Pretreatment with intravenous ketamine reduces propofol injection pain

Intramuscular ketamine provides better sedation and scan conditions in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: A single-blinded observational study

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to compare the quality of sedation provided by intravenous (i.v.) and intramuscular (im) ketamine for pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Materials and Methods

This study was a non-randomized, single-blinded, and prospective observational study. After receiving approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, a total of 108 children aged 2-7 years were divided into two groups, with 54 children in each group. In the i.v. group, children received ketamine at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg intravenously, while in the im group, children received ketamine at a dose of 4 mg/kg intramuscularly. If a Ramsay sedation score of 6 (RSS-6) was not achieved, half of the loading dose of ketamine was repeated. In both groups, rescue propofol boluses of 1 mg/kg intravenously were administered whenever the child moved. The primary outcome measure was the quality of sedation, which was assessed by a blinded radiologist. The time taken to reach RSS-6, the number of rescue propofol boluses, the total time wasted in taking repeat sequences, and the time required to achieve a modified Aldrete score of 9 (MAS-9) were recorded.

Results

The im group demonstrated significantly better sedation quality. In the i.v. group, the time to achieve RSS-6 was significantly shorter, but it required more rescue propofol boluses to maintain sedation. The i.v. group also experienced a notable increase in the total time wasted during repeat sequences. On the other hand, the i.v. group exhibited a shorter time to reach MAS-9 compared to the im group.

Conclusion

The im group showed superior sedation quality when compared to the i.v. group. However, it is important to consider that the im group experienced a longer recovery time.

Esketamine prevents propofol-induced injection pain: Randomized controlled trial

Background: Propofol is widely used during anesthesia. However, propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) is considered an unpleasant perioperative outcome. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a mixture of esketamine and propofol in preventing propofol injection pain in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, and randomized controlled trial. We included 252 adult patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II who underwent surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four groups (n = 63 per group). Group NS received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and 0.9% normal saline (1 ml), group ESK-4 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 4 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), group ESK-12 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 12 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), and group ESK-20 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 20 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml) as sedative drugs during anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence and distribution of different degrees of PIP. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, and adverse events.

Results: The incidence of PIP in group ESK-20 (33.3%) was significantly lower than that in groups NS, ESK-4, and ESK-12 (63.3%, 62.2%, and 49.1%, respectively; p < 0.01). The incidence of moderate PIP in group NS (33.3%) and group ESK-4 (22.6%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (7.5%) and ESK-20 (6.7%). The incidence of severe PIP in group NS (6.7%) and group ESK-4 (9.4%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (1.9%) and ESK-20 (0%). There were no differences in the vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion: Our results indicated that the esketamine–propofol admixture reduced the incidence of PIP in patients undergoing general anesthesia without severe side effects.

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Propofol and Ketamine for Procedural Sedation/Anesthesia in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Drugs such as propofol and ketamine are used alone or in combination to provide sedation for medical procedures in children. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the safety and effectiveness of propofol and ketamine to other drug regimens.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Science, and the grey literature (meta-Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled studies comparing intravenous propofol and ketamine to any other single or combination drug regimen administered to children undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. Meta-analyses were performed for primary (hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events) and secondary outcomes using RevMan 5.3. We assessed the risk of bias and the certainty (quality) evidence for all outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included for analysis. Based on low-to-moderate quality evidence, we concluded that the use of propofol and ketamine may result in a slight-to-small reduction in the risk of hypotension, bradycardia, and apnea, and a slight increase in the risk of tachycardia, hypertension, and other respiratory adverse events, such as cough or laryngospasm. The ratio of propofol to ketamine and comparator drug regimen subgroups effects were important for desaturation and some secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of propofol and ketamine had a minimal effect on the incidence of adverse events and other secondary outcomes. Large-scale studies are required to more accurately estimate adverse event rates and the effects of propofol and ketamine on patient-important outcomes.

Continuous Rate Infusion of Ketamine Hydrochloride and Dexmedetomidine for Maintenance of Anesthesia during Laryngotracheal Surgery in New Zealand White Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

New Zealand white rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are an established in vivo model for the study of structural and functional consequences of vocal-fold vibration. Research design requires invasive laryngotracheal procedures, and the presence of laryngospasms or pain responses (or both) hinder phonation-related data collection. Published anesthesia regimens report respiratory depression and muscle tone changes and have been unsuccessful in mitigating autonomic laryngeal responses in our protocol. Infusion of ketamine hydrochloride and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in pediatric medicine provides effective analgesia and sedation for laryngotracheal procedures including intubation and bronchoscopy; however, data evaluating the use of ketamine-dexmedetomidine infusion in rabbits are unavailable. This study reports a new infusion regimen, which was used in 58 male New Zealand white rabbits that underwent a nonsurvival laryngotracheal procedure to induce phonotraumatic vocal-fold injury. Animals were sedated by using ketamine hydrochloride (20 mg/kg IM) and dexmedetomidine (0.125 mg/kg IM). Maintenance anesthesia was provided by using continuous rate intravenous infusion of ketamine hydrochloride (343 μg/kg/min) and dexmedetomidine (1.60 μg/kg/min). A stable plane of anesthesia with no autonomic laryngeal response (laryngospasm) was achieved in 32 of the 58 rabbits (55%). Laryngospasms occurred in 25 of 58 animals (43%) and were controlled in 20 cases (80%) by providing 0.33 mL 2% topical lidocaine, incremental increase in infusion rate, or both. Continuous rate infusion of ketamine hydrochloride-dexmedetomidine with prophylactic topical lidocaine provides a predictable and adjustable surgical plane of anesthesia, with minimal confounding respiratory and autonomic laryngeal responses, during extended-duration laryngotracheal surgery in rabbits. This regimen should be considered as an alternative to injection maintenance for prolonged, invasive procedures.

Safety of Propofol versus Nonpropofol-Based Sedation in Children Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57-3.04, chi2 = 0.053, I2 = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09-3.20).

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low.

HOW TO APPLY THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE

Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.

Lornoxicam use to reduce the pain associated with propofol injection

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of lornoxicam in the prevention of the pain associated with propofol injection.

Material and method: Approval for this study was granted by the ethics committee of our hospital. Using a computer randomisation software, 120 patients undergoing elective surgery were assigned to four equal groups. In Group I (control group), immediately before anaesthesia induction, 10 ml of isotonic 0.9% NaCl solution (placebo) was administered intravenously (IV). In Groups II, III and IV, the same injection contained 2 mg, 4 mg and 8 mg of lornoxicam respectively. A tourniquet was then applied to the forearm for two minutes. Pain evaluation was made using a verbal pain score.

Results: Differences in pain severity scores were statistically significant between Groups I and II, Groups I and III, Groups I and IV and between Groups II and III (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was determined between Groups III and IV (p = 0.401).

Conclusion: In all groups administered with lornoxicam, there was a significant reduction in the severity of pain associated with propofol injection, in comparison with the control group. Maximum effect is obtained with a dose of 4 mg.

Efficacy of lidocaine on preventing incidence and severity of pain associated with propofol using in pediatric patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among children has not been established. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of such intervention.

METHODS

The literature search was performed from the inception to the May 31, 2016 in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane database. All randomized controlled trials that using lidocaine for propofol injection pain in children were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence of injection pain and the incidence of propofol injection pain in different degrees. The data were combined to calculate the relative ratio and relevant 95% confidence interval. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Data from the included 11 studies indicated that the incidence of injection pain was lower in lidocaine group than the incidence in saline control group and in propofol lipuro (medium- and long-chain triglycerides) group (pain occurrence: 22.1% in lidocaine vs 66.8% in saline, RR with 95% 0.34 [0.26, 0.43], I = 38%; 30.5% in lidocaine vs 46.9% in propofol lipuro, RR with 95% 0.68 [0.46, 1.00], I = 9%). There was no difference between lidocaine and ketamine/alfentanil both in reducing pain occurrence and in reducing pain severity (pain occurrence: 29.7% in lidocaine vs 25.8% in ketamine, RR with 95% 1.47 [0.16, 13.43], I = 94%; 31.0% in lidocaine vs 30.7% in alfentanil, RR with 95% 1.01 [0.69, 1.46], I = 11%). And the reported side effects revealed that the safety of lidocaine in pediatric patients was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ketamine and alfentanil, lidocaine would be served as one more effective treatment in consideration of its well-matched efficacy, acceptable accessibility, and reasonable safety. However, more high-quality evidences in pediatric patients are necessary.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Dexmedetomidine versus ketamine infusion to alleviate propofol injection pain: A prospective randomized and double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of propofol as the most common induction agent and the high prevalence of propofol injection pain (PIP) highlight the significance of finding the ideal combination of drug, dosage and mode of administration of premedicants to alleviate PIP. A number of bolus drugs with variable efficacy have been studied to reduce PIP. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of single dose intravenous (IV) infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg compared with ketamine 0.5 mg/kg to alleviate PIP.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised and double-blind study, 108 patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to two groups: Group D to receive dexmedetomidine 0.5μg/kg or Group K to receive ketamine 0.5 mg/kg in 20 ml of normal saline over 10 min. Immediately after the infusion, 1% propofol 2 mg/kg IV was injected over 25 s. The patients were assessed for pain every 5 s by asking the question 'does it hurt?' until the loss of consciousness. The pain scoring was done using McCririck and Hunter scale. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 17.0.

RESULTS

The incidence of PIP and moderate-severe PIP was higher with Group D (79.6%; 16.7%) compared with Group K (40.7; 1.9%) (P < 0.001; 0.016). No patient in either group had arm withdrawal upon propofol injection. The incidence of hypertension and tachycardia was statistically significant in Group K as compared to Group D (P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in elimination of the arm withdrawal response and in incidence of moderate to severe PIP between the groups.

Ketamine-Propofol Versus Propofol Alone for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Propofol is an agent commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED), but it can cause respiratory depression and hypotension. The combination of ketamine-propofol (K-P) is an alternative that theoretically provides a reduction in adverse events compared to propofol. The primary objective of this review was to determine if K-P has a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED than propofol alone. Secondary objectives were to compare the proportion of overall adverse events, sedation time, procedure time, and recovery time between K-P and propofol.

METHODS

Electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English comparing the use of K-P to propofol alone for PSA in the ED were included.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included with a combined total of 932 patients (K-P = 520, propofol = 412). Five RCTs reported the proportion of adverse respiratory events; the pooled estimate revealed fewer adverse respiratory events with K-P compared to propofol (29.0% vs. 35.4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.99). There was no significant difference with respect to the proportion of overall adverse events (38.8% vs. 42.5%; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.04). Procedure time was similar when the groups were compared.

CONCLUSIONS

The premise of combining ketamine with propofol is based on the many synergies that theoretically exist between these two agents. In this study, K-P had a lower frequency of adverse respiratory events in patients undergoing PSA in the ED compared to propofol alone.

A clinical comparison of ketofol (ketamine and propofol admixture) versus propofol as an induction agent on quality of laryngeal mask airway insertion and hemodynamic stability in children

Background:

In spite of being the preferred induction agent for LMA insertion, propofol has many undesirable side effects including dose-related cardiorespiratory depression and local pain at injection site. Ketofol as a novel induction agent has been introduced recently with comparable efficacy and improved hemodynamic control

Objective:

To investigate ketofol as a suitable induction agent alternative to propofol for insertion of LMA in children considering insertion conditions, hemodynamic stability, local pain at injection site, and recovery.

Materials and Methods:

In this randomized, double-blind study, 100 children were randomly assigned into two groups of 50 patients each in which induction was performed with either propofol or ketofol. Providers were given one 20 ml syringe [represent either 2 mg/kg of propofol (P group) or 0.75 mg/kg of ketamine and 1.5 mg/kg of propofol (KP group)] and one 10 ml syringe for rescue if needed [represent 1 mg/kg of propofol (P group) or 0.25 mg/kg of ketamine and 0.5 mg/kg of propofol (KP group)]. After monitoring with bispectral index (BIS), general anesthesia was induced by infusion with a syringe perfuser at a constant rate of 250 ml/h with either of the two agents till the BIS values decreased to 40. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) were measured every 30 seconds up to 5 minutes after LMA placement. The time till BIS values decreased to 40 was measured. All children were evaluated for incidence of apnea, pain on injection, jaw relaxation, conditions for LMA insertion, and complications such as muscle rigidity, hallucinations, and excessive secretions.

Results:

Induction time (time to reach BIS of 40) was faster in the KP group (150 ± 23.5 seconds) than in the P group (205 ± 37.4 seconds). The incidence of injection pain was significantly lower in the KP group (10%) than in the P group (80%). Excellent jaw relaxation and full mouth opening were higher in the KP group [45 patients (90%)] than in the P group [38 patients (76%)]. Excellent LMA insertion conditions were observed in 45 patients (90%) in the KP group and 38 patients (76%) in the P group. The KP group showed preserved hemodynamic stability (mean blood pressure, heart rate) with less incidence and duration of apnea compared to the P group.

Conclusion:

ketofol is a safe and effective alternative induction agent for LMA insertion in children with rapid onset of action and lower incidence of injection pain. It provided better LMA insertion conditions, improved hemodynamic stability with less prolonged apnea when compared with propofol.

A randomized trial evaluating low doses of propofol infusion after intravenous ketamine for ambulatory pediatric magnetic resonance imaging

Objective:

Our study compared the discharge time after pediatric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following sedation with propofol infusion dose of 100, 75 and 50 mcg/kg/min given after a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred children of American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1/2, aged 6 months to 8 years, scheduled for elective MRI were enrolled and randomized to three groups to receive propofol infusion of 100, 75 or 50 mcg/kg/min (Groups A, B, and C, respectively). After premedicating children with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.), sedation was induced with bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each) and the propofol infusion was connected. During the scan, heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were monitored.

Results:

The primary outcome that is, discharge time was shortest for Group C (44.06 ± 18.64 min) and longest for Group A (60.00 ± 18.66 min), the difference being statistically and clinically significant. The secondary outcomes that is, additional propofol boluses, scan quality and awakening time were comparable for the three groups. The systolic blood pressure at 20, 25 and 30 min was significantly lower in Groups A and B compared with Group C. The incidence of sedation related adverse events was highest in Group A and least in Group C.

Conclusion:

After a bolus dose of ketamine and propofol (1 mg/kg each), propofol infusion of 50 mcg/kg/min provided sedation with shortest discharge time for MRI in children premedicated with midazolam 0.05 mg/kg i.v. It also enabled stable hemodynamics with less adverse events.

Utility of intranasal Ketamine and Midazolam to perform gastric aspirates in children: a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized study

Background

We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a sedation protocol based on intranasal Ketamine and Midazolam (INKM) administered by a mucosal atomizer device in uncooperative children undergoing gastric aspirates for suspected tuberculosis. Primary outcome: evaluation of Modified Objective Pain Score (MOPS) reduction in children undergoing INKM compared to the placebo group. Secondary outcomes: evaluation of safety of INKM protocol, start time sedation effect, duration of sedation and evaluation of parents and doctors’ satisfaction about the procedure.

Methods

In the sedation group, 19 children, mean age 41.5 months, received intranasal Midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and Ketamine (2 mg/kg). In the placebo group, 17 children received normal saline solution twice in each nostril. The child’s degree of sedation was scored using the MOPS. A questionnaire was designed to evaluate the parents’ and doctors’ opinions on the procedures of both groups.

Results

Fifty-seven gastric washings were performed in the sedation-group, while in the placebo-group we performed 51 gastric aspirates. The degree of sedation achieved by INMK enabled all procedures to be completed without additional drugs. The mean duration of sedation was 71.5 min. Mean MOPS was 3.5 (range 1-8) in the sedation-group, 7.2 (range 4-9) in the placebo-group (p <0.0001). The questionnaire revealed high levels of satisfaction by both doctors and parents in the sedation-group compared to the placebo-group. The only side effect registered was post-sedation agitation in 6 procedures in the sedation group (10.5%).

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that atomized INKM makes gastric aspirates more acceptable and easy to perform in children.

Trial registration

Unique trial Number: UMIN000010623; Receipt Number: R000012422.

Prevention of propofol-induced pain in children: pretreatment with small doses of ketamine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain in children.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

192 ASA physical status 1 and 2 pediatric patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Group S (control) received normal saline as a placebo; Group K1, Group K3, and Group K5 received 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine, respectively. Fifteen seconds after the ketamine injection, patients were injected with propofol at a rate of 12 mL/min until loss-of-eyelash reflex.

MEASUREMENT

Pain was evaluated blindly at the time of induction using a 4-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain. Adverse effects were recorded. Characteristics of induction of anesthesia, such as dose of propofol and time from propofol injection to loss of consciousness (induction duration), were noted.

MAIN RESULTS

39 (84.8%) Group S (control) patients had pain. Pretreatment with ketamine reduced the frequency of pain significantly to 56.5%, 17.0%, and 14.9% in Groups K1, K3, and K5, respectively. Furthermore, the frequency of moderate and severe pain in Group K1 (21.8%), Group K3 (6.4%), and Group K5 (4.3%) was significantly (P < 0.001, respectively) reduced compared with Group S (76.1%). Moreover, the dose of propofol for induction in Group K5 was smaller than in Group S, Group K1, and Group K3 (P < 0.05). One patient in Group K5 had emergence agitation.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with a small dose of ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) reduced the frequency and intensity of propofol injection pain without severe adverse effects.

Safe and effective procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess, by a review of published evidence, the safest and most effective way to provide procedural sedation (PS) in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE).

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were used. Search terms "endoscopy, gastrointestinal" or "endoscopy, digestive system" were combined with "sedation," "conscious sedation," "moderate sedation," "deep sedation," and "hypnotics and sedatives." The final review was restricted to studies reporting specifically on safety (incidences of adverse events) and/or effectiveness (time characteristics, need for supplemental sedation, need for restraint, procedural success, provider satisfaction, and patient comfort) of PS for GIE in children younger than 18 years.

RESULTS

The search yielded 182 references and the final selection included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 non-RCTs. Six sedation categories were identified: propofol, opioid/benzodiazepine, premedication, ketamine-, sevoflurane-, and midazolam-based. Only a few RCTs have compared different categories. Opioid/benzodiazepine- and propofol-based PS have a similar safety profile and a low incidence of major adverse events. Propofol-based sedation turned out to be the most effective regimen, with effectiveness comparable to general anesthesia. The addition of midazolam, fentanyl, remifentanil, and/or ketamine to propofol may increase the effectiveness without creating more adverse events. Data on midazolam-, ketamine- and sevoflurane-based sedation were generally too limited to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of RCTs containing all aspects of effectiveness and safety, the present evidence indicates propofol-based PS to be the best practice for PS in children undergoing GIE. Propofol can be safely administered by specifically trained nonanesthesiologists.

Comparison of propofol versus propofol-ketamine combination in pediatric oncologic procedures performed by non-anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the best option (short acting sedatives, opioids, or ketamine) in oncologic procedural sedation performed by non-anesthesiologists. The aim of the present prospective study is to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol-ketamine versus propofol alone, managed by trained pediatricians, in children with cancer undergoing painful procedures.

PROCEDURES

Data on 121 children with acute lymphatic leukemia (ALL) undergoing procedural sedations (lumbar punctures and bone marrow aspirations) were prospectively collected and included drug doses, side effects, pain assessment, and sedation degree. Children were randomly assigned to one of the two groups: P (n = 62) receiving propofol alone and K (n = 59) in whom a ketamine-propofol combination was used.

RESULTS

In group K, the total dose of propofol required was significantly lower than in group P (3.9 ± 3.6 mg/kg vs. 5.1 ± 3.6 mg/kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension was also significantly lower (11% vs. 39%; P < 0.001). Major O(2) desaturations (defined as SatO(2) < 88%) occurred principally in group P (7 vs. 1; P = 0.05). Both best analgesia and shorter recovery time were obtained with the propofol-ketamine association. No differences were observed in the degree of sedation and in the awakening quality score between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol and ketamine produced statistically significant clinical advantages combined with a higher profile of safety in children with cancer undergoing painful procedures.

Use of ketofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in children with hematological diseases

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous ketamine-propofol admixture ("ketofol") in the same syringe for procedural sedation and analgesia in children undergoing bone marrow aspiration.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational pilot study. Patients aged between 4 and 12 years requiring sedation for bone marrow aspiration were included. Ketofol (1:1 mixture of ketamine 10 mg/mL and propofol 10 mg/mL) was given intravenously in 0.5 mg/kg aliquots each with a 1-min interval and titrated to reach sedation levels of 3 or 4 (Ramsay score). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the degree of sedation. Secondary outcomes included injection pain, total sedation time, recovery time, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. The median total dose of ketofol administered was 1.25 mg/kg each of propofol and ketamine (95%CI 0.77-2 mg/kg). The median score on the visual analog scale was 0 (extremely comfortable) (0-1.5; 95%CI 0.2-2.2). Median recovery time was 23 min (20.5-28 min; 95%CI 17.1-51.2). The incidence of injection pain was 2/20. Two patients had transient diplopia and one child reported dreams. No patients had hypotension, vomiting or required airway intervention.

CONCLUSION

Ketofol provided effective sedation, which was reflected in the high degree of satisfaction recorded by children requiring procedural sedation and analgesia for bone marrow aspiration. We also observed rapid recovery and no clinically significant complications. A large number of patients is required to evaluate and validate these findings.

Experience with a propofol-ketamine mixture for sedation during pediatric orthopedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Various combinations of propofol and ketofol have been described for the provision of procedural sedation in both adults and children. Utilization of 'ketofol' for deep sedation during prolonged pediatric orthopedic procedures has not previously been described.

METHODS

During an orthopedic aid trip, a 1:1 mixture of propofol and ketamine (200 mg of each drawn up to 22 ml) was utilized to provide deep sedation or general anesthesia as an adjunct to regional analgesia for lower limb surgery. Details for 18 patients having a total of 19 procedures were recorded with a record of intraoperative and postoperative parameters including initial bolus doses and infusion rates of ketofol required to produce deep sedation.

RESULTS

Mean operating time was 153.7 min (range 64-241 min). The mean initial bolus dose of ketofol was 0.19 ml·kg(-1) (range 0.1-0.5 ml·kg(-1) ) or 1.7 mg·kg(-1) each of propofol and ketamine (range 0.9-4.5 mg·kg(-1) ). The mean upper limit of the infusion rate required to maintain deep sedation was 0.19 ml·kg(-1) ·h(-1) (range 0.07-0.26 ml·kg(-1) ·h(-1) ) or 1.7 mg·kg(-1) ·h(-1) (range 0.6-2.4 mg·kg(-1) ·h(-1) ) and the mean lower limit of the infusion rate was 0.08 ml·kg(-1) ·h(-1) (range 0.02-0.13 ml·kg(-1) ·h(-1) ) or 0.7 mg·kg(-1) ·h(-1) (range 0.2-1.2 mg·kg(-1) ·h(-1) ). The mean initial bolus dose of ketofol was 0.19 ml·kg(-1) (range 0.1-0.5 ml·kg(-1) ). There were no episodes of hypo- or hypertension or of desaturation. Mean time to eye opening after infusion cessation was 5.1 min (median 2 min; range 0-17 min).

CONCLUSION

Ketofol successfully produced deep sedation for prolonged pediatric orthopedic procedures in conjunction with regional analgesia. Further research to confirm its safety and applicability to a wider range of settings is required.

Prevention of pain with the injection of microemulsion propofol: a comparison of a combination of lidocaine and ketamine with lidocaine or ketamine alone

Background

Aquafol, a microemulsion propofol, causes more severe and frequent pain on injection than propofol. The purpose of this study was to compare a combination of lidocaine and ketamine on aquafol-induced pain with lidocaine or ketamine alone during the induction of anesthesia.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 130 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled. The patients received IV lidocaine 40 mg plus ketamine 25 mg (Group LK, n = 43), lidocaine 40 mg (Group L, n = 42), or ketamine 25 mg (Group K, n = 45) with a rubber tourniquet on the forearm 1 min before the injection of microemulsion propofol. The pain score was assessed by a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) at 10 seconds after injection of microemulsion propofol 30 mg and during the injection of the remaining total dose.

Results

The incidence and severity of pain was significantly lower in Group LK than Group L or Group K at 10 seconds after the injection of microemulsion propofol 30 mg (P < 0.05). And the incidence and severity of pain was significantly lower in Group LK and Group K than Group L during the injection of the remaining total dose (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Pretreatment with IV lidocaine 40 mg plus ketamine 25 mg with a rubber tourniquet on the forearm 1 min before the injection of microemulsion propofol is more effective than lidocaine 40 mg or ketamine 25 mg alone in preventing pain from the injection of microemulsion propofol.

A blinded, randomized controlled trial to evaluate ketamine/propofol versus ketamine alone for procedural sedation in children

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to compare total sedation time when ketamine/propofol is used compared with ketamine alone for pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia. Secondary objectives include time to recovery, adverse events, efficacy, and satisfaction scores.

METHODS

Children (aged 2 to 17 years) requiring procedural sedation and analgesia for management of an isolated orthopedic extremity injury were randomized to receive either ketamine/propofol or ketamine. Physicians, nurses, research assistants, and patients were blinded. Ketamine/propofol patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 0.5 mg/kg, followed by propofol 0.5 mg/kg and saline solution placebo every 2 minutes, titrated to deep sedation. Ketamine patients received an initial intravenous bolus dose of ketamine 1.0 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo, followed by ketamine 0.25 mg/kg and Intralipid placebo every 2 minutes, as required.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients (67 ketamine/propofol, 69 ketamine) completed the trial. Median total sedation time was shorter (P=0.04) with ketamine/propofol (13 minutes) than with ketamine (16 minutes) alone (Δ -3 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5 to -2 minutes). Median recovery time was faster with ketamine/propofol (10 minutes) than with ketamine (12 minutes) alone (Δ -2 minutes; 95% CI -4 to -1 minute). There was less vomiting in the ketamine/propofol (2%) group compared with the ketamine (12%) group (Δ -10%; 95% CI -18% to -2%). All satisfaction scores were higher (P<0.05) with ketamine/propofol.

CONCLUSION

When compared with ketamine alone for pediatric orthopedic reductions, the combination of ketamine and propofol produced slightly faster recoveries while also demonstrating less vomiting, higher satisfaction scores, and similar efficacy and airway complications.

The effect of a 3 : 1 volume mixture of propofol 1% and thiopental 2.5% in reducing the pain on injection of propofol in children

BACKGROUND

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, our primary objective was to assess the effect of a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental in reducing pain on injection in children. Our hypothesis was that a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental (treatment) would reduce the incidence of pain on injection to 20% compared to the expected incidence of 40% in the control group of an 11 : 1 mixture of propofol and 2% lidocaine.

METHODS

Study subjects were patients 12-17 years old who were scheduled to undergo surgery and general anesthesia. Pain was assessed by a single-blinded observer present in the operating room. The major statistical method used in the analysis was multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among the 164 children analyzed, 96 patients (58.5%) were male. The average age was 14.3 (sd = 1.65). The incidence of pain in the control group was 32.1% (26/81), compared to 25.3% (21/83) in the treatment group. The logistic regression analysis showed that there was not sufficient evidence that the treatment group was better than control group in reducing pain (P = 0.24). There were no significant differences in postoperative recovery time, nausea, vomiting, or blood pressure between the two groups (all P values >0.10).

CONCLUSION

There was not sufficient evidence to show that a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental was better than an 11 : 1 volume admixture of propofol and lidocaine in reducing the incidence of pain on injection to 20%.

Premedication for nonemergency endotracheal intubation in the neonate

Endotracheal intubation is a common procedure in newborn care. The purpose of this clinical report is to review currently available evidence on use of premedication for intubation, identify gaps in knowledge, and provide guidance for making decisions about the use of premedication.

Comparison between ketamine and fentanyl-droperidol for rectal premedication in children: a randomized placebo controlled trial

PURPOSE

A common concern of anesthesiologists is the management of children involved in stressful scenarios, and premedication is considered, in most situations, as useful to reduce the stress responses. This randomized placebo-controlled study was designed to evaluate two premedicants, ketamine versus a combination of fentanyl-droperidol, rectally administered, in pediatric surgical outpatients.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 120 children to three equal groups to be rectally premedicated with ketamine 10 mg kg(-1) (group K), fentanyl 5 microg kg(-1) + droperidol 100 microg kg(-1) (group F), or saline 0.2 ml kg(-1) (group P). A blinded observer scored the children's behavior, according to a four-category behavioral scale, before premedication (time A), 45 min after premedication (time B), immediately before venipuncture (time C), and during the venipuncture (time D). Features of the premedication technique, complications, parents' opinions, and contraindications to hospital discharge were recorded.

RESULTS

Patient discharge was delayed because of anesthesia side effects in 7 cases (5.8%) and surgical problems in 9 (7.5%). Group F showed a higher rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than group K, whereas the latter had a higher rate of behavioral disturbances. The data showed a significant difference in the behavioral score between groups F and P, groups K and P, and groups F and K at time B, and between groups K and P at time C. The reaction score at venipuncture shows a significant difference between groups K and P only.

CONCLUSION

In this study, premedication with rectal ketamine showed significantly better overall results in the preoperative period than premedication with either fentanyl-droperidol or placebo.

Preventing Pain on Injection of Propofol: A Comparison between Peripheral Ketamine Pre-Treatment and Ketamine Added to Propofol

The purpose of this study was to examine possible peripheral mechanisms for the reduction of propofol injection pain by the addition of ketamine. We hypothesised that pH changes associated with the addition of ketamine to propofol decrease propofol-induced pain on injection. We compared the efficacy of intravenous ketamine pretreatment under tourniquet with ketamine added to the propofol In the pre-treatment group, patients received ketamine 10 mg in a total volume of 1.0 ml with 0.9% saline (n=94; Group P) under tourniquet for 30 seconds before administration of propofol afler release of the tourniquet. In the mixture group, propofol 9 ml was mixed with ketamine 10 mg in 0.9% NaCl 1.0 ml (n=94, Group M). Pain was assessed with a four-point scale: 0=no pain, 1 =mild pain, 2=moderate pain, 3=severe pain at the time of propofol injection. The pH of propofol, ketamine and a range of propofol-ketamine mixtures were also measured. Forty-eight patients (51%) in Group P complained of pain on injection compared with 28 patients (30%) in Group M (P=0.005). The pH of the 1% propofol-ketamine mixture was 5.84 while 1% propofol had a pH of 7.86. Our results support pH changes as a more important cause for the decrease in propofol injection pain with the addition of ketamine to propofol than a peripheral effect of ketamine.

Prevention of propofol-induced pain in children: combination of alfentanil and lidocaine vs alfentanil or lidocaine alone

BACKGROUND

Pain from a propofol injection is a common side-effect in paediatric patients. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of a combined pretreatment of alfentanil with lidocaine on the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain in children.

METHODS

After obtaining parental consent, 120 paediatric patients were allocated randomly into one of the three groups (n=40, in each). The patients in the alfentanil group received alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1) 90 s before the propofol injection. The patients in the lidocaine group received propofol 3 mg kg(-1) premixed with lidocaine 0.1% over a 15 s period. The patients in the combination group received both alfentanil and lidocaine.

RESULTS

The incidence of propofol injection pain (severity 2 or more) in the combination group (2.6%) was significantly lower than that in the alfentanil and lidocaine groups (30% and 38.5%, respectively) (P=0.001 and <0.001, respectively). No patient in the combination group complained of moderate or severe pain from propofol injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the combination treatment of two different analgesic modalities, alfentanil and lidocaine, could prevent the moderate and severe pain on propofol injection, and reduce the incidence of mild pain compared with each drug alone.

Recognition of a Kawasaki disease shock syndrome

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define the characteristics that distinguish Kawasaki disease shock syndrome from hemodynamically normal Kawasaki disease.

METHODS

We collected data prospectively for all patients with Kawasaki disease who were treated at a single institution during a 4-year period. We defined Kawasaki disease shock syndrome on the basis of systolic hypotension for age, a sustained decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of > or =20%, or clinical signs of poor perfusion. We compared clinical and laboratory features, coronary artery measurements, and responses to therapy and analyzed indices of ventricular systolic and diastolic function during acute and convalescent Kawasaki disease.

RESULTS

Of 187 consecutive patients with Kawasaki disease, 13 (7%) met the definition for Kawasaki disease shock syndrome. All received fluid resuscitation, and 7 (54%) required vasoactive infusions. Compared with patients without shock, patients with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome were more often female and had larger proportions of bands, higher C-reactive protein concentrations, and lower hemoglobin concentrations and platelet counts. Evidence of consumptive coagulopathy was common in the Kawasaki disease shock syndrome group. Patients with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome more often had impaired left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction of <54%: 4 of 13 patients [31%] vs 2 of 86 patients [4%]), mitral regurgitation (5 of 13 patients [39%] vs 2 of 83 patients [2%]), coronary artery abnormalities (8 of 13 patients [62%] vs 20 of 86 patients [23%]), and intravenous immunoglobulin resistance (6 of 13 patients [46%] vs 32 of 174 patients [18%]). Impairment of ventricular relaxation and compliance persisted among patients with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome after the resolution of other hemodynamic disturbances.

CONCLUSIONS

Kawasaki disease shock syndrome is associated with more-severe laboratory markers of inflammation and greater risk of coronary artery abnormalities, mitral regurgitation, and prolonged myocardial dysfunction. These patients may be resistant to immunoglobulin therapy and require additional antiinflammatory treatment.

Ketamine-propofol combination sedation for fracture reduction in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the time of onset and recovery from and the efficacy and safety of intravenous ketamine-propofol sedation for reduction of forearm fractures in the pediatric emergency department setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, observational pilot study.

METHODS

Children presenting to an urban pediatric emergency department requiring sedation for closed reduction of forearm fractures received ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and propofol 1 mg/kg. We measured time intervals from drug administration to reduction, recovery, and attainment of discharge criteria, and obtained ratings of depth of sedation, pain, and ease of reduction. A follow-up survey elicited patient recall, parental satisfaction, and delayed complications. Complications were recorded during the procedure and by chart review.

RESULTS

Reduction was successful in 19 of 20 patients with one requiring open reduction. Median time intervals measured from initiation of ketamine injection were 5 minutes to reduction completion, 10 minutes to first purposeful response, and 38 minutes to suitability for discharge. Three patients recalled reduction or casting, but in no case was reduction reported to be the most painful aspect of visit. Emergency physicians and orthopedic residents rated sedation and ease of reduction favorably. Complications included mild hypoxia, vomiting, and transient ataxia. No apnea, hemodynamic compromise, dysphoria, or injection pain occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, the combination of ketamine and propofol provided effective sedation with rapid recovery and no clinically significant complications for children requiring closed reduction of forearm fractures.

A ketamine-propofol admixture does not reduce the pain on injection compared with a lidocaine-propofol admixture

BACKGROUND

Propofol injection pain is a well-known problem in pediatric anesthesia. Premixture of lidocaine with propofol although effective does not abolish injection pain in all children. Promising results have been reported with pretreatment of the vein with ketamine. The purpose of this prospective, double-blind randomized, clinical trial with active control was to evaluate the efficacy of premixing propofol with ketamine in the prevention of injection pain in children.

METHODS

After ethics committee and parental approval and children's assent, 116 children, aged 1-12 years, were randomly allocated to receive an IV induction dose of admixture of racemic ketamine 0.5 mg x ml(-1) (ketamine group) or lidocaine 1 mg x ml(-1) in propofol 10 mg x ml(-1) (lidocaine group). The outcome measures were signs and symptoms of injection pain (primary outcome: the incidence of injection pain), hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and adverse effects during anesthesia induction (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Patients' characteristics were similar in the two groups. Fewer children (13/58) in the lidocaine group than in the ketamine group (26/58) (mean difference 23%, 95% CI for difference 6-40%, P = 0.018) developed pain on injection of propofol. There were no differences in hemodynamic parameters between the two groups. One child in the lidocaine group developed laryngospasm, but no other adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection pain was twice as common with ketamine-propofol admixture than with lidocaine-propofol admixture.

Low-dose ketamine in addition to propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose intravenous ketamine in addition to intravenous propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department (ED).

DATA SOURCES

Articles were identified using PubMed (1949-February 2007), MEDLINE (1966-February 2007), EMBASE (1980-February 2007), BioMed Central (to February 2007), the Cochrane Library (to February 2007), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Google Scholar (until February 2007). Reference citations from retrieved publications were also reviewed. Search terms included ketamine, propofol, ketamine-propofol, ketofol, combination, sedation, procedural sedation, conscious sedation, and emergency department.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All articles on prospective procedural sedation that were published or translated into English and that compared combination ketamine-propofol with an appropriate comparator group were included. Clinically relevant safety endpoints included the frequency of significant hemodynamic and respiratory compromise warranting medical intervention, nausea, vomiting, and emergence reactions. Time until hospital discharge criteria were met and patient satisfaction scores were efficacy endpoints of interest.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 11 trials included in this review, most had small sample sizes and were conducted in non-ED settings. The ketamine-propofol combination demonstrated no additional efficacy over propofol in terms of time to discharge. Although fewer patients given the ketamine-propofol combination experienced significant hemodynamic and respiratory compromise, need for active interventions, including fluid or vasopressor administration, supplemental oxygen, or assisted ventilation did not differ between groups. Patients who received higher doses of adjuvant ketamine reported an increased incidence of nausea, vomiting, and emergence reactions following the procedure. Few studies reported patient satisfaction scores postprocedure, and effect of ketaminepropofol on time-to-discharge criteria met was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

At this time, insufficient clinical evidence exists to recommend the routine use of low-dose ketamine with propofol for procedural sedation in the ED setting.

Influence of age on flurbiprofen axetil requirements for preventing pain on injection of propofol in Japanese adult surgical patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND

Pain on injection is a recognized adverse event (AE) of propofol administration for the induction of general anesthesia. Preceded by venous occlusion, flurbiprofen axetil, a prodrug of the NSAID flurbiprofen, has been associated with a reduction in pain induced by propofol injection. A review of the literature determined that no published data were available on the influence of age on the requirements for flurbiprofen axetil dose.

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to examine the influence of age on flurbiprofen axetil requirements for the treatment of propofol-induced pain on injection in Japanese adult surgical patients.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. Young (age 20-40 years) and older (age 60-80 years) Japanese patients scheduled for various types of surgery (eg, cholecystectomy) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive flurbiprofen axetil at 1 of 2 doses (25 or 50 mg, regardless of body weight) or inactive vehicle (saline), preceded by manual venous occlusion with a rubber tourniquet for 2 minutes and followed by the infusion of the first 25% of calculated propofol dose (0.5 mg/kg at room temperature, 23 degrees C) into the largest dorsal vein of the hand through a 20-G IV cannula (without local anesthesia), followed by the release of the occlusion and delivery of propofol 2 mg/kg. An investigator blinded to treatment questioned each patient about pain intensity during propofol injection which was assessed using a verbal rating scale: 0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; and 3 = severe. The overall prevalence of pain was calculated in each group. AEs at the injection site (pain, edema, wheal, inflammation) were assessed by the study investigator for 24 hours after surgery using spontaneous reporting and patient interview.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients, 75 young adults (38 men, 37 women; mean [SD] age, 31 [5] years; mean [SD] height, 163 [7] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 58 [9] kg) and 75 older adults (38 men, 37 women; mean [SD] age, 70 [6] years; mean [SD] height, 154 [8] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 53 [10] kg), were enrolled. Each treatment group comprised 25 patients. No differences in demographic characteristics were observed among the 3 study groups. In young patients, the overall prevalence of propofol-induced pain was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg (12 [48%]) compared with that in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 25 mg (20 [80%]) or vehicle (22 [88%]) (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). The median pain intensity score was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg (0) compared with that in patients who received flurbiprofen axetil 25 mg (1) or vehicle (2) (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). In older patients, the overall prevalences of pain on propofol injection were 9 (36%) in the flurbiprofen axetil 50-mg group and 11 (44%) in the flurbiprofen axetil 25-mg group compared with 21 (84%) in the vehicle group (both, P < 0.01). The median pain score was significantly lower in patients who received flurbiprofen 50 mg (0) or 25 mg (0) than in those who received vehicle (1) (both, P < 0.01). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small clinical trial in Japanese surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, flurbiprofen axetil requirements for the reduction of pain during injection of propofol were found to be 50 mg in young adults (age 20-40 years) and 25 or 50 mg in older adults (age 60-80 years), regardless of weight, preceded by venous occlusion for 2 minutes.

Lidocaine pretreatment for the prevention of propofol-induced transient motor disturbances in children during anesthesia induction: a randomized controlled trial in children undergoing invasive hematologic procedures

BACKGROUND

We examined the effect of lidocaine pretreatment before propofol administration on the incidence of transient motor disturbances and on propofol requirements for anesthesia induction in infants and children undergoing repeated painful diagnostic and therapeutic hematological procedures.

METHODS

A series of 358 children subgrouped according to the presence of a peripheral-vein or central venous catheter were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous dose of 2% lidocaine (2.0 mg.kg(-1)) or an equivalent volume of saline, 1 min before propofol (1.5-3.5 mg.kg(-1)) injected for anesthesia induction.

RESULTS

The incidence of spontaneous movements was significantly lower in patients pretreated with lidocaine than in those receiving placebo (2.5% vs 29%; P < 0.001, by chi-square test), as was the propofol induction dose (1.6 +/- 0.2 mg.kg(-1) vs 2.2 +/- 0.3 mg.kg(-1); P < 0.001) and pain at the injection site in patients peripheral-vein catheter (12% vs. 54%; P < 0.001). Lidocaine administration also improved children's acceptance as reported by parents on the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress administered 2 h after the procedure (6.5 +/- 2.5 vs. 9.4 +/- 3.3; P < 0.001). Bouts of coughing developed significantly more frequently after lidocaine pretreatment than after placebo (62.5% vs. 17.5%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Because lidocaine pretreatment before the induction of propofol-based anesthesia decreases propofol-induced motor disturbances, lowers hypnotic requirements and reduces pain at the injection site, without inducing untoward events, thus improving children's and parental acceptance, it should become standard practice in infants and children undergoing repeated painful diagnostic and therapeutic hematological procedures.

Preinduction techniques for pediatric anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preparing pediatric patients for their surgical experience is a complex process that may be facilitated by pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic techniques. Several techniques often utilized in the preoperative setting to decrease the anxiety level of pediatric patients and their parents include the administration of a sedative premedicant, parental presence during induction, and a variety of other non-pharmacologic modalities. These techniques may be useful, alone or in combination, to decrease anxiety levels in children and parents. This article reviews the most recent literature available on a variety of preinduction techniques in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have evaluated various pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic preinduction techniques in children. Preoperative administration of midazolam, alone or combined with other pharmacologic agents, is the most effective technique at reducing anxiety in the child and parent. Although the literature supports the use of non-pharmacologic preinduction techniques, these modalities are time consuming, expensive, and do not consistently provide anxiolysis. Therefore, non-pharmacologic modalities are typically combined with pharmacological premedicants.

SUMMARY

Although a variety of preinduction techniques exist, the most popular technique involves administering a sedative premedication, such as midazolam. Administering a premedicant will reliably decrease anxiety, improve cooperation during induction, and improve parental satisfaction. In addition, other preinduction strategies such as parental presence during induction may play a role in reducing anxiety levels in select children and their parents, and should be considered.