Rationale and study design for an Individualized PeriopeRative Open lung VEntilatory approach in Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy/scopy: study protocol for a prospective international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse. METHODS: Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis. DISCUSSION: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations.

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analysis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced1: neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients.2 We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device.3 We recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia.4 We recommend profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery.5 We recommend quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used.6 We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard.7 We recommend a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.8 We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached.9 We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF≥2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been attained.10 We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.

Bloqueo neuromuscular perioperatorio. Actualización 2020 de las Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR) / Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations

Se presenta la actualización 2020 de las Recomendaciones de bloqueo neuromuscular de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR). Las anteriores databan de 2009. Tras un análisis de consenso Delphi (expertos, grupo de trabajo y revisión bibliográfica previa) se generaron 10 recomendaciones: 1) Se recomienda el uso de fármacos bloqueantes neuromusculares (fbnm) para facilitar la intubación traqueal y evitar lesiones faringo-laringo-traqueales en cualquier paciente, incluidos pacientes críticos. 2) Se recomienda no utilizar fbnm para la inserción rutinaria de dispositivos supraglóticos y utilizar solo en caso de obstrucción de la vía aérea o intubación traqueal a través de este. 3) Se recomienda utilizar un fármaco bloqueante neuromuscular de inicio de acción rápido asociado al agente hipnótico en la inducción de secuencia rápida. 4) Se recomienda utilizar un nivel de bloqueo neuromuscular profundo en cirugía laparoscópica. 5) Se recomienda el uso de monitorización cuantitativa del bloqueo neuromuscular durante todo el procedimiento quirúrgico, siempre que se utilicen fbnm. 6) Se recomienda la monitorización cuantitativa mediante estimulación del nervio cubital y evaluación de la respuesta en el músculo aductor corto del pulgar, siendo el estándar clínico la aceleromiografía (AMG). 7) Se recomienda una recuperación del bloqueo neuromuscular al menos hasta alcanzar un TOFr ≥ 0,9 para evitar el bloqueo neuromuscular residual postoperatorio. 8) Se recomienda la reversión farmacológica del bloqueo neuromuscular al finalizar la anestesia general, previo a la extubación traqueal siempre que no se haya alcanzado un TOFr ≥ 0,9. 9) Se recomienda utilizar fármacos anticolinesterásicos para la reversión del bloqueo neuromuscular solo cuando el tren de cuatro estímulos (TOF) es ≥ 2 y no se haya alcanzado un TOFr ≥ 0,9. 10)...(AU)

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analyisis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced: (1) neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients. (2) We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device. (3) SWe recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia. (4) We recommed profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery. (5) We recommend quantitative monitoring Sof neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used. (6) We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard. (7) We recommned a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade. (8) We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached. (9) We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF ≥ 2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been atained. (10) We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.(AU)

[Pre-clinical validation of a turbine-based ventilator for invasive ventilation-The ACUTE-19 ventilator]. / Validación preclínica de un respirador de turbina para la ventilación invasiva: el respirador ACUTE-19.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 pandemic pressure on healthcare systems can exhaust ventilator resources, especially where resources are restricted. Our objective was a rapid preclinical evaluation of a newly developed turbine-based ventilator, named the ACUTE-19, for invasive ventilation. Methods: Validation consisted of (a) testing tidal volume delivery in 11 simulated models, with various resistances and compliances; (b) comparison with a commercial ventilator (VIVO-50) adapting the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-recommendations for rapidly manufactured ventilators; and (c) in vivo testing in a sheep before and after inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome by saline lavage. Results: Differences in tidal volume in the simulated models were marginally different (largest difference 33 ml [95% CI 31 to 36]; P < .001). Plateau pressure was not different (-0.3 cmH2O [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; P = .409), and positive end-expiratory pressure was marginally different (0.3 cmH2O [95% CI 0.2 to 0.3]; P < .001) between the ACUTE-19 and the commercial ventilator. Bland-Altman analyses showed good agreement (mean bias -0.29 [limits of agreement 0.82 to -1.42], and mean bias 0.56 [limits of agreement 1.94 to -0.81], at a plateau pressure of 15 and 30 cmH2O, respectively). The ACUTE-19 achieved optimal oxygenation and ventilation before and after acute respiratory distress syndrome induction. Conclusions: The ACUTE-19 performed accurately in simulated and animal models yielding a comparable performance with a VIVO-50 commercial device. The ACUTE-19 can provide the basis for the development of a future affordable commercial ventilator.

Pre-clinical validation of a turbine-based ventilator for invasive ventilation-The ACUTE-19 ventilator.

BACKGROUND: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-Coronavirus 2 (CoV-2) pandemic pressure on healthcare systems can exhaust ventilator resources, especially where resources are restricted. Our objective was a rapid preclinical evaluation of a newly developed turbine-based ventilator, named the ACUTE-19, for invasive ventilation. METHODS: Validation consisted of (a) testing tidal volume (VT) delivery in 11 simulated models, with various resistances and compliances; (b) comparison with a commercial ventilator (VIVO-50) adapting the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-recommendations for rapidly manufactured ventilators; and (c) in vivo testing in a sheep before and after inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by saline lavage. RESULTS: Differences in VT in the simulated models were marginally different (largest difference 33ml [95%-confidence interval (CI) 31-36]; P<.001ml). Plateau pressure (Pplat) was not different (-0.3cmH2O [95%-CI -0.9 to 0.3]; P=.409), and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was marginally different (0.3 cmH2O [95%-CI 0.2 to 0.3]; P<.001) between the ACUTE-19 and the commercial ventilator. Bland-Altman analyses showed good agreement (mean bias, -0.29, [limits of agreement, 0.82 to -1.42], and mean bias 0.56 [limits of agreement, 1.94 to -0.81], at a Pplat of 15 and 30cmH2O, respectively). The ACUTE-19 achieved optimal oxygenation and ventilation before and after ARDS induction. CONCLUSIONS: The ACUTE-19 performed accurately in simulated and animal models yielding a comparable performance with a VIVO-50 commercial device. The acute 19 can provide the basis for the development of a future affordable commercial ventilator.

Effect of an individualized versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy on postoperative recovery: a randomized clinical trial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P < 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: No se sabe con certeza si individualizar las presiones del neumoperitoneo durante la cirugía laparoscópica mejora la recuperación postoperatoria. Comparamos una estrategia con individualización de la presión del neumoperitoneo (individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure, IPP) frente a una estrategia con presión estándar del neumoperitoneo (standard pneumoperitoneum pressure, SPP) respecto a la recuperación postoperatoria tras cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica. MÉTODOS: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico. La estrategia IPP consistió en una modificación de la posición, bloqueo neuromuscular profundo, y una distensión de la pared abdominal conseguida con la presión intraabdominal (intra-abdominal pressure, IAP) más baja en la que el espacio quirúrgico operativo siguiera siendo aceptable. La estrategia SPP consistió en una posición de acuerdo con la preferencia del cirujano, bloqueo neuromuscular moderado, e IAP fija de 12 mm Hg. El resultado primario fue la recuperación fisiológica postoperatoria, evaluada mediante la escala de calidad en la recuperación postoperatoria (Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, PQRS). Los resultados secundarios incluyeron la recuperación en otros dominios y la recuperación global, la aparición de complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, y los valores de los marcadores inflamatorios séricos durante tres días postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: De un total de 166 pacientes, 85 recibieron una estrategia IPP y 81 una estrategia SPP. La estrategia IPP se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación fisiológica (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio OR, 2,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,2-6,4); P = 0,017, razón de riesgo, 1,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,7-1,9), P = 0,05)). La estrategia IPP también se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación emotiva (P = 0,013) y global (P = 0,011). Los eventos adversos intraoperatorios fueron menos frecuentes con la estrategia IPP (P < 0,001) y la tasa neutrófilo-linfocito fue más baja (P = 0,029). No se observaron cambios en otras variables. CONCLUSIÓN: En esta cohorte de pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica, una estrategia IPP se asoció con una recuperación más rápida, menos complicaciones intraoperatorias y menos inflamación en comparación con una estrategia SPP.

Correction to: An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

After publication of our article [1] the authors have notified us that there are changes in the primary outcome and the statistical analysis plan of the study.

An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A recent study shows that a multifaceted strategy using an individualised intra-abdominal pressure titration strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery results in an acceptable workspace at low intra-abdominal pressure in most patients. The multifaceted strategy, focused on lower to individualised intra-abdominal pressures, includes prestretching the abdominal wall during initial insufflation, deep neuromuscular blockade, low tidal volume ventilation settings and a modified lithotomy position. The study presented here tests the hypothesis that this strategy improves outcomes of patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: The Individualized Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery versus Standard Therapy (IPPCollapse-II) study is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blinded randomised 1:1 clinical study that runs in four academic hospitals in Spain. Patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I to III who are aged > 18 years and are without cognitive deficits are randomised to an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the intervention group) or to a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the control group). The primary outcome is recovery assessed with the Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale (PQRS) at postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes include PQRS score in the post anaesthesia care unit and at postoperative day 3, postoperative complications until postoperative day 28, hospital length of stay and process-related outcomes. DISCUSSION: The IPPCollapse-II study will be the first randomised clinical study that assesses the impact of an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy focused on working with the lowest intra-abdominal pressure during colorectal laparoscopic surgery on relevant patient-centred outcomes. The results of this large study, to be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in international peer-reviewed journals, are of ultimate importance for optimising the care and safety of laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Selection of patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome of this study facilitates the translation into clinical practice. Access to source data will be made available through anonymised datasets upon request and after agreement of the Steering Committee of the IPPCollapse-II study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02773173 . Registered on 16 May 2016. EudraCT, 2016-001693-15. Registered on 8 August 2016.

Bloqueo neuromuscular residual en la sala de recuperación postanestésica. Análisis secundario del estudio ReCuSS. Estudio observacional transversal de una cohorte multicéntrica / Residual neuromuscular blockade in the postanesthesia care unit. A secondary analysis of the ReCuSS. Observational cross-sectional study of a multicenter cohort

No disponible

Repeated sugammadex reversal of muscle relaxation during lumbar spine surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological multimodal monitoring / Reversión repetida del bloqueo neuromuscular con sugammadex en cirugía del raquis lumbar, con monitorización neurofisiológica multimodal intraoperatoria

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery is usually acomplished avoiding muscle relaxants. A case of intraoperative sugammadex partial reversal of the neuromuscular blockade allowing adequate monitoring during spine surgery is presented. A 38 year-old man was scheduled for discectomy and vertebral arthrodesis throughout anterior and posterior approaches. Anesthesia consisted of total intravenous anesthesia plus rocuronium. Intraoperatively monitoring was needed, and the muscle relaxant reverted twice with low dose sugammadex in order to obtain adequate responses. The doses of sugammadex used were conservatively selected (0.1mg/kg boluses increases, total dose needed 0.4mg/kg). Both motor evoqued potentials, and electromyographic responses were deemed adequate by the neurophysiologist. If muscle relaxation was needed in the context described, this approach could be useful to prevent neurological sequelae. This is the first study using very low dose sugammadex to reverse rocuronium intraoperatively and to re-establish the neuromuscular blockade (AU)

La monitorización neurofisiológica intraoperatoria en cirugía de raquis se suele llevar a cabo evitando los bloqueantes neuromusculares. Presentamos el caso de un paciente en el que se empleó reversión parcial del bloqueo neuromuscular que permitió la monitorización intraoperatoria con respuestas adecuadas. Un paciente varón de 38 años fue sometido a discectomía y artrodesis mediante abordajes consecutivos anterior y posterior. Se procedió con anestesia intravenosa y rocuronio como bloqueante neuromuscular. Se precisó monitorización intraoperatoria y el bloqueante neuromuscular fue revertido por 2 veces con dosis bajas de sugammadex para obtener las respuestas adecuadas. Las dosis de sugammadex usadas fueron seleccionadas de forma conservadora (bolos incrementales de 0,1mg/kg, dosis total requerida 0,4mg/kg). Tanto los potenciales evocados motores como las respuestas electromiográficas fueron juzgadas adecuadas por el neurofisiólogo. Si se precisa relajación muscular en el contexto descrito, esta aproximación podría ser útil para contribuir a la prevención de secuelas neurológicas. Este es el primer estudio en el que se emplean dosis muy bajas de sugammadex intraoperatoriamente para revertir rocuronio y restablecer, consecutivamente, el bloqueo neuromuscular (AU)

Repeated sugammadex reversal of muscle relaxation during lumbar spine surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological multimodal monitoring.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery is usually acomplished avoiding muscle relaxants. A case of intraoperative sugammadex partial reversal of the neuromuscular blockade allowing adequate monitoring during spine surgery is presented. A 38 year-old man was scheduled for discectomy and vertebral arthrodesis throughout anterior and posterior approaches. Anesthesia consisted of total intravenous anesthesia plus rocuronium. Intraoperatively monitoring was needed, and the muscle relaxant reverted twice with low dose sugammadex in order to obtain adequate responses. The doses of sugammadex used were conservatively selected (0.1mg/kg boluses increases, total dose needed 0.4mg/kg). Both motor evoqued potentials, and electromyographic responses were deemed adequate by the neurophysiologist. If muscle relaxation was needed in the context described, this approach could be useful to prevent neurological sequelae. This is the first study using very low dose sugammadex to reverse rocuronium intraoperatively and to re-establish the neuromuscular blockade.

[Preoperative management of anemia in oncologic surgery]. / Manejo preoperatorio de la anemia en cirugía oncológica.

Preoperative anemia in patients with cancer is highly prevalent, is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and is a risk factor for transfusion. There is evidence that patients who undergo transfusions have higher morbidity, increased cancer recurrence and poorer survival. The pathophysiology of anemia is multifactorial, with an inflammatory component to which chronic blood loss and nutritional deficiencies can be associated. Therefore, preoperative anemia in patients with cancer should be treated appropriately, given that there is sufficient time in the preoperative period. Of the currently available options, parenteral iron is an effective alternative, especially for those types of cancer that have an associated hemorrhagic component.

Manejo preoperatorio de la anemia en cirugía oncológica / Preoperative management of anemia in oncologic surgery

La anemia preoperatoria en los pacientes oncológicos es muy prevalente, se asocia a mayor morbilidad perioperatoria y es un factor de riesgo de transfusión. Existe evidencia de que los pacientes transfundidos tienen mayor morbilidad, mayor recurrencia del cáncer y peor supervivencia. La fisiopatología de la anemia es multifactorial, con un componente inflamatorio al que se puede asociar pérdidas hemáticas crónicas y deficiencias nutricionales. Por ello, la anemia preoperatoria en pacientes con cáncer debería tratarse adecuadamente, ya que se dispone de tiempo suficiente en el preoperatorio. De las opciones disponibles actualmente, el hierro parenteral es una alternativa eficaz, sobre todo en los tipos de cáncer que asocian un componente hemorrágico (AU)

Preoperative anemia in patients with cancer is highly prevalent, is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and is a risk factor for transfusion. There is evidence that patients who undergo transfusions have higher morbidity, increased cancer recurrence and poorer survival. The pathophysiology of anemia is multifactorial, with an inflammatory component to which chronic blood loss and nutritional deficiencies can be associated. Therefore, preoperative anemia in patients with cancer should be treated appropriately, given that there is sufficient time in the preoperative period. Of the currently available options, parenteral iron is an effective alternative, especially for those types of cancer that have an associated hemorrhagic component (AU)

Uso de sugammadex en paciente con miocardiopatía de Takotsubo / Sugammadex in a patient with Takotsubo cardiomyopathy

No disponible

[Prophylaxis for hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 to ephedrine]. / Prevención de la hipotensión arterial en cesáreas con anestesia subaracnoidea. Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado comparativo entre hidroxietilalmidón 130/0,4 y efedrina.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for scheduled or emergency cesarean section, but the prevalence of hypotension is high in this setting. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of a colloid (6% hydroxyethyl starch [HES] 130/0.4) to ephedrine for preventing hypotension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section (in non-life-threatening situations) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to 3 groups for prophylaxis. The first ephedrine group received 5 mg of ephedrine intravenously (EPHE-5); the second ephedrine group received 10 mg of the drug intravenously (EPHE-10); and the HES group received 500 mL of HES 130/0.4 in rapid infusion n 15 minutes. We recorded systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate after 10 minutes in the operating room and 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection of the anesthetic. We also assessed the sensory and motor blockades on both sides 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection. Neonatal status was assessed by Apgar score and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients, 33 in each ephedrine group and 30 in the HES group, were enrolled. Blood pressure decreased similarly in all 3 groups (36% EPHE-5 group, 36% EPHE-10 group and 40% HES group); no significant between-group differences were observed. Nor were there significant differences in the percentages of patients requiring bolus doses of ephedrine to treat hypotension (23% in the HES group vs 33% in the EPHE-5 group and 27% in the EPHE-10 group) or in the cumulative doses of ephedrine. Neonatal status was also similarly satisfactory in all 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: HES 130/0.4 is as useful for hypotension prophylaxis as 5-mg or 10-mg intravenous doses of ephedrine. HES 130/0.4 might be a substitute for sympathomimetic agents if adverse effects are predicted or contraindications to the use of such drugs are present.

Prevención de la hipotensión arterial en cesáreas con anestesia subaracnoidea. Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado comparativo entre hidroxietilalmidón 130/0,4 y efedrina / Prophylaxis for hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 to ephedrine

Objetivos: La anestesia subaracnoidea es la técnica de elección para la intervención de cesárea, tanto electiva como urgente y la hipotensión arterial secundaria tiene una alta prevalencia. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue valorar la eficacia de un coloide hidroxietilalmidón 6% 130/0,4 y comparar su eficacia con la de la efedrina para la prevención de la hipotensión arterial. Pacientes y métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes sometidas a cesárea electiva o a cesárea urgente no vital. Se distribuyó a las pacientes en tres grupos de profilaxis: grupo EFE 5, efedrina 5 mg iv; grupo EFE 10, efedrina 10 mg iv; grupo VOLU, hidroxietilalmidón 130/0,4, 500 mL en perfusión rápida en 15 min. Se registraron presión arterial sistólica, diastólica y frecuencia cardiaca a los 10 min de entrar en el quirófano, así como a los 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 y 30 min de inyectado el anestésico. Se valoró el bloqueo sensitivo y motor bilateralmente a los 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 y 30 min después de la anestesia. Se valoró el estado de los recién nacidos según el test de Apgar y gasometría venosa umbilical. Resultados: Se incluyeron 96 pacientes (33 grupo EFE5, 33 grupo EFE10, 30 grupo VOLU). No se hallaron diferencias significativas en las presiones arteriales entre los distintos grupos de profilaxis, con descenso similar en los grupos de estudio (36% grupo EFE 5, 36% grupo EFE 10 y 40% grupo VOLU). No hubo diferencias significativas en el número de bolos de efedrina necesarios para el tratamiento de la hipotensión arterial (23% de las pacientes en el grupo VOLU, frente al 33% en el grupo E5 y el 27% en el grupo E10), ni las dosis acumuladas de efedrina. No se apreciaron diferencias significativas en el resultado neonatal, que fue adecuado en todos los neonatos. Conclusiones: La profilaxis de la hipotensión arterial con (HEA) 130/0,4 es tan útil como la porporcionada por 5 o 10 mg de efedrina iv. Podría estar indicada, en lugar de los fármacos simpaticomiméticos, si se prevé efectos adversos o si existen contraindicaciones de los mismos(AU)

Background and objective: Spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for scheduled or emergency cesarean section, but the prevalence of hypotension is high in this setting. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of a colloid (6% hydroxyethyl starch [HES] 130/0.4) to ephedrine for preventing hypotension. Patients and methods: Patients undergoing elective or emergency cesarean section (in non-life-threatening situations) were enrolled. Patients were randomized to 3 groups for prophylaxis. The first ephedrine group received 5 mg of ephedrine intravenously (EPHE-5); the second ephedrine group received 10 mg of the drug intravenously (EPHE-10); and the HES group received 500 mL of HES 130/0.4 in rapid infusion in 15 minutes. We recorded systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate after 10 minutes in the operating room and 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection of the anesthetic. We also assessed the sensory and motor blockades on both sides 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes after injection. Neonatal status was assessed by Apgar score and umbilical cord blood gas analysis. Results: Ninety-six patients, 33 in each ephedrine group and 30 in the HES group, were enrolled. Blood pressure decreased similarly in all 3 groups (36% EPHE-5 group, 36% EPHE-10 group and 40% HES group); no significant between-group differences were observed. Nor were there significant differences in the percentages of patients requiring bolus doses of ephedrine to treat hypotension (23% in the HES group vs 33% in the EPHE-5 group and 27% in the EPHE-10 group) or in the cumulative doses of ephedrine. Neonatal status was also similarly satisfactory in all 3 groups. Conclusions: HES 130/0.4 is as useful for hypotension prophylaxis as 5-mg or 10-mg intravenous doses of ephedrine. HES 130/0.4 might be a substitute for sympathomimetic agents if adverse effects are predicted or contraindications to the use of such drugs are present(AU)

Bloqueador bronquial EZ-Bloquer. Nota técnica / No disponible

No disponible