Oral lormetazepam in premedication. A comparison with diazepam

Lormetazepam, a relatively new benzodiazepine was compared in a randomised, double blind trial with diazepam for its effectiveness as an oral premedicant drug. A scoring system was used to assess sedation, relief of anxiety, nausea, dizziness and cardiovascular effects in two groups of patients having orthopaedic operations. Some statistical indication that lormetazepam has a greater anxiolytic effect than diazepam was found, but in assessing total effect using a known scoring system, no difference was demonstrated between the two drugs.     

Lorazepam as night sedation and premedication: a comparison with diazepam

Fifty healthy female patients scheduled for surgery were randonly allocated into two groups in a double-blind study. One group received lorazepam 2.5 mg orally at 2200 h on the evening before surgery as night sedation, and again at 0800 h on the morning before surgery as premedication. The second group received diazepam 10 mg orally at the samte times. The quality of sleep the night before surgery was superior in the lorazepam group (p less than 0.02). The frequency of effective sedation produced pre-operatively was similar in both groups. Although the incidence of amnesia for visual stimuli following lorazapam was higher (p less than 0.05) than with diazepam, there was no difference in the recall of auditory and painful stimuli. The overall incidence of side effects was similar for each drug and at the dosage used no difference was found in the time to awaken from anaesthesia.     

Oral bromazepam in premedication. A comparison with diazepam

Bromazepam, a relatively newly benzodiazepine with marked anxiolytic effects, was compared in a randomised, double-blind manner with diazepam for its effectiveness as an oral premedicant drug. A scoring system was used to assess sedation, relief of anxiety, nausea, and cardiovascular effects in two groups of women having gynaecological operations. No difference was demonstrated between the effectiveness of the two drugs.     

A comparison of triazolam and diazepam as premedication agents for minor gynaecological surgery

Triazolam 0.25 mg, diazepam 10 mg and placebo were compared in a randomized double-blind trial of oral premedication in 90 patients undergoing minor gynaecological surgery. Both triazolam and diazepam produced a significant sedative effect as measured by patient self assessment linear analogue scales but only diazepam was more anxiolytic than placebo. Psychomotor performance assessed by the letter-search test at 3 and 6 hours after awakening showed a decrement in performance in patients receiving triazolam at 3 hours compared with the two other groups. Triazolam was shown to have a pronounced amnesic effect and whilst it might be used for premedication, its lack of anxiolysis coupled with a significant impairment of psychomotor performance at 3 hours after awakening, render the drug unsuitable for premedication in the short stay patient.     

Temazepam as premedication in elderly patients

One hundred and forty-five men were randomly allocated on a double-blind basis to receive either temazepam 20 mg, diazepam 10 mg or placebo as premedication. Temazepam produced more sedation than either diazepam or placebo. Postoperative recovery was assessed by a simple visuo-motor co-ordination test and was best in the placebo group. Two hours into recovery, temazepam patients could almost match their baseline performance whereas the performance of the diazepam patients was still significantly worse than pre-operatively. Temazepam is suggested as a suitable premedicant for elderly patients undergoing minor surgery.     

Intra-ocular pressure changes during gynaecological laparoscopy

Laparoscopic surgery carried out under general anaesthesia is associated with physiological changes, which also determine changes in intra-ocular pressure. We measured intra-ocular pressure at each phase of gynaecological laparoscopy, carried out under propofol-alfentanil-isoflurane general anaesthesia, in young women of ASA 1 status, with no pre-existing eye disease. Measurements were made with a Perkins applanation tonometer. Mean arterial pressure and end-tidal CO, tension were kept constant throughout the study. Intra-ocular pressure decreased significantly after induction of anaesthesia, remained unchanged after a pneumoperitoneum of up to an intraperitoneal pressure of 15 mmHg had been created, increased significantly with head down tilt, but did not increase significantly above pre-induction values. Adequate depth of anaesthesia compensated for the intra-ocular pressure increase caused by head down position. Plateau airway pressure, considered as reflecting intrathoracic pressure, increased with intraperitoneal pressure elevation. However, such changes did not correlate with intra-ocular pressure changes.     

Diazepam premedication in children

Oral diazepam 0.25 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg was employed as premedication in one hundred and one children undergoing elective surgery. The drug failed to modify the rise in cardiorespiratory indices of preanaesthetic anxiety compared with control values, and there was no difference between the two doses assessed by a sedation scoring system. 0.25 mg/kg diazepam produced less sedation in children under 5 years old, compared with those 5 years and older, whereas 0.5 mg/kg produced no difference between the older and younger age groups. The plasma levels of diazepam were greater postoperatively in the 0.5 mg/kg group. There was no relationship between plasma diazepam and recall at induction, and pre-anaesthetic amnesia was not enhanced with the higher premedication dose.     

Intra-ocular pressure changes using the laryngeal mask airway and tracheal tube

Intra-ocular pressure was measured before and throughout airway establishment with either the laryngeal mask airway or tracheal tube. Similar measurements were made on removal of either airway and the amount of coughing noted in the first minute after removal. There was a significantly smaller increase in intra-ocular pressure (p less than 0.001) using the laryngeal mask airway, both on placement and removal, than with the tracheal tube. Postoperative coughing was significantly reduced using the laryngeal mask airway (p less than 0.001). There was a significantly greater rise in heart rate using the tracheal tube (p less than 0.01) probably related to an increased cardiovascular response. The laryngeal mask airway is recommended as an alternative to tracheal intubation in routine and emergency intra-ocular surgery.     

Rectal premedication in children

Two hundred and eight healthy children who were to undergo minor elective surgery during halothane, nitrous oxide, oxygen anaesthesia were studied in a double blind investigation to evaluate the sedative and anticholinergic effects of two rectal premedications. Group I received diazepam 0.75 mg/kg rectally; Group II received a mixture of diazepam 0.5 mg/kg, morphine 0.15 mg/kg and hyoscine 0.01 mg/kg rectally. No significant difference was found between the two groups in sedative or anticholinergic effects during induction of anaesthesia or in the postoperative period. No adverse effects were seen.     

Intra-ocular pressure changes following laryngeal mask airway insertion: a comparative study

We compared the effects of the Brain laryngeal mask airway with a tracheal tube on intra-ocular pressure. Propofol was used as induction agent and atracurium as relaxant. Twenty-six patients with normal intra-ocular pressure undergoing cataract surgery were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A ( n  = 13) had a laryngeal mask airway inserted and Group B ( n  = 13) had a tracheal tube inserted. Intra-ocular pressure was measured just before insertion of the airway, 20 s after insertion and at 2 min. In the laryngeal mask airway group there were no significant changes in mean intra-ocular pressure. In the tracheal tube group there was a significant rise in mean intra-ocular pressure at 20 s (p = 0.0056) which returned to pre-insertion levels at 2 min. We conclude that the laryngeal mask airway continues to have advantages over the tracheal tube for ophthalmic surgery despite the use of propofol and atracurium as anaesthetic agents.     

A comparison between the effects of fentanyl, droperidol with fentanyl, and halothane anaesthesia on intra-ocular pressure in adults

The effects of fentanyl 3.0 micrograms/kg (group 1), droperidol 0.1 mg/kg with fentanyl 3.0 micrograms/kg (group 2), and halothane 0.5% inspired concentration (group 3) on intra-ocular pressure were compared. In each group, a decrease in intra-ocular pressure was produced which was significantly lower than resting values (p greater than 0.01) and was independent of changes in arterial blood pressure. The recovery time in group 1 patients was significantly less than that of patients in group 3.     

患儿口服可乐定术前用药的效果

目的评价患儿口服可乐定术前用药的效果。方法择期行脑室腹腔分流术患儿45例，年龄2～8岁，体重10～27kg，随机分为3组，每组15例，D组、C2组和C4组分别于麻醉前90min口服安定0．2mg／kg、可乐定2、4μg／kg。记录患儿术前镇静评分、与父母分开接受程度评分、面罩接受程度评分、术后镇痛、镇静情况及围术期不良反应的发生情况。结果与D组相比，C2组和C4组术前镇静、与父母分开接受程度、面罩接受程度的评分较高，术后镇痛补救率、寒颤发生率较低（P〈0．05）；与C2组相比，C4组术前镇静评分较高（P〈0．05）。结论患儿麻醉前90min口服可乐定2μg／kg术前用药可产生良好的镇静、抗焦虑和术后镇痛的效果，且副作用小。     

Premedication with oral and rectal diazepam

It has been postulated that esophageal retention of diazepam tablets is a problem of clinical significance, and that rectal administration is an advantageous alternative. To test this hypothesis, 100 patients were randomly allocated to premedication with either 15 mg diazepam orally or 10 mg diazepam as a rectal solution. A double dummy technique was used. A sedative effect was seen in 23 (50%) of the patients premedicated by mouth (O-group), but only in eight (20%) of those premedicated rectally (R-group) (P less than 0.05). Four patients (9%) in the O-group and seven (18%) in the R-group were unacceptably anxious before induction (n.s.). The plasma concentrations in the tablet group were nearly twice the concentrations found in the rectal-solution group, but no correlation between premedication effect and plasma concentration was found. Timing of premedication was very inaccurate, and this favored oral administration because of a more prolonged effect. No evidence of persistent esophageal retention was found.