General intravenous anesthetics - pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and chiral properties.

In continuation of our published review on general inhalational anesthetics, the current article presents a survey of intravenous agents for general anaesthesia. From chemical point of view these compounds belong to structurally diverse categories, such as barbiturates - thiopental (Sodium pentothal®, Trapanal®, Pentothal®), methohexital (Brevital®), and hexobarbital (Evipan®, Hexenal®, Citopan®, Tobinal®); non-barbiturate derivatives - ketamine (Ketalar® Ketaset®), esketamine (Ketanest®), and etomidate (Amidate®, Hypnomidate®), phenolic derivatives - propofol (Diprivan®); steroid derivatives - mixture of alfadolone and alfaxalone (Althesin® in human and Saffan® in veterinary anesthesia); and derivatives of phenylacetic acid - propanidid (Epontol®, Sombrevin®). Most of these compounds are chiral, with the exception of propofol and propanidid. Apart from etomidate and esketamine, they are used in the form of their racemates. Besides their characteristics and mechanism of action, attention is centred also on their chiral properties.

Requirement for Discharge in the Care of a Responsible Adult in Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: Necessity or Potential Barrier to Health Equity?

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation is commonly practiced by emergency physicians to facilitate patient care in the emergency department (ED). Although various guidelines have modernized our approach to procedural sedation, many procedural sedation guidelines and practices still often require that patients be discharged into the care of a responsible adult. DISCUSSION: Such requirement for discharge often cannot be met by underserved and undomiciled patients. Benzodiazepines, opioids, propofol, ketamine, "ketofol," etomidate, and methohexital have all been utilized for procedural sedation in the ED. For patients who may require discharge without the presence of an accompanying responsible adult, ketamine, propofol, methohexital, "ketofol," and etomidate are ideal agents for procedural sedation given rapid onsets, short durations of action, and rapid recovery times in patients without renal or hepatic impairment. Proper pre- and postprocedure protocols should be utilized when performing procedural sedation to ensure patient safety. Through the use of appropriate medications and observation protocols, patients can safely be discharged 2 to 4 h postprocedure. CONCLUSION: There is no pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic basis to require discharge in the care of a responsible adult after procedural sedation. Thoughtful medication selection and the use of evidence-based pre- and postprocedure protocols in the ED can help circumvent this requirement, which likely disproportionally impacts patients who are of low socioeconomic status or undomiciled.

Effects of Anesthesia Changes During Maintenance ECT: A Longitudinal Comparison of Seizure Quality Under Anesthesia Using Propofol/Esketamine Versus Methohexital.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of ECT relies on the induction of a generalized cerebral seizure. Among others, seizure quality (SQ) is potentially influenced by the anesthetic drug used. Commonly used anesthetics comprise barbiturates, etomidate, propofol, and esketamine, with different characteristics and impacts on seizure parameters. So far, no studies have compared the influence of methohexital vs. a combination of propofol/esketamine on established SQ parameters. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal study compared eight established SQ parameters (PSI, ASEI, MSC, midictal amplitude, motor and electroencephalography (EEG) seizure duration, concordance, PHR) before and after the change from propofol/esketamine to methohexital in 34 patients under maintenance ECT. Each patient contributed four measurements, two before and two after the anesthesia change. Anesthesia dose, stimulus dose, electrode placement, and concomitant medication remained unchanged throughout the analyzed treatments. RESULTS: Under methohexital (M=88.97 mg), ASEI (p=0.039 to 0.013) and midictal amplitude (p=0.022 to<0.001) were significantly lower, whereas seizure duration (motor and EEG) was significantly longer when compared to propofol/esketamine (M=64.26 mg/51.18 mg; p=0.012 to<0.001). PSI, MSC, seizure concordance, and PHR were not affected by the anesthetic used. DISCUSSION: Although to what extent these parameters correlate with the therapeutic effectiveness remains ambiguous, a decision for or against a particular anesthetic could be considered if a specific SQ parameter needs optimization. However, no general superiority for one specific substance or combination was found in this study. In the next step, anesthetic effects on treatment response and tolerability should be focused on.

Comparison of etomidate and methohexital as anesthetic agents for continuation and maintenance electroconvulsive therapy: A retrospective analysis of seizure quality and safety.

BACKGROUND: The ideal hypnotic agent for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is still under debate and previous studies comparing etomidate and methohexital have produced conflicting results. This retrospective study compares etomidate and methohexital as anesthetic agents in continuation and maintenance (m)ECT with regard to seizure quality and anesthetic outcomes. METHODS: All subjects undergoing mECT at our department between October 1st, 2014 and February 28th, 2022 were included in this retrospective analysis. Data for each ECT session were obtained from the electronic health records. Anesthesia was performed with either methohexital/succinylcholine or etomidate/succinylcholine. Standard seizure quality parameters, anesthesiological monitoring data, pharmacological interventions and side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: 573 mECT treatments in 88 patients were included (methohexital n = 458, etomidate n = 115). Seizures lasted significantly longer after using etomidate (electroencephalography: +12.80 s [95 %-CI:8.64-16.95]; electromyogram +6.59 s [95 %-CI:4.14-9.04]). Time to maximum coherence was significantly longer with etomidate (+7.34 s [95 %-CI:3.97-10.71]. Use of etomidate was associated with longer procedure duration (+6.51 min [95 %-CI:4.84-8.17]) and higher maximum postictal systolic blood pressure (+13.64 mmHg [95 %-CI:9.33-17.94]). Postictal systolic blood pressure > 180 mmHg, the use of antihypertensives, benzodiazepines and clonidine (for postictal agitation), as well as the occurrence of myoclonus was significantly more common under etomidate. CONCLUSIONS: Due to longer procedure duration and an unfavorable side effect profile, etomidate appears inferior to methohexital as an anesthetic agent in mECT despite longer seizure durations.

Electroconvulsive Therapy Anesthetic Choice and Clinical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Etomidate and methohexital are the 2 commonly used anesthetics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine how anesthetic choice between etomidate and methohexital is associated with real-world clinical outcomes. METHODS: This naturalistic retrospective cohort study examined longitudinal electronic health records for 495 adult patients who received 2 or more ECT treatments from 2010 to 2019 in Kaiser Permanente North California, a large integrated health care system. Study outcomes included 12-month posttreatment depression remission as measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, psychiatric and all-cause emergency department visits, and psychiatric and all-cause hospitalizations. RESULTS: Anesthetic choice was not significantly related to depression severity, emergency department visits, or psychiatric hospitalizations at 12 months after completing ECT. In exploratory analyses, we found that etomidate compared with methohexital was associated with higher rates of patient discomfort adverse effects-postictal agitation, phlebitis, and myoclonus (2.4% vs 0.4%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first large comparison of etomidate and methohexital as anesthetics for ECT and their associations with real-world outcomes. Our study showed no significant difference on depression remission, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations 12-months posttreatment. Thus, clinicians should focus on other patient or treatment characteristics when deciding on anesthetics for ECT. Further investigation is needed to confirm our exploratory findings that etomidate use was correlated with a higher rate of patient discomfort adverse effects relative to methohexital.

Comparison of Bolus Dosing of Methohexital and Propofol in Elective Direct Current Cardioversion.

Background Methohexital and propofol can both be used as sedation for direct current cardioversion (DCCV). However, there are limited data comparing these medications in this setting. We hypothesized that patients receiving methohexital for elective DCCV would be sedated more quickly, recover from sedation faster, and experience less adverse effects. Methods and Results This was a prospective, blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic medical center. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital (0.5 mg/kg) or propofol (0.8 mg/kg) as a bolus for elective DCCV. The times from bolus of the medication to achieving a Ramsay Sedation Scale score of 5 to 6, first shock, eyes opening on command, and when the patient could state their age and name were obtained. The need for additional medication dosing, airway intervention, vital signs, and medication side effects were also recorded. Seventy patients who were randomized to receive methohexital (n=37) or propofol (n=33) were included for analysis. The average doses of methohexital and propofol were 0.51 mg/kg and 0.84 mg/kg, respectively. There were no significant differences between methohexital and propofol in the time from end of injection to loss of conscious (1.4±1.8 versus 1.1±0.5 minutes; P=0.33) or the time to first shock (1.7±1.9 versus 1.4±0.5 minutes; P=0.31). Time intervals were significantly lower for methohexital compared with propofol in the time to eyes opening on command (5.1±2.5 versus 7.8±3.7 minutes; P=0.0005) as well as at the time to the ability to answer simple questions of age and name (6.0±2.6 versus 8.6±4.0 minutes; P=0.001). The methohexital group experienced less hypotension (8.1% versus 42.4%; P<0.001) and less hypoxemia (0.0% versus 15.2%; P=0.005), had lower need for jaw thrust/chin lift (16.2% versus 42.4%; P=0.015), and had less pain on injection compared with propofol using the visual analog scale (7.2±9.7 versus 22.4±28.1; P=0.003). Conclusions In this model of fixed bolus dosing, methohexital was associated with faster recovery, more stable hemodynamics, and less hypoxemia after elective DCCV compared with propofol. It can be considered as a preferred agent for sedation for DCCV. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct; Unique identifier: NCT04187196.

The influence of anaesthetic choice on seizure duration of electroconvulsive therapy; etomidate versus methohexital.

BACKGROUND: Many of the anaesthetic drugs used for electroconvulsive therapy have anticonvulsant properties and may influence efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy. With this study we aim to provide more information on the effect of etomidate and methohexital on seizure duration. We explore the relationship between induction drug, motor and electroencephalography seizure duration. Moreover, we study the relationship of seizure duration and number of therapies. METHODS: In this retrospective study we collected data from patient records from 2005 until 2016. Inclusion criteria were the use of etomidate and/or methohexital and documentation of dosage, electroconvulsive therapy dosage and seizure duration. Exclusion criteria were missing data on either induction drug, dosage or seizure duration. RESULTS: Thirty seven patients were analysed. The mean age was 52 years and seventy six percent were female. Most patients were suffering from affective disorders (81%). Motor and electroencephalography seizure duration were analysed in 679 and 551 electroconvulsive therapies, respectively. Compared to methohexital, motor and electroencephalography seizures under etomidate were 7 and 13 s longer, respectively. Furthermore, there was a negative association between seizure duration and number of treatment and a negative association between seizure duration and electroconvulsive therapy dosage. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates significant longer motor and electroencephalography seizure duration using etomidate compared to methohexital. Etomidate might therefore increase the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy. Moreover, we observed a negative association between seizure duration, number of treatment and electroconvulsive therapy dosage. With this study we contribute to the available literature comparing methohexital and etomidate as induction agents for electroconvulsive therapy.

Hippocampal recording via the RNS system reveals marked ipsilateral activation of epileptiform activity during Wada testing.

Wada testing remains an important component of pre-surgical testing to assess the feasibility of temporal lobectomy for patients with intractable epilepsy. In this procedure, an anesthetic is injected into either internal carotid artery while memory and language testing is performed, simulating the effect of temporal lobe resection. The mechanism remains poorly understood because the hippocampal vasculature is predominantly via the posterior circulation. We recorded hippocampal EEG during bilateral methohexital Wada testing in three patients who had previously been implanted with a responsive neurostimulation system (RNS) to determine the effect of the injections on hippocampal activity. In all six injections from three patients, methohexital caused immediate, transient increases in hippocampal spikes. With at least two of these injections, the electrographic changes were consistent with electrographic seizures. In all cases, the epileptiform activity was not apparent on scalp EEG and was without obvious clinical correlate other than the negative findings expected from the anesthetic. The results demonstrate the utility of intracranial EEG during Wada testing and suggest that the elicitation of seizures or continuous spiking might contribute to dysfunction of the hippocampus during the Wada test. We hypothesize that this effect is due to disconnection and disinhibition of medial temporal structures.

A Safety Comparison of Single-Agent Methohexital, Ketamine, or Propofol for Musculoskeletal Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The use of sedative and analgesic agents is required for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Agents such as ketamine and propofol are commonly used for procedural sedation. This is likely due to clinical experience with these agents, as well as optimal pharmacologic properties when used in combination with one another. Methohexital, a barbiturate, is less frequently used due to concerns for adverse events associated with this drug class. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety of methohexital in comparison with ketamine and propofol when used for procedural sedation in musculoskeletal procedures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate adult ED patients who received ketamine, propofol, or methohexital for procedural sedation from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 43 procedures were included in the study. Procedures included shoulder relocation, elbow relocation, hip relocation, ankle reduction, radius/ulnar reduction, mandibular relocation, patellar relocation, and wrist reduction. There was a 90.6% overall procedural success rate, which was similar between groups. Overall adverse events occurred in 34.8% of patients. Respiratory depression occurred in 9.3% of patients. No incidence of respiratory depression was observed in the methohexital group, compared with 2 patients receiving ketamine and 4 receiving propofol (p = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Methohexital is a safe and effective option for procedural sedation for musculoskeletal procedures in the ED when compared with ketamine and propofol.

Methohexital for procedural sedation of cardioversions in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation for electrical cardioversion is a common practice in the emergency department (ED). Ideal sedative properties for this procedure are a short half-life and minimal hemodynamic effects. There is limited literature examining methohexital for this use. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of methohexital to propofol and etomidate for procedural sedation for electrical cardioversions in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients who underwent procedural sedation for electrical cardioversion in the ED between February 1, 2015 and July 31, 2020. Included patients received methohexital, propofol, or etomidate as an initial sedative agent in the ED. The primary outcome was time from initial dose of sedative to goal Aldrete score. The main secondary outcome was time from sedative agent to ED discharge. The safety outcome was the occurrence of a critical hemodynamic change requiring intervention. Outcomes were assessed using a single-factor ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty cardioversion encounters were included with 50 encounters per cohort. The median (IQR) time (minutes) to goal Aldrete score was 10.5 (7-18.5) for methohexital, 12.0 (9-16.8) for propofol, and 11.0 (8-15) for etomidate (p = 0.863). Mean (SD) time (minutes) to discharge from the ED (n = 105) was 90.4 ± 40.4 for methohexital, 89.0 ± 57.4 for propofol, and 94.0 ± 42.5 for etomidate (p = 0.897). No difference was seen between the groups regarding hemodynamic changes requiring intervention. CONCLUSION: Methohexital was found to have a similar efficacy and safety profile when compared to propofol and etomidate when used as procedural sedation for cardioversions in the ED.

Quantitative Determination of Methohexital in Human Whole Blood by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

A rapid, simple and sensitive liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of methohexital in human whole blood was developed and validated. Ethyl acetate/n-hexane (9:1) was used as extraction solvent while aprobarbital was used as internal standard. Methohexital was recovered by liquid-liquid extraction from 100 µL of human whole blood. The mobile phase was water-acetonitrile, and an ACQUITY BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 µm) column was adopted. Negative electrospray ionization source and multiply reaction monitoring mode were applied. The transitions of m/z were 261.2/42.2 and 261.2/119.0 for methohexital. The limit of detection was 0.5 ng/mL, which was lower than the previous methods. Wide linear range (2-2,000 ng/mL) with a good correlation coefficient (r > 0.99) was also obtained. The intra- and inter- day precisions represented by relative standard deviation were <11.5%, and the recoveries were >79.67%. This analytical method involved small sample volume and had been proven to be rapid, easy, sensitive and specific. Therefore, it could be used for the clinical analysis of methohexital.

Advantages of methohexital over amobarbital in determining hemispheric language and memory lateralization in the Wada test - A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Due to supply shortage, amobarbital, the traditional anesthetic agent in Wada testing, was replaced by methohexital in many epilepsy centers. This study aimed to compare the two barbiturates to identify possible advantages or disadvantages of methohexital as compared to amobarbital with regard to the adequacy of language and memory testing during the Wada test. METHODS: Data from 75 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy who underwent bilateral Wada tests using either amobarbital (n = 53) or methohexital (n = 22) as part of presurgical work-up were analyzed retrospectively. The two subgroups were compared regarding hemispheric language and memory lateralization results and Wada testing characteristics, and the adequacy of language and memory testing was assessed. RESULTS: We observed shorter durations of motor-, speech-, and EEG recovery after each injection in patients receiving methohexital compared to amobarbital. In addition, significantly more items could be presented during effective hemispheric inactivation in the methohexital group. Moreover, significant correlations of Wada memory scores with standard neuropsychological memory test scores could be found in the methohexital group. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings confirm that methohexital is not only equally suitable for Wada testing but has several advantages over amobarbital. Wada testing can be performed more efficiently and under more constant hemispheric inactivation using methohexital. Furthermore, the adequacy of language and memory testing during the Wada test might be affected by the anesthetic agent used.

Use of Nitrous Oxide to Facilitate Induction for Electroconvulsive Therapy: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND The choice of pharmacologic agents used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is critical as this can affect seizure duration and, ultimately, the effectiveness of ECT for the underlying condition. We report the use of nitrous oxide (N2O) to sedate and place an intravenous (IV) catheter in a combative patient for the induction of anesthesia. We found no significant clinical effect on seizure duration while using N2O in the pre- and intra-procedural period. CASE REPORT We present the case of a 48-year-old woman with a history of major depressive disorder scheduled for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We used 50% nitrous oxide (N2O) to sedate her and facilitate the placement of a 22-gauge IV catheter. When IV access was established, induction of anesthesia was done with 80 mg of methohexital, which was later switched to 16 mg of etomidate and 80 mg of succinylcholine. After multiple ECT treatments, we observed no significant clinical effect on seizure duration while using N2O when home medications were optimized. There is limited literature on the use of N2O as a sedative agent in the perioperative period with other agents known to have no effect or beneficial effect on ECT treatments. We found no studies assessing the effect of N2O on seizure duration. CONCLUSIONS Considering the pleasant odor, independent antidepressant activity, vasodilatory effect, low blood-gas partition coefficient, and minimal effect on respiration, N2O may serve as the ideal adjunct to intravenous induction of anesthesia in an uncooperative or anxious patient. Further studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy and the safety of N2O for use during ECT.

A Comparison of Etomidate, Ketamine, and Methohexital in Emergency Department Rapid Sequence Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is routinely used for emergent airway management in the emergency department (ED). It involves the use of induction, and paralytic agents help facilitate endotracheal tube placement. OBJECTIVE: In response to a previous national drug shortage resulting in the use of alternative induction agents for RSI, we describe the effectiveness and safety of ED RSI with ketamine or methohexital compared with etomidate. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center observational study from March 1-August 31, 2012 describing RSI with etomidate, ketamine, and methohexital. All adult patients undergoing RSI in the ED who received etomidate prior to its shortage and methohexital or ketamine during the shortage were included. RESULTS: The study included 47, 9, and 26 patients in the etomidate, ketamine, and methohexital groups, respectively. Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 74.5%, 55.6%, and 73.1% of the etomidate, ketamine, and methohexital groups, respectively. The mean number of intubation attempts and time to intubation seemed to be similar in all groups. At least three intubation attempts were required in 22.2% and 7.7% of the ketamine and methohexital groups, respectively, compared with none in the etomidate group. Two aspirations were observed in the etomidate group. CONCLUSION: Methohexital and etomidate had similar rates of successful intubation on the first attempt and seem to be more effective than ketamine. Etomidate may reduce the need for three or more intubation attempts. Larger, prospective studies are needed to determine if ketamine or methohexital are more effective than etomidate for RSI.

Methohexital-Induced Seizure in a Patient Undergoing Conscious Sedation.

BACKGROUND: Methohexital is a short-acting barbiturate used for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). As with other sedatives, adverse effects with methohexital include excess sedation and hypotension, but this agent can also lower the seizure threshold. We report a patient who developed a generalized seizure after administration of methohexital. CASE REPORT: A 60-year-old man presented to the ED by ambulance with chest pain and shortness of breath. Paramedics had administered adenosine for supraventricular tachycardia without conversion before arrival to the ED. He had no history of seizures. His initial vital signs in the ED included heart rate of 189 beats/min with a supraventricular rhythm, blood pressure 137/108 mm Hg, respiration 22 breaths/min, and oxygen saturation of 98% on room air. It was decided to attempt synchronized electrical cardioversion, and methohexital 1 mg/kg (120 mg) was administered over 2 min for moderate sedation. Within 15 s of methohexital administration, the patient developed a generalized seizure that lasted for 90 s. After seizure termination, he was successfully cardioverted, returned to his previous baseline level of consciousness within 20 min, and discharged without further problems with a follow-up referral to neurology. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Methohexital is a short-acting barbiturate used for moderate sedation. Its adverse effects are unique in that it can lower the seizure threshold in some patients. Alternative agents for sedation should be considered in individuals with possible seizure disorders.

A randomized controlled trial comparing methohexital and propofol for induction in patients receiving angiotensin axis blockade.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic angiotensin axis blockade (AAB) has been associated with profound hypotension following anesthetic induction with propofol. To combat this problem, investigators have attempted to withhold angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) preoperatively, or evaluated the effects of different induction agents in conferring greater hemodynamic stability. To date, methohexital has not been compared with the most commonly used induction agent, propofol. Hence, the primary objective was to study the hypothesis that methohexital confers a better hemodynamic profile than propofol for anesthetic induction, in patients receiving AAB. The secondary objective was to investigate the postinduction levels of serum neurohormones in an attempt to explain the mechanisms involved. METHODS: Forty-five adult, hypertensive patients taking ACEi or ARB and scheduled for elective, noncardiac surgery completed the study. Patients were randomized to receive equi-anesthetic doses of either propofol or methohexital for anesthetic induction. Hemodynamic variables were measured and blood samples were drawn before induction and for 15 minutes afterwards. RESULTS: Methohexital resulted in less hypotension compared with propofol (P = .01), although the degree of refractory hypotension was similar (P = .37). The postinduction systolic blood pressure (P = .03), diastolic blood pressure (P < .001) and heart rate (P = .03) were significantly higher in the methohexital group. A nonsignificant elevation of serum norepinephrine and epinephrine levels was observed in the methohexital group, while serum arginine vasopressin and angiotensin II levels did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: While methohexital was shown to confer greater hemodynamic stability in patients taking ACEi/ARB, the measured hormone levels could not explain the mechanism for this effect.

Superselective methohexital challenge prior to intracranial endovascular embolization.

Pharmacologic provocative testing (PT) and intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) both mitigate and predict risks associated with endovascular embolization procedures. We present a series of patients undergoing endovascular intracranial embolization predominantly for AVMs both under general anesthesia and awake with the use of IONM. We reviewed our database to identify all patients undergoing endovascular procedures between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. Awake patients were tested with SSEP, EEG and real time neurologic examination while TcMEPs were performed in all anesthetized patients. BAEPs were performed in anesthetized patients if indicated. Methohexital was administered as an injection at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg and repeat testing was performed if needed.Sixty-three endovascular procedures that met criteria were performed in 32 patients. 54 procedures in 28 patients were performed under general anesthesia, 9 procedures in 4 patients were performed in wakefulness. PT was negative in 61 procedures and subsequently completed embolizations without neurological sequelae. In two cases, the testing was positive and the procedure was terminated without embolization in one patient. The other patient underwent embolization at an alternative site without repeat PT. There were no new postoperative neurologic deficits after any of these procedures. Specificity of PT was 100% as none of the patients with a negative provocative test developed a new postoperative neurologic deficit after embolization. To our knowledge, this is the first review of PT with the use of neurophysiologic IONM techniques under general anesthesia. These data suggest a high specificity comparable to awake testing.

Pediatric Electroconvulsive Therapy: An Anesthesiologist's Perspective.

Proper planning and communication between psychiatry and anesthesiology teams is vital to conferring the greatest therapeutic benefit to children presenting for electroconvulsive therapy while minimizing risk. Anesthesia for the child undergoing electroconvulsive therapy should ideally provide deep hypnosis, ensure muscle relaxation to reduce injury, have minimal effect on seizure dynamics, and allow for rapid recovery to baseline neurologic and cardiopulmonary status. Unique factors for pediatric electroconvulsive therapy include the potential need for preoperative anxiolytic and inhalational induction of anesthesia, which must be weighed against the detrimental effects of anesthetic agents on the evoked seizure quality required for a successful treatment.

Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of propofol or methohexital, with and without doxapram, on the examination of laryngeal function in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Forty healthy dogs randomly assigned to 4 groups: propofol with saline (n = 10), propofol with doxapram (n = 10), methohexital with saline (n = 10), or methohexital with doxapram (n = 10). METHODS: Propofol and methohexital were administered to effect. Investigators examined laryngeal function (initial) simultaneously with video laryngoscopy. Doxapram or saline was administered, and laryngeal function was reevaluated (second). Laryngeal motion, quality of laryngeal exposure, and the degree of swallowing, laryngospasm, and jaw tone were scored at each evaluation. Adverse events were recorded. Initial and second videos were evaluated by a masked observer, and still images obtained from both evaluations were evaluated for change in rima glottidis size by 2 masked observers. RESULTS: Administration of doxapram and saline was delayed with propofol (P = .001). Laryngeal function did not differ between dogs receiving propofol or methohexital, irrespective of doxapram administration. Doxapram improved breathing scores in both groups (P < .001). Jaw tone increased with propofol during the second evaluation (P = .049). Swallowing was more prevalent at initial examination (P = .020). Methohexital resulted in an increased heart rate (P < .001) compared with propofol. Twenty-five percent of dogs receiving methohexital developed seizure-like activity (n = 5/20). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of laryngeal function did not differ between healthy dogs anesthetized with propofol or methohexital. Methohexital provided shorter examination times with less jaw tone but was associated with adverse events. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence to recommend propofol over methohexital as an induction agent for laryngeal function examination.

[Drugs for intravenous induction of anesthesia: barbiturates]. / Medikamente zur intravenösen Narkoseinduktion: Barbiturate.

The discovery of barbituric acid and research on its derivatives have long been of importance in advancements in modern anesthesia. Decades of clinical use of barbiturates worldwide and their abuse has led to an enormous amount of knowledge. Thiopental and methohexital are ultra-short acting derivatives of barbiturates. Their clinical application has been accompanied by an enormous increase in the knowledge of the pharmacology of cerebrally active drugs, in particular gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABAA) receptor and GABA-induced effects on nerve cell membranes. Despite the development of newer substances, thiopental still has a firm place in clinical applications. Currently it is mainly used in obstetrics for induction of cesarean sections under general anesthesia. A disadvantage, when properly used to induce anesthesia, is usually only the prolonged elimination kinetics of barbiturates. It is beneficial that barbiturates do not require side effect provoking solubilizers.