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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Systematic Review: Rectal Administration of Medications for Pediatric Procedural Sedation.

BACKGROUND: Per rectum (PR) medication delivery is an alternative to traditional oral (PO), intravenous (IV), or intramuscular (IM) administration of medication for procedural sedation of pediatric emergency department patients. However, many emergency physicians are unfamiliar with its use, and there are no widely adopted guidelines or reviews dedicated to this topic. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide emergency physicians with an overview of PR procedural sedation medications in pediatric patients. METHODS: We performed a PubMed literature search of relevant keywords limited to studies of human subjects published in English between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. We excluded case reports, general review articles, editorial/opinion pieces, correspondence, and abstracts. Two of the authors then conducted a structured review of the selected studies. RESULTS: A total of 315 PubMed citations meeting the search criteria were found. Twenty-eight articles were included for final detailed review. Only 4 of the 28 included studies were conducted in the emergency department setting. A total of 9 different medications have been studied for PR procedural sedation. Sedation effectiveness ranged from 40% to 98%. No life-threatening complications were reported in any of the included clinical trials. Hypoxia was found to occur in up to 10% of those receiving PR sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric procedural sedation with PR medications appears to be feasible, moderately effective, and safe based on our review of the current literature. However, further studies on its applicability in the emergency department setting are needed.

[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.

Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol. OBJECTIVE: Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option. METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57). CONCLUSION: Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing Ketamine and Methohexital Anesthesia for Electroconvulsive Therapy in Patients With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled pilot study examines the differences in response to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as defined by an improvement of depressive symptoms between ketamine and methohexital as the primary anesthetic agent. Adverse effects and cognitive tolerability were also examined. METHODS: Subjects undergoing ECT for unipolar or bipolar depression were randomized to receive ketamine or methohexital as the anesthetic agent. Primary outcome measure includes the Hamilton rating scale for depression (17-item). Secondary outcome measures included the mini-mental status examination and Beck depression inventory. All ratings were conducted masked to anesthetic agent. Because of multiple outcome measures obtained over time, mixed models were used to account for the correlations among the measurements within the subjects. Because outcomes were either normally distributed or approximately normally distributed, general linear mixed models were fit with a random intercept specified. RESULTS: A total of 21 subjects were enrolled, and 16 were randomized (methohexital, n = 8; ketamine, n = 8). The 2 treatment groups did not differ statistically in any demographic characteristic. No statistical difference was found between the ketamine and methohexital groups for an improvement in depressive symptoms (P = 0.6); however, subjects in both groups showed significant improvement in depression over time (ketamine, P < 0.0001; methohexital, P < 0.0001). Mini-mental status examination results did not differ between groups, and fatigue was reported more in subjects receiving ketamine (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study are inconclusive because they lack power to support an advantage of ketamine anesthesia compared with methohexital in ameliorating depressive symptoms for electroconvulsive therapy.

[The impact of goal directed analgesia on mechanical ventilated patients's outcomes in intensive care unit: a clinical observational study].

To investigate the impact of goal directed analgesia on the outcome of patients with mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit.A total of 126 patients who needed mechanical ventilation were recruited.With a method of before and after paired comparison, they were divided into two group: (1) analgesia with empirical administration or control group; (2) goal directed analgesia based on critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT). Compared with the control group, after goal directed analgesia was applied, the consumption of midazolam significantly dropped from (368.47±27.41) mg to (151.27±29.31) mg(P<0.05), whereas the consumption of dexmedetomidine significantly increased from (623.62±20.91) µg to (812.34±22.57) µg(P<0.05). The median score of Richmond agitation-sedation scale increased from -3 to -1.The incidence of delirium significantly reduced from 23.81% to 17.46%(P<0.05). The mean ventilator duration was significantly shortened from (168.49±11.41) h to (142.38±13.24) h(P<0.05). ICU length of stay was significantly shortened from (23.64±9.26) d to (19.63±8.46) d(P<0.05). Due to the mild sedation, patients receiving goal directed analgesia report less delirium, less ventilation time and shorter ICU length of stay, suggesting that the general outcome is improved.

One center's experience with complications during the Wada test.

This study aimed to define the number and type of complications associated with the Wada test at an academic medical center for comparison to previous reports. We performed a retrospective review of medical records for patients who underwent the Wada test at the University of Michigan between April 1991 and June 2013. Information was collected regarding the angiography procedure and the immediate postoperative period to assess for both clinical and angiographic complications. A total of 436 patients were identified who underwent the Wada procedure between April 1991 and June 2013, and 431 patients were included in the final analysis. Twenty-five patients (5.8%) had notable clinical events associated with the Wada test. Nine patients (2.1%) had clinical events meeting criteria for complication, which included seizures, status epilepticus, internal carotid artery vasospasm, inadvertent injection of anesthetic in the external carotid artery, and transient encephalopathy. No complications were associated with significant morbidity or mortality. This retrospective review of patients undergoing the Wada test found significantly fewer associated complications in comparison to previously published studies, with no patients experiencing long-term morbidity. The Wada test should be considered a safe diagnostic tool for lateralizing language and memory.

Post-electroconvulsive therapy recovery and reorientation time with methohexital and ketamine: a randomized, longitudinal, crossover design trial.

OBJECTIVES: Methohexital, a barbiturate anesthetic commonly used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), possesses dose-dependent anticonvulsant properties, and its use can interfere with effective seizure therapy in patients with high seizure thresholds. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist with epileptogenic properties not broadly used for ECT inductions, is a commonly used induction agent for general anesthesia. Recent studies suggest that the use of ketamine is effective in allowing successful ECT treatment in patients with high seizure thresholds without an increase in adverse effects. In this preliminary study, we directly compared the recovery and reorientation times of subjects receiving ketamine and methohexital for ECTs. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomized in a crossover design to receive methohexital and ketamine for ECT inductions in alternating fashion in 6 trials. Primary outcome measures were recovery time (voluntary movement, respiratory effort, blood pressure, consciousness, and O2 saturation) and reorientation time. Secondary outcome measures were individual recovery variables, adverse effect occurrence, and seizure duration. RESULTS: Overall recovery time was not significantly different between the 2 treatment arms (F(1, 17) = 0.72; P = 0.41). Reorientation time was faster in the methohexital arm (F(1, 17) = 9.23; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Ketamine inductions resulted in higher number of adverse effects, higher subject dropout rates, and a longer reorientation time with respect to methohexital inductions. No significant difference in postanesthesia recovery time was found between the ketamine and methohexital arms. Intolerability to ketamine affected a significant proportion of subjects and suggests that ketamine should remain as an alternative or adjunctive agent for patients with high seizure thresholds.

Different regimens of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adult patients with depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental disorder. It affects millions of people worldwide and is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be one of the leading causes of disability. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established treatment for severe depression. Intravenous anaesthetic medication is used to minimize subjective unpleasantness and adverse side effects of the induced tonic-clonic seizure. The influence of different anaesthetic medications on the successful reduction of depressive symptoms and adverse effects is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This review evaluated the effects of different regimens of intravenous sedatives and hypnotics on anti-depression efficacy, recovery and seizure duration in depressed adults undergoing ECT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012); and EMBASE via Ovid SP (from 1966 to 31 December 2012). We handsearched related journals and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials evaluating the effects of different intravenous sedatives and hypnotics for ECT. We excluded studies and trials using placebo or inhalational anaesthetics and studies that used no anaesthetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When possible, data were pooled and risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were computed using the Cochrane Review Manager statistical package (RevMan). MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 18 RCTs (599 participants; published between 1994 and 2012). Most of the included trials were at high risk of bias.We analysed the results of studies comparing six different intravenous anaesthetics.Only a few studies comparing propofol with methohexital (four studies) and with thiopental (three studies) could be pooled.No difference was noted in the reduction of depression scores observed in participants treated with propofol compared with methohexital (low-quality evidence). These four studies were not designed to detect differences in depression scores.The duration of electroencephalograph (EEG) and of motor seizures was shorter in the propofol group compared with the methohexital group (low-quality evidence). No difference was seen in EEG seizure duration when propofol was compared with thiopental (low-quality evidence).Time to recovery (following commands) was longer among participants after anaesthesia with thiopental compared with propofol (low-quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons of anaesthetics, only single studies or insufficient data were available. Adverse events were inadequately reported in eligible trials, and none of the included trials reported anaesthesia-related mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the included studies were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was generally low. The studies were not designed to detect clinically relevant differences in depression scores. Anaesthetic agents should be chosen on the basis of adverse effect profile, emergence and how these medications affect seizure duration. If it is difficult to elicit an adequately long seizure, methohexital may be superior to propofol (low-quality evidence). If a patient is slow to recover from anaesthesia, propofol may allow a faster time to follow commands than thiopental (low-quality evidence). A factor of clinical concern that was not addressed by any study was adrenal suppression from etomidate. Optimal dosages of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics have not yet been determined.Larger well-designed randomized studies are needed to determine which intravenous anaesthetic medication leads to the greatest improvement in depression scores with minimal adverse effects.