Thoracic Epidural Analgesia With Levobupivacaine Reduces Remifentanil and Propofol Consumption Evaluated by Closed-Loop Titration Guided by the Bispectral Index

Propofol EC50 for inducing loss of consciousness in patients under combined epidural-general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone: a randomized double-blind study

Background

Combined epidural-general anesthesia (GA + EA) has been recommended as a preferred technique for both thoracic and abdominal surgery. The epidural anesthesia on the general anesthetic (GA) requirements has not been well investigated. Therefore, we conducted the present study to explore the predicted effect-site concentration of propofol (Ceprop) required for achieving the loss of consciousness (LOC) in 50% of patients (EC50) with or without epidural anesthesia.

Methods

Sixty patients scheduled for gastrectomy were randomized into the GA + EA group or GA alone group to receive general anesthesia alone. Ropivacaine 0.375% was used for epidural anesthesia to achieve a sensory level of T4 or above prior to the induction of general anesthesia. The EC50 of predicted Ceprop for LOC was determined by the up-down sequential method. The consumption of anesthetics, emergence time from anesthesia, and postoperative outcomes were also recorded and compared.

Results

The EC50 of predicted Ceprop for LOC was lower in the GA + EA group than in the GA alone group [2.97 (95% CI: 2.63-3.31) vs. 3.36 (95% CI: 3.19-3.53) μg mL-1, (p = 0.036)]. The consumption of anesthetics was lower in the GA + EA group than in the GA alone group (propofol: 0.11 ± 0.02 vs. 0.13 ± 0.02 mg kg-1 min-1, p = 0.014; remifentanil: 0.08 ± 0.03 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 μg kg-1 min-1, p < 0.001). The emergence time was shorter in the GA + EA group than in the GA alone group (16.0 vs. 20.5 min, p = 0.013).

Conclusion

Concomitant epidural anesthesia reduced by 15% the EC50 of predicted Ceprop for LOC, decreased the consumptions of propofol and remifentanil during maintenance of anesthesia, and fastened recovery from anesthesia.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT05124704.

Effect of lumbar epidural blockade and propofol on mean arterial pressure, cardiac output and bispectral index: A randomised controlled and pharmacodynamic modelling study

BACKGROUND

It is generally accepted that a neuraxial blockade strengthens the sedative effects of propofol. Deafferentation caused by neuraxial blockade is thought to play a key role.

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to determine whether epidural blockade affects the bispectral index (BIS) of propofol and two other pharmacodynamic endpoints, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO).

DESIGN

Randomised, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients scheduled for surgery needing epidural analgesia.

INTERVENTION

28 ASA one or two patients received 0, 50, 100 or 150 mg of epidural ropivacaine. After stabilisation of the epidural blockade, propofol was given by target-controlled infusion. The propofol plasma target concentrations were increased at 6-min intervals from 0 to 1, 2.5, 4 and 6 μg ml-1. The study was performed before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three endpoints, BIS, mean arterial blood pressure and CO were measured from baseline (prior to the administration of epidural ropivacaine) until 2 h after the start of propofol infusion. The propofol concentration-effect data were analysed to determine the interaction between epidural blockade and propofol sedation.

RESULTS

In the absence of propofol, the increase in number of epidural blocked segments from 0 to 15.5 (range 6 to 21) reduced the MAP by 30%, without affecting BIS or CO. In the absence of epidural blockade, the increase in propofol concentration to 6 μg ml-1 reduced BIS, MAP and CO. When combined, epidural anaesthesia and intravenous propofol exhibited no pharmacodynamic interaction on any of the three endpoints. In addition, epidural blockade did not affect the propofol effect-site equilibration half-life for its haemodynamic effects (11.5 ± 0.5 min) or for its effects on the BIS (4.6 ± 0.4 min).

CONCLUSION

Epidural blockade reduces the propofol requirements for sedative end points. This is not the result of a pharmacodynamic interaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register CCMO, Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, trial number NL 32295.058.10.

Effect of Robot-assisted Surgery on Anesthetic and Perioperative Management for Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy under Combined General and Epidural Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery and pure laparoscopic surgery are available for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP). The differences in anesthetic management between these two MIRPs under combined general and epidural anesthesia (CGEA) remain unknown. This study therefore aimed to determine the effects of robot-assisted surgery on anesthetic and perioperative management for MIRP under CGEA.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed data from patients' electronic medical records. Data on demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, and hospital stays after MIRPs were compared between patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and those treated by pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

RESULTS

There were no differences in background data between the 102 who underwent RALP and 112 who underwent LRP. Anesthesia and surgical times were shorter in the RALP group than in the LRP group. Doses of anesthetics, including intravenous opioids, and epidural ropivacaine, were lower in the RALP group. Although estimated blood loss and volume of colloid infusion were lower in the RALP group, the volume of crystalloid infusion was larger. Intraoperative allogeneic transfusion was not required in either group. There was no difference between groups in the incidences of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Hospital stays after the procedure were shorter in the RALP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery required varied consumption of anesthetics and infusion management during MIRP under GCEA. It also shortened postoperative hospital stays, without increasing rates of postoperative complications.

Guidelines on enhanced recovery after pulmonary lobectomy

OBJECTIVE

To establish recommendations for optimisation of the management of patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy, particularly Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS).

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 13 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Soci,t, franOaise d'anesth,sie et de r,animation, SFAR) and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Soci,t, franOaise de chirurgie thoracique et cardiovasculaire, SFCTCV) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Five domains were defined: 1) patient pathway and patient information; 2) preoperative management and rehabilitation; 3) anaesthesia and analgesia for lobectomy; 4) surgical strategy for lobectomy; and 5) enhanced recovery after surgery. For each domain, the objective of the recommendations was to address a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). An extensive literature search on these questions was carried out and analysed using the GRADE® methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology, and were then voted by all experts according to the GRADE grid method.

RESULTS

The SFAR/SFCTCV guideline panel provided 32 recommendations on the management of patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. After two voting rounds and several amendments, a strong consensus was reached for 31 of the 32 recommendations and a moderate consensus was reached for the last recommendation. Seven of these recommendations present a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+), 23 have a moderate level of evidence (18 GRADE 2+ and 5 GRADE 2-), and 2 correspond to expert opinions. Finally, no recommendation was provided for 2 of the questions.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong consensus was expressed by the experts to provide recommendations to optimise the whole perioperative management of patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy.

Retrobulbar dexmedetomidine in pediatric vitreoretinal surgery eliminates the need for intraoperative fentanyl and postoperative analgesia: A randomized controlled study

Purpose

This study evaluated the efficacy of retrobulbar ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine compared with systemic fentanyl in pediatric vitreoretinal (VR) surgery.

Methods

This prospective double-blind, randomized controlled study was performed in 60 children undergoing VR surgery, age from 2 to 7 years. After general anesthesia, the following procedure was administrated: (1) retrobulbar block with 0.5% ropivacaine plus dexmedetomidine 1 μg/kg (group RD, n = 20), (2) retrobulbar block with 0.5% ropivacaine (group RB, n = 20), and (3) control group with general anesthesia only (group F, n = 20). Hemodynamics, postoperative pain scores, anesthetics consumption (remifentanil, propofol, fentanyl), and emergence agitation were recorded.

Results

Respiratory depression was observed in 7 of the 20 patients in group F after the laryngeal mask airway was removed in the operating room, compared with none in groups RD and RB. All patients in group F required intraoperative rescue fentanyl (average intraoperative fentanyl consumption, 26.6 ± 12.6 μg per patient). Some rescue fentanyl was required in group RB (three patients required one dose of rescue fentanyl). Patients in group RD required none. Groups RD and RB reported lower pain scores than group F at 4 h postoperatively (RD group: P < 0.001; RB group: P =0.002); pain scores in group RD were lower than that in group F at 6 h postoperatively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Retrobulbar dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine is a safe and effective alternative to systemic fentanyl. This regimen provides better pain management, hemodynamic stability, and stress response suppression in pediatric VR surgery.

Bispectral index in hypercapnic encephalopathy associated with COPD exacerbation: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Hypercapnic encephalopathy is relatively frequent in severe exacerbations of COPD (ECOPDs), with its intensity usually being evaluated through clinical scales. Bispectral index (BIS) is a relatively new technique, based on the analysis of the electroencephalographic signal, which provides a good approximation to the level of consciousness, having already been validated in anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the utility of BIS in the assessment of the intensity of hypercapnic encephalopathy in ECOPD patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of ten ECOPD patients were included, and the level of brain activity was assessed using BIS and different scales: Glasgow Coma Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS), and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The evaluation was performed both in the acute phase and 3 months after discharge.

RESULTS

BIS was recorded for a total of about 600 minutes. During ECOPD, BIS values ranged from 58.8 (95% CI: 48.6-69) for RSS score of 4 to 92.2 (95% CI: 90.1-94.3) for RSS score of 2. A significant correlation was observed between values obtained with BIS and those from the three scales, although the best fit was for RSS, followed by Glasgow and Richmond (r=-0.757, r=0.701, and r=0.615, respectively; P<0.001 for all). In the stable phase after discharge, BIS showed values considered as normal for a wake state (94.6; 95% CI: 91.7-97.9).

CONCLUSION

BIS may be useful for the objective early detection and automatic monitoring of the intensity of hypercapnic encephalopathy in ECOPD, facilitating the early detection and follow-up of this condition, which may avoid management problems in these patients.

Application of remifentanil combined with propofol in the diagnosis of colon cancer with awakening painless digestive endoscopy

Anesthetic effect of remifentanil combined with propofol in awakening painless endoscopy was analyzed. Retrospective analysis of 120 cases of colon cancer were treated in Dongying People's Hospital from June 2015 to December 2017. All of them were treated by awakening painless digestive endoscopy, divided into 60 cases in observation group (combined with remifentanil and propofol anesthesia), and 60 cases in control group (combined intravenous anesthesia of finanib and propofol). The data were respectively recorded at time-points of oxygen inhalation, intubation for 10 min, awakening time, waking time, and the time-points for each represented as the time-points of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and recorded the diastolic blood pressure (DBP), respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate (HR), and compared the awakening effect and the occurrence of adverse reaction. There was no significant difference in the DBP index between the two groups at time-point T1 (P>0.05). The time-points of T2, T3, T4 and T5 were significantly different from the observation group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in RR index between the two groups and between the same groups (P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the awakening time and consciousness recovering of the observation group is lower (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions after awakening operation between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). The local pain rate in the observation group after the awakening operation was lower than the control group. The combined use of trace remifentanil and small dose propofol in the awakening painless digestive endoscopy can make the patients with colon cancer more stable when they are in the awakening state, so as to improve the safety of awakening painless digestive endoscopy. It is worth promoting in clinical practice.

Transversus abdominis plane block reduces remifentanil and propofol consumption, evaluated by closed-loop titration guided by bispectral index

The present prospective, randomized, double-blind study aimed to determine the impact of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block on propofol and remifentanil consumption, when administered by closed-loop titration guided by processed electroencephalography, i.e., bispectral index (BIS) values. Following institutional review board approval, 60 patients were scheduled for laparoscopic colectomy under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive bilateral TAP block with 20 ml 0.375% ropivacaine (TAP group) or 20 ml 0.9% saline [control (CON) group]. General anesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil administration using closed-loop titration guided by BIS values. The primary outcome was perioperative propofol and remifentanil consumption. The secondary outcomes were hypertensive or hypotensive events requiring treatment, recovery time in PACU and time to first rescue analgesia following surgery. A total of 58 patients participated in the present study. At similar depths of anesthesia, as measured by BIS during the maintenance phase (45–55), patients who received TAP blocks required less propofol (4.2±1.3 vs. 5.5±1.6 mg/kg/h; P<0.001) and remifentanil (0.16±0.05 vs. 0.21±0.05 µg/kg/min; P<0.001). Time to extubation was significantly shorter in the TAP group (9.8±3.2 min) than in the CON group (14.2±4.9 min) (P<0.05). The requirement to treat hemodynamic change was also significantly lower (P<0.05). Pain score at 2 h after surgery was also significantly reduced in the TAP group compared with the CON group (P<0.05), whereas the time to first rescue analgesia was delayed in patients who received TAP block (P<0.05). Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred at comparable rates in each group (P>0.05). In conclusion, TAP block combined with general anesthesia reduced propofol and remifentanil consumption, shortened time to tracheal extubation and promoted hemodynamic stability in laparoscopic colectomy.

Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil

BACKGROUND

Decrease of the nociceptive stimulation induced by laryngoscopy could be an advantage for patients without risk of difficult intubation. The present study aimed to compare the difference in nociceptive stimulation between the use of a conventional laryngoscope or of a videolaryngoscope. Amount of nociception was assessed indirectly using the peak remifentanil concentration determined by a closed-loop administration of propofol and remifentanil with bispectral index (BIS) as the input signal (target 50).

METHODS

A prospective single-center randomized study was performed including surgical patients without predictable risk of difficult mask ventilation or of difficult tracheal intubation. Forty consecutive surgery patients were randomly assigned to CL group (conventional laryngoscope) or VL group (McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope). Induction of anesthesia was performed automatically using the closed-loop system and myorelaxation with atracurium. The allocation was revealed just before tracheal intubation. The primary outcome was the peak plasma remifentanil concentration observed during the 5-minute period which followed intubation.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients in the CL group and 11 in the VL group were analyzed. Plasmatic remifentanil and propofol concentrations were similar in both groups either before tracheal intubation or during the 5 minutes following intubation. There was a nonsignificant between-group difference (P = .09) for the peak concentration of remifentanil. A comparable result was observed for other outcomes except for the heart rate which increased in the CL group.

CONCLUSION

Use of the videolaryngoscope McGrath Mac did not reduce the nociceptive stimulation induced during intubation as evaluated by the automatically administered remifentanil concentration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02245789.