Cardiovascular support during combined extradural and general anaesthesia

Bolus administration of ephedrine and etilefrine induces transient vasodilation just after injection in combined epidural and general anesthesia patients: A randomized clinical study

Hypotension commonly accompanies combined epidural and general anesthesia, and intravenous bolus ephedrine and etilefrine are widely used to correct hypotension. We have noticed that systemic vascular resistance (SVR) transiently decreases just after intravenous bolus administration of these drugs. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether bolus administration of these drugs decrease SVR just after intravenous administration in combined epidural and general anesthesia patients. We investigated 40 patients who were scheduled for elective abdominal surgery. Patients were chosen as subjects if their systolic arterial pressure decreased by 20% or to <100 mmHg at 30 min after the induction of general anesthesia. Baseline hemodynamic values were recorded, and after ephedrine 10 mg injection or etilefrine 2 mg injection (equipotent), the parameters were recorded again at 0.5 min and once each min for the next 5 min thereafter. The 40 patients were enrolled into the ephedrine (n = 20) or etilefrine (n = 20) treatment groups. Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. After ephedrine injection, SVR decreased significantly at the 1-min time point, whereas after etilefrine injection, SVR decreased significantly at the 0.5- to 2-min time points compared with baseline values. SVR at the 0.5- to 1-min time points was lower in the etilefrine versus the ephedrine group. Both drugs transiently decreased SVR after intravenous injection, but etilefrine decreased SVR much more than ephedrine, indicating that more vasodilation occurred after the injection of etilefrine than after ephedrine. It is thus important to recognize the different characteristics of these drugs.

Strategic growth decisions in helper cichlids

Recently, it has been shown that group-living subordinate clownfish Amphiprion percula increase their growth rate after acquiring the dominant breeder male position in the group. Evidence was found for strategic growth adjustments of subordinate fishes depending on the threat of eviction, i.e. subordinates adjust their growth rates so they remain smaller than the dominant fish and thereby limit the threat of being expelled from the territory. However, it is impossible to exclude several alternative factors that potentially could have influenced the observed changes in growth, owing to the nature of that experiment (removing the second-ranking fish--the breeder male--caused the third-ranking fish to change sex to become breeder male and change rank). We studied strategic growth decisions in the group-living Lake Tanganyika cichlid Neolamprologus pulcher under controlled laboratory conditions with ad libitum food availability. First, we show that male breeders grow faster than subordinate male helpers of the same initial size and confirm that N. pulcher shows status-dependent growth. Second, we improved on the experimental design by not removing the dominant breeder male in the group; instead we replaced the breeder male with a new breeder male in a full factorial design and measured growth of the subordinate male helpers is a function of the size difference with the old and the new breeder male. As predicted, male helpers showed strategic growth adjustments, i.e. growing faster when the size difference with the breeder male is large. Strategic growth adjustments were less pronounced than status-dependent growth adjustments.

Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee replacement are common operative procedures to improve mobility and quality of life. Adequate pain relief is essential in the postoperative period to enable ambulation and initiation of physiotherapy. Lumbar epidural analgesia is a common modality for pain relief following these procedures. However, there is no systematic review of the evidence comparing the efficacy of epidural analgesia with other postoperative analgesic modalities. As the use of epidural analgesia may delay the initiation of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis due to the potential risk of epidural hematoma, a synthesis of the evidence is necessary to determine whether or not alternative analgesic modalities are worse, equivalent, or better than epidural analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to answer the question: "Is lumbar epidural analgesia more efficacious than systemic analgesia or long-acting spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief in patients after elective hip or knee replacement?"

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched from their inception to June 2001. Reference lists of review articles and included studies were also reviewed for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A study was included if it was a randomized or pseudo randomized controlled clinical trial of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, in which postoperative lumbar epidural analgesia was compared to other methods for pain relief. Study selection was performed unblinded in duplicate.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected unblinded in duplicate. Information on the patients, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain relief, postoperative function, length of stay) and adverse events were recorded. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated 5-point scale. Meta-analysis was conducted when sufficient data existed from two or more studies. Heterogeneity testing was performed using the Breslow-Day method. The fixed effects model was used unless heterogeneity was present, in which case, a random effects model was used. Continuous data were summarized as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous data were summarized as odds ratios (OR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) or numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) with their respective 95% CI. Graphical representation of continuous data used the MetaView program.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first four to six hours after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia had less pain at rest, based on visual analog scores (VAS), than patients receiving systemic analgesia (SMD -0.77; 95% CI -1.24 to -0.31). This effect was not statistically significant by 18 to 24 hours (SMD -0.29; 95% CI -0.73 to 0.16). These observations were based only on studies evaluating populations consisting of total knee replacements alone or mixed populations of total hip or total knee replacements. For pain relief with movement after surgery, patients receiving epidural analgesia reported lower pain scores than patients receiving systemic analgesia in all four studies examining these outcomes. The choice of epidural agents may also influence the extent to which epidural analgesia differs from systemic analgesia. The differences between epidural analgesia and systemic analgesia in the frequency of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49) or depression of breathing (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.54) were not statistically significant. Sedation occurred less frequently with epidural analgesia (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.97) with a number-needed-to-harm of 7.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 42.0) patients for the systemic analgesia group. Retention of urine (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.51; NNH 4.5, 95% CI 2.3 to 12.2), itching (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.76 to 12.78; NNH 6.8, 95% CI 4.4 to 15.8), and low blood pressure (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.72; NNH 6.7, 95% CI 3.5 to 103) were more frequent with epidural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the edural analgesia compared to systemic analgesia. There were insufficient numbers to draw conclusions on the effect of epidural analgesia on serious postoperative complications, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia may be useful for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb joint replacements. However, the benefits may be limited to the early (four to six hours) postoperative period. An epidural infusion of local anesthetic or local anesthetic-narcotic mixture may be better than epidural narcotic alone. The magnitude of pain relief must be weighed against the frequency of adverse events. The current evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions on the frequency of rare complications from epidural analgesia, postoperative morbidity or mortality, functional outcomes, or length of hospital stay.

Oesophageal Doppler monitoring overestimates cardiac output during lumbar epidural anaesthesia

Oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM) has been advocated as a non-invasive means of measuring cardiac output (CO). However, its reliance upon blood flow measurement in the descending aorta to estimate CO is susceptible to error if blood flow is redistributed between the upper and lower body. We hypothesize that lumbar epidural anesthesia (LEA), which causes blood flow redistribution, causes errors in CO estimates. We compared ODM with thermodilution (TD) measurements in fourteen patients under general anaesthesia for radical prostatectomy, who had received an epidural catheter at the intervertebral level L2-L3. Coupled measurements of CO by means of the TD and ODM techniques were performed at baseline (general anaesthetic only) and after epidural administration of 10 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine. The two methods were compared using Bland-Altman analysis: before LEA there was a bias of -0.89 litre min(-1) with limits of agreement ranging between -2.67 and +0.88 litre min(-1). Following lumbar sympathetic block, bias became positive (+0.55 litre min(-1)) and limits of agreement increased to -3.21 and +4.30 litre min(-1). ODM measured a greater increase in CO after LEA (delta=+1.71 (1.19) litre min(-1) (mean (SD)) compared with TD (delta=+0.51 (0.70) litre min(-1)). We conclude that following LEA, measurements with the Oesophageal Doppler Monitor II overestimate CO and show unacceptably high variability. Blood flow redistribution may limit the value of ODM.

Ephedrine, dopamine, or dobutamine to treat hypotension with propofol during epidural anesthesia

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of ephedrine, dopamine and dobutamine for circulatory support during thoracic epidural anesthesia after anesthetic induction with propofol.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing lobectomy or mastectomy were divided into four groups of 10: a control group received no vasopressor; an ephedrine group received 5 mg ephedrine when the mean arterial pressure (MAP), measured every 2.5 min, decreased by 10% from baseline; dopamine and dobutamine groups received 5 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) dopamine or 3 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) dobutamine from five minutes after epidural injection of local anesthetic to the end of tracheal intubation. Anesthesia was induced with 2 mg x kg(-1) propofol. The MAP and heart rate (HR) were measured at baseline, 20 min after epidural injection, three minutes after propofol, and one minute after tracheal intubation.

RESULTS

In the control group, MAP and HR decreased from 86+/-9 mmHg, 74+/-8 bpm to 62+/-9 mm Hg; P<0.0001, 60+/-8 bpm; P = 0.0003 after propofol. After tracheal intubation, MAP was restored to (81+/-13 mmHg, 70+/-13 bpm). In the ephedrine, dopamine, and dobutamine groups, MAP and HR remained unchanged during epidural anesthesia and propofol induction. However, after tracheal intubation, MAP and HR increased in the ephedrine (104+/-11 mm Hg; P = 0.004, 87+/-11 bpm; P<0.0001) and dobutamine (117+/-13 mm Hg; P = 0.0005, 100+/-11 bpm; P<0.0001) groups, but not in the dopamine group compared with baseline.

CONCLUSION

Dopamine is preferable to ephedrine and dobutamine in providing hemodynamic stability during propofol induction and tracheal intubation following epidural anesthesia.

The effects of dobutamine and phenylephrine on atrioventricular conduction during combined use of halothane and thoracic epidural lidocaine

The purpose of this study was to measure cardiac sympathetic nerve activity (CSNA) and atrioventricular (AV) conduction and to test the effects of dobutamine (DOB) and phenylephrine (PHE) on AV conduction during combined use of halothane and thoracic epidural lidocaine. Cats were anesthetized with 1 % halothane and an epidural catheter was inserted through T-9 laminectomy. His bundle and atrial electrocardiograms were obtained and atrial electric stimulation was performed using quadripolar catheter electrodes. Cats underwent left thoracotomy, and CSNA was recorded directly from the left ventrolateral or ventromedial nerve. In addition to sinus cycle length (SCL) measurement during spontaneous beating, the functional refractory period (FRP) of the atrioventricular node (AV node), effective refractory period (ERP) of the atrium, atrium-His (A-H) intervals were determined just before and 10, 20, and 30 min after epidural administration of 1% lidocaine (0.2 mL/kg) in Group C. DOB 5 micrograms/kg/min (Group DOB) and PHE 0.5-1.0 micrograms/kg/min (Group PHE) were intravenously administered from 12 to 22 min after epidural lidocaine. CSNA and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were markedly decreased and SCL, FRP of AV node, ERP of atrium and A-H interval were significantly prolonged after epidural lidocaine. MAP increased to baseline level during DOB or PHE infusion. Worsening of cardiac electrophysiological variables was improved with DOB infusion, but did not change with PHE infusion. We conclude that thoracic epidural lidocaine during halothane anesthesia almost eliminates CSNA, and thereby attenuates sinus node automaticity and AV node function. DOB restored normal cardiac electrophysiological variables, and therefore is preferable to phenylephrine as a pressor drug.