resting blood pressure levels. Altered single unit, but not multiunit, arterial baroreflex control may represent changes in sympathetic recruitment patterns in early stage development of hypertension.

Magnesium sulfate improves postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous infusion of magnesium sulfate to ketorolac during laparoscopic surgeries. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty women submitted to laparoscopic gynecologic oncology surgeries. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous ketorolac 30 mg in bolus followed by saline infusion (group K), intravenous magnesium sulfate 20 mg/kg in bolus followed by magnesium 2 mg kg(-1) h(-1) (group M) or intravenous saline solution 20 mL in bolus followed by saline infusion during the entire procedure (group S). MEASUREMENTS: Postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting, sedation, opioid consumption, time to first dose of analgesic. MAIN RESULTS: Magnesium sulfate reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo in the postoperative, but not in the intraoperative, period. Nausea, not vomiting, was reduced in ketorolac but not in the magnesium group. Pain intensity was higher in placebo than in the other 2 groups during all periods of observation. In the first 60 minutes, pain intensity was lower in the magnesium than in the ketorolac or the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative magnesium sulfate improves postoperative pain control, acting as an opioid-sparing adjuvant, and is similar to ketorolac 30 mg administered in the beginning of surgery.

Safety profile of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for breakthrough pain in cancer patients: a case series study.

PURPOSE: The WHO analgesic ladder supports medication choice according to pain intensity. The use of the analgesic ladder in an inverse way, has the advantage of using the same principles of the original ladder to treat crisis of pain in cancer patients. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) technique in patients admitted to an oncological Hospital. METHODS: This is a case series study. Patients assigned to receive IV-PCA between March 2011 and May 2012 were selected for the study. Medical records were reviewed, patients stratified according to the Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS). The primary outcome was to verify if different IV-PCA opioid solutions could be equally effective providing pain relief. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of clinical side effects that can be associated to IV-PCA infusions. RESULTS: A total of 95 medical records were reviewed. Most patients used IV-PCA with morphine (42.1 %), fentanyl (42.1 %) or methadone (15.7 %) to treat exacerbation periods of cancer pain. IV-PCA used as supplementary therapy successfully improved pain control in 78.9 % of the patients, without any difference related to opioid solution. KPS <40 was related to higher rate of pain relief, without any difference in side effects in this group of patients. The most common side effects were sedation (10.5 %) followed by constipation (9.4 %) and nausea (4.2 %). Morphine presented a higher risk than fentanyl for sedation. Analgesia-related delirium or respiratory depression were not reported in this case series study. CONCLUSIONS: IV-PCA provided timely, safe and useful analgesia for patients with severe breakthrough pain and may be useful to help titration of opioids, weaning to oral analgesia and to decide for interventional procedures.