The effect of midazolam sedation on indicators for myocardial ischemia

Cardiovascular effect of dental anesthesia with articaine (40 mg with epinefrine 0,5 mg % and 40 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) versus mepivacaine (30 mg and 20 mg with epinefrine 1 mg%) in medically compromised cardiac patients: a cross-over, randomized, single blinded study

Objectives: The aim of the present study is to compare cardiovascular safety profiles of two dental anesthetics: articaine versus two standard mepivacaine solutions used during etiological periodontal treatment in cardiovascular patients. Study Design: Using a cross-over study design, ten cardiovascular patients were randomly assigned to dental treatment with 1.8mL of a local anesthetic injected on each quadrant of the mouth: Articaine (40mg with Epinephrine 0.5mg % and 40mg with Epinephrine 1mg %) or Mepivacaine (30mg and 20mg with Epinephrine 1mg %). A computer programme enabled continuous longitudinal data collection: O2 saturation, blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR). Results: No severe clinical side effects were observed. During the treatment period, we observed statistically significant differences as regards HR between injections with and without adrenalin (p< 0.039) and as regards systolic (p< 0.046) and diastolic (p < 0.046) blood pressure during the stabilization period. In both cases, the parameters under study increase. Age, gender, jaw treated, treatment duration and the rest of cardiovascular variables did not affect the results. None of the patients underwent ischemic alterations or any other complication derived from the treatment or the anesthesia. Conclusions: According to the results of our study, dental anesthetics with standard concentrations of Epinephrine seem to alter HR and BP. Although no cardiac ischemic alterations or any other cardiovascular complications have been observed, we must be cautious with the administration of anesthetics containing vasoconstrictors in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Key words:Dental anesthesia, cardiovascular diseases, chronic periodontitis, drug toxicity.

New Method of Sedation in Oral Surgery

Local anesthesia, the well-known method of sedation, usually is insufficient for dental implantation and the augmentation of the alveolar ridge, because the operations last for 1 to 2 hours and patients may experience fear and strain. This article examines a new complex sedation method using ketorolac, midazolam, and a local anesthetic 4% solution of articaine hydrochloride and epinephrine (Septanest) in combination with a vasoconstrictor. This method was applied to 67 patients operated on for dental implantation with screw implants or for the alveolar ridge augmentation with biocompatible materials. The control group, which consisted of 20 patients, received local anesthesia with articaine-epinephrine only. Most of the control patients were found to have experienced fear and strain during the aforementioned surgical procedures; their blood pressure and pulse rate increased, and more than half of them experienced pain. No disorders of hemodynamics or the psychoemotional status of the patients were observed during sedation with ketorolac, midazolam, and articaine-epinephrine. Furthermore, anterograde amnesia was determined for the 80% of the patients in the test group.

Cardiovascular response to epinephrine-containing local anesthesia in patients with cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to examine the safety of epinephrine-containing local anesthesia for use on patients with cardiovascular disease.

STUDY DESIGN

Twenty-seven patients with cardiovascular disease were studied. The cardiac functional capacity of 9 patients was New York Heart Association class I; 11, class II; and 7, class III. Hemodynamic responses to intraoral injection of 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine were measured with impedance cardiography.

RESULTS

Systolic blood pressure and heart rate increased by 4.1% and 5.1%, respectively, immediately after the lidocaine-epinephrine injection. Consequently, rate pressure product increased by 10.0%. Cardiac index increased by 14.2%, and total peripheral resistance decreased by approximately 10%. No patient complained of cardiac symptoms. There were no significant differences in hemodynamic responses related to the extent of the cardiac functional capacity.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that lidocaine-epinephrine was safe and had few, if any, hemodynamic consequences in patients with cardiovascular disease.