[Desflurane versus isoflurane in geriatric patients. A comparison of psychomotor and postoperative well-being following abdominal surgical procedures]

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a new highly concentrated intranasal midazolam formulation for conscious sedation

AIM

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, nasal tolerance and effects on sedation of a highly concentrated aqueous intranasal midazolam formulation (Nazolam) and to compare these to intravenous midazolam.

METHODS

In this four-way crossover, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 16 subjects received 2.5 mg Nazolam, 5.0 mg Nazolam, 2.5 mg intravenous midazolam or placebo on different occasions. Pharmacokinetics of midazolam and α-hydroxy-midazolam were characterized and related to outcome variables for sedation (saccadic peak velocity, the Bond and Lader visual analogue scale for sedation, the simple reaction time task and the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation). Nasal tolerance was evaluated through subject reporting, and ear, nose and throat examination.

RESULTS

Nazolam bioavailability was 75%. Maximal plasma concentrations of 31 ng ml^-1 (CV, 42.3%) were reached after 11 min (2.5 mg Nazolam), and of 66 ng ml^-1 (coefficient of variability, 31.5%) after 14 min (5.0 mg Nazolam). Nazolam displayed a significant effect on OAA/S scores. Sedation onset (based on SPV change) occurred 1 ± 0.7 min after administration of 2.5 mg intravenous midazolam, 7 ± 4.4 min after 2.5 mg Nazolam, and 4 ± 1.8 min after 5 mg Nazolam. Sedation duration was 118 ± 95.6 min for 2.5 mg intravenous midazolam, 76 ± 80.4 min for 2.5 mg Nazolam, and 145 ± 104.9 min for 5.0 mg Nazolam. Nazolam did not lead to nasal mucosa damage.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the nasal tolerance, safety and efficacy of Nazolam. When considering the preparation time needed for obtaining venous access, conscious sedation can be achieved in the same time span as needed for intravenous midazolam. Nazolam may offer important advantages in conscious sedation.

Clinical and economic factors important to anaesthetic choice for day-case surgery

Clinical and economic factors that are important to consider when selecting anaesthesia for day-case surgery can differ from those for inpatient anaesthesia. Patients undergoing day-case surgery tend to be healthier and have shorter durations of surgery. They expect less anxiety before surgery, amnesia for the surgical experience, a rapid return to normal (normal mentation with minimal pain and nausea) after surgery, and lower expenses. However, the latter 2 expectations can conflict; older generic drugs have lower acquisition costs but often impose longer recovery times. Longer recovery periods can increase costs by prolonging the time to discharge from labour-intensive areas such as the operating suite or the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The challenge for today's anaesthetist is to use newer drugs judiciously to minimise their expense without compromising the rate or quality of recovery. Several approaches can secure these aims. Most apply the least anaesthetic needed. 'Least anaesthetic' may mean the particular form of anaesthetic (e.g. local infiltration with monitored anaesthesia care versus a general anaesthetic), or may mean the delivery of the smallest effective dose, perhaps guided by anaesthetic monitors such as end-tidal analysers or the bispectral index. For patients requiring general anaesthesia, a combination of several drugs usually secures the closest approach to the ideal. Drug combinations used usually include a short-acting properative anxiolytic (e.g. midazolam), intravenous propofol (a short-acting potent anxiolytic and amnestic agent) for induction of anaesthesia (and sometimes for maintenance) and primary maintenance of anaesthesia with inhaled nitrous oxide combined with a poorly soluble (low solubility produces rapid recovery; the least soluble is desflurane) potent inhaled anaesthetic delivered at a low inflow rate (to minimise cost). Although old, nitrous oxide is inexpensive and has favourable pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular advantages; however, it is limited in its anaesthetic/amnestic potency, and has the capacity to increase nausea. In children, induction of anaesthesia is often accomplished with sevoflurane rather than desflurane; although sevoflurane is modestly more soluble than desflurane, it is non-pungent whereas desflurane is pungent. Moderate- or short-acting opioids (fentanyl is popular) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (especially ketorolac), or local anaesthetics are added to secure analgesia during and after surgery. Similarly, when needed, moderate- or short-acting muscle relaxants are selected. Before the end of anaesthesia, an intravenous antiemetic may be given. With this drug combination, patients usually awaken within minutes after anaesthesia and can often move themselves to the vehicle for transport to the recovery unit. These combinations of anaesthetics and techniques minimise use of expensive drugs while expediting recovery (again minimising cost) with minimal or no compromise in the quality of recovery.