The effect of a propofol-based sedation technique on cumulative embryo scores, clinical pregnancy rates, and implantation rates in patients undergoing embryo transfers with donor oocytes

Study Objective: To determine the effect, if any, of a propofol-based sedation technique on the reproductive outcomes of patients undergoing embryo transfers with donor oocytes. These ova recipients form a unique subgroup, whose clinical outcomes are unrelated to direct anesthetic effects on their reproductive tracts.

Design: Retrospective chart review.

Setting: A 1200-bed university medical center.

Patients: 117 patients who received fresh embryo transfer cycles between January 1991 and December 1995.

Measurements and Main Results: The anesthesia records of 106 women who donated ova were reviewed for propofol usage during the transvaginal needle aspiration of the ova. The medical records of the 117 patients who received these donated embryos were reviewed for cumulative embryo scores, clinical pregnancy rates, and implantation rates. Fourteen patients received ova from women who were sedated with fentanyl and midazolam during ovum retrievals, while 103 patients received ova from women who had been given fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol in doses of 1.87 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg. The pregnancy rate among all patients who received ova from women who received propofol (44 of 103 = 42.7%) was 14.1 % greater than those whose ovum donors did not receive propofol (4 of 14 = 28.6). 78.6% of both propofol and nonpropofol-exposed groups had cumulative embryo scores of greater than 50. Among patients who became pregnant, 52.3% of propofol-exposed and 50% of nonpropofol-exposed cases had greater than 20% implantation rates.

Conclusions: There is no evidence from our data that the administration of propofol during the aspiration of ovarian follicles for oocyte donation had a negative impact on the oocytes as measured by cumulative embryo scores, probability of a clinical pregnancy, or implantation rate.     

Methohexital zur Analgosedierung bei beatmeten Intensivpatienten

Background

Delirium is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) as a potentially reversible disturbance of consciousness and a change of cognition caused by a medical condition, drug intoxication, or medication side effect. Delirium affects up to 80?% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. One risk factor for development of delirium in ventilated intensive care unit patients is sedation. The German S3 guidelines on “Analgesie, Sedierung und Delirmanagement in der Intensivmedizin” (analgesia, sedation and delirium management in intensive care medicine) of the DGAI (German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine) and the DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine) recommend midazolam and propofol for sedation, although both drugs are associated with a high incidence of delirium.

Aim

Within the framework of this study the question arose whether the barbiturate methohexital could be associated with a lower incidence of delirium in comparison to midazolam or propofol in analgosedated and ventilated ICU patients.

Material and methods

This was a prospective nonrandomized observational cohort study in a mixed medical surgical intensive care unit. Patients ventilated within 72 h after admittance were consecutively allocated to either propofol/remifentanil versus methohexital/remifentanil (expected ventilation duration ≤?7 days) or midazolam/fentanyl versus methohexital/fentanyl (expected ventilation duration >?7 days) by the attending senior consultant anesthetist at the time of admission and/or intubation. Primary endpoint was delirium at any time during the ICU stay. Delirium was checked every 8 h by ICU nurses using the intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC), with delirium defined as ICDSC ≥?4 points. Before evaluation of the ICDSC the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) score and the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS target ≤?4) were measured. To assure reliable evaluation of the ICDSC, the RASS score of the patient at the time of evaluation had to be ≥???2. Assuming an incidence of delirium in the midazolam group of 70?% and in the methohexital group of 35?%, 16 patients were needed each in the midazolam/fentanyl and the methohexital/fentanyl cohorts (p?=?0.05, β =?0.1). Assuming an incidence of delirium in the propofol group of 50?% and in the methohexital group again of 35?%, 94 patients were needed in the propofol/remifentanil and methohexital/remifentanil groups, respectively (p?=?0.05, β =?0.1).

Results

A total of 222 patients were evaluated, 34 in the methohexital vs. midazolam group and 188 in the methohexital vs. propofol group. Out of 16 patients sedated with midazolam, 15 developed delirium (94?%) in contrast to only 5 out of 18 patients sedated with methohexital (28?%). Thus compared to midazolam the sedation with methohexital reduced the incidence of delirium by 66?% (p?<?0.001) corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 1.5. Out of 94 patients in the propofol/remifentanil group, 64 developed delirium (68?%) in contrast to only 23 out of 94 in the methohexital/remifentanil group (24?%). Thus compared to propofol the sedation with methohexital reduced the incidence of delirium by 44?% (p?<?0.001), corresponding to an NNT of 2.5.

Conclusion

Sedation with methohexital compared to midazolam or propofol reduced the incidence of delirium by more than 50?% in ventilated ICU patients.     

Remifentanil sedation compared with propofol during regional anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: The short onset and offset of remifentanil may allow for accurate dosing of sedative effect with few side-effects and rapid recovery. In this study remifentanil is compared with propofol for sedation during successful regional anaesthetic blocks. METHODS: After informed consent was given, 125 patients undergoing surgery under spinal or brachial plexus anaesthesia were randomized to receive, either propofol: bolus 500 microg/kg plus initial infusion 50 microgkg/min or remifentanil: bolus 0.5 microg/kg plus initial infusion 0.1 microgkg/min. Study drug infusion rate was titrated throughout the procedure according to level of sedation and side-effects. Pain, discomfort, sedation level and side-effects were recorded at regular intervals until discharge from the post operative care unit (PACU). RESULTS: Two patients in the remifentanil group versus ten in the propofol group were treated for discomfort or pain during surgery (P<0.02). Due to a significantly higher rate of respiratory depression (46% vs. 19% with propofol, P<0.01) the mean remifentanil infusion rate was decreased to 0.078 +/- 0.028 microgkg/min, whereas it was kept stable with propofol. Propofol patients had significantly higher (P<0.05) sedation levels and experienced more frequent amnesia of the procedure. Eleven propofol patients experienced pain at injection site, versus two remifentanil patients (P<0.02). Nausea and vomiting were more frequent in the remifentanil patients during infusion (27% vs. 2% in the propofol group, P<0.001) but similar postoperatively. Time to discharge from PACU was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Propofol results in less respiratory depression and nausea when sedation is needed during a case with a successful regional block. Remifentanil may be considered as an alternative if pain during the procedure is a major concern or if amnesia is contraindicated.     

The cost-effectiveness of methohexital versus propofol for sedation during monitored anesthesia care

We designed this study to test the hypothesis that methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. Sixty consenting women undergoing breast biopsy procedures under local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive an infusion of either propofol (50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or methohexital (40 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). The sedative infusion rate was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 (with 1 = awake/alert to 5 = asleep). Fentanyl 25 microg i.v. was administered as a "rescue" analgesic during the operation. We assessed the level of sedation (OAA/S score), vital signs, time to achieve an OAA/S score of 3 at the onset and a score of 1 after discontinuing the infusion, discharge times, perioperative side effects, and patient satisfaction. The direct cost of methohexital was lower than that of propofol, based on the milligram dosage infused during the operation. The sedative onset (to achieve an OAA/S score of 3) and the recovery (to return to an OAA/S score of 1) times, as well as discharge times, did not differ between the two groups. Patients receiving methohexital had a significantly lower incidence of pain on initial injection compared with those receiving propofol (10% vs 23%). Because the use of methohexital (29.4 +/- 2.7 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) for sedation during breast biopsy procedures has a similar efficacy and recovery profile to that of propofol (36.8 +/- 15.9 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and is less costly based on the amount infused, it seems to be a cost-effective alternative to propofol for sedation during local anesthesia. However, when the cost of the drug infused and drug wasted was calculated, there was no difference in the overall drug cost. Implications: When administered to maintain a stable level of sedation during local anesthesia, methohexital is an acceptable alternative to propofol. However, the overall drug costs were similar with the two drugs.     

Comparison of propofol with methohexital for outpatient anesthesia

Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic currently available for clinical investigative use. The intraoperative and postoperative effects of propofol were compared to methohexital when used as an adjuvant to nitrous oxide for outpatient anesthesia. Sixty healthy young women were randomly assigned to receive either methohexital, 1.5 mg/kg intravenously (IV), or propofol, 2.5 mg/kg IV, for induction of anesthesia. Both drugs produced transient cardiovascular and respiratory depression after induction. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either methohexital, 6 +/- 2 mg/min, or propofol, 7 +/- 2 mg/min (mean +/- SD) by continuous infusion in combination with nitrous oxide, 70% in oxygen. Use of a propofol infusion was associated with lower blood pressures and heart rates during maintenance. Propofol was associated with fewer side effects (e.g., hiccoughing, nausea, and vomiting) intra- and postoperatively. Recovery times for awakening, orientation, and ambulation were consistently shorter with propofol. We conclude that propofol is a useful alternative to methohexital for induction and maintenance of outpatient anesthesia.     

Sedation in spinal anesthesia. Comparison of remifentanil and propofol]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil for analgesia and sedation during subarachnoidea anesthesia, and to compare remifentanil with propofol. METHOD: Ninety ASA I-III patients undergoing orthopedic or traumatologic surgery under subarachnoid anesthesia were enrolled for prospective study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. The propofol group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg followed by infusion at 3 mg/kg/h. The remifentanil group (n = 45) received a single dose of 0.5 microgram/kg followed by infusion at 0.1 microgram/kg/min. We evaluated quality of sedation, pain intensity during nerve blockade, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and time until recovery. RESULTS: The remifentanil group experienced less moderate-to-intense pain (13%) than did the propofol group (63%) (p < 0.01). Sedation was adequate in both groups and was easy to control by adjusting the rate of infusion. Times until recovery of consciousness and respiratory frequency after withdrawal of infusion until recovery of baseline levels were 7.87 +/- 3.54 min and 5.22 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the remifentanil group and 8.72 +/- 4.59 min and 5.36 +/- 2.49 min, respectively, in the propofol group, respectively. Patients in the remifentanil group experienced a significantly greater decrease in SpO2 than did those in the propofol group (20% and 4%, respectively; p < 0.05). Mean blood pressure was higher for patients treated with remifentanil. The incidence of vomiting was also higher in the remifentanil group than in the propofol group (9% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil is more effective in reducing pain related to nerve blockade and level of sedation is lower; however remifentanil is associated with a higher incidence of respiratory depression and vomiting.     

Comparison of recovery of propofol and methohexital sedation using an infusion pump.

Two sedative anesthetic agents administered by an infusion pump were compared during third molar surgery. Forty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II volunteers were randomly allocated to two groups. All subjects received supplemental oxygen via a nasal hood, fentanyl (0.0007 mg/kg intravenous [i.v.] bolus), and midazolam (1 mg/2 min) titrated to effect. Patients then received either 0.3 mg/kg of methohexital or 0.5 mg/kg of propofol via an infusion pump. Upon completion of the bolus, a continuous infusion of 0.05 mg/kg/min methohexital or 0.066 mg/kg/min propofol was administered throughout the procedure. Hemo-dynamic and respiratory parameters and psychomotor performance were compared for the two groups and no significant differences were found. The continuous infusion method maintained a steady level of sedation. Patients receiving propofol had a smoother sedation as judged by the surgeon and anesthetist.     

A cost comparison of methohexital and propofol for ambulatory anesthesia.

Methohexital is eliminated more rapidly than thiopental, and early recovery compares favorably with propofol. We designed this study to evaluate the recovery profile when methohexital was used as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia before either sevoflurane or desflurane in combination with nitrous oxide. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one of four anesthetic groups: (I) methohexital-desflurane, (II) methohexital-sevoflurane, (III) propofol-desflurane, or (IV) propofol-sevoflurane. Recovery times after the anesthetic drugs, as well as the perioperative side effect profiles, were similar in all four groups. A cost-minimization analysis revealed that methohexital was less costly for the induction of anesthesia. At the fresh gas flow rates used during this study, the costs of the volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia did not differ among the four groups. However, at low flow rates (< or = 1 L/min), the methohexital-desflurane group would have been the least expensive anesthetic technique. In conclusion, methohexital is a cost-effective alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. At low fresh gas flow rates, the methohexital-desflurane combination was the most cost-effective for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Implications: Using methohexital as an alternative to propofol for the induction of anesthesia for ambulatory surgery seems to reduce drug costs. When fresh gas flow rates < or = 1 L/min are used, the combination of methohexital for the induction and desflurane for maintenance may be the most cost-effective general anesthetic technique for ambulatory surgery.     

The effects of alfentanil or remifentanil pretreatment on propofol injection pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of alfentanil, remifentanil, and saline in minimizing the propofol injection pain. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 175 ASA physical status I and II, adult female patients undergoing minor gynecological procedures with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Unpremedicated patients were randomly allocated to one of four groups. Patients received 2 mL (1 mg) of alfentanil (n=43), 2 mL of remifentanil 0.01 mg (n = 43), 2 mL of remifentanil 0.02 mg (n=45), or 2 mL of saline (n=44) 30 seconds prior to administration 5 mL of propofol 1%. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were asked whether they had pain due to propofol injection. Their pain scores were evaluated with a Visual Analogue Scale. In the Postanesthesia Care Unit, frequency of postoperative nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and flushing were all determined. MAIN RESULT: The remifentanil and alfentanil groups showed significantly less frequency and severity of pain than the saline group (p <0.05). When the alfentanil group was compared with the remifentanil groups, significant differences in pain relief associated with injection of propofol (p <0.001) were noted. Remifentanil 0.02 mg relieved pain associated with injection of propofol more effectively than remifentanil 0.01 mg (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The remifentanil and alfentanil groups showed significantly less frequency and severity of pain than did the saline group. Remifentanil was effective in preventing propofol injection pain, and should be used at a dose of at least 0.02 mg for this purpose. Remifentanil may be an alternative drug for prevention of propofol injection pain.     

Sevoflurane for interventional neuroradiology procedures is associated with more rapid early recovery than propofol

PURPOSE: Sevoflurane and propofol are both suitable for neuroanesthesia but have not previously been compared as maintenance agents for long duration (one to five hours) procedures. METHODS: Using a multicentre international study protocol, 103 patients were randomized to receive either sevoflurane or propofol for maintenance of anesthesia during interventional neuroradiology procedures. After a standardized induction of anesthesia with propofol, 53 patients received sevoflurane 1 to 3% with 60% nitrous oxide (N(2)O) in oxygen (O(2)), and 50 patients received propofol 4 to 10 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) with 60% N(2)O in O(2). Maintenance agents were titrated against systemic arterial blood pressure (baseline mean arterial pressure +/- 20%). Recovery times, changes in sedation, pain, nausea and vomiting and psychomotor function during recovery and use of rescue medication were recorded. RESULTS: The group receiving sevoflurane had a more rapid recovery to spontaneous ventilation, extubation, eye opening and orientation compared to the group receiving propofol (3 vs 4 min, P = 0.01; 5 vs 6 min, P = 0.015; 7 vs 10 min, P < 0.001; 13 vs 17 min, P = 0.028; respectively). Sedation, pain, nausea and vomiting, and psychomotor function scores were similar in the two groups. Use of opioid boluses and vasopressors were similar. CONCLUSION: The use of sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia for prolonged neuroradiological procedures is associated with more rapid early recovery than propofol and is associated with similar side effects. Sevoflurane and propofol can both be recommended for these procedures. The clinical benefit of the more rapid recovery with sevoflurane is unknown.     

Comparison of induction with and first hour of recovery from brief propofol and methohexital anesthesia

Anesthesia and recovery during the first hour after propofol and methohexital anesthesia for termination of pregnancy, lasting about 12 min, were compared, the latter in a double-blind manner by means of psychomotor tests (coin counting and continuous auditory reaction time). Muscle movements and hiccups were seen significantly more frequently during methohexital inductions. No differences were seen regarding pain at the site of injection or apnea between the groups. At 15 min after the last dose of anesthetic, recovery after methohexital was ahead of that after propofol, but after 1 h, psychomotor performance was better in the propofol group. Side-effects during recovery were few, and incidences did not differ significantly. Although the difference in reaction time test was significant, it was hardly large enough to be of any clinical importance. Both drugs are useful for brief outpatient anesthesia, but smoother induction gives propofol an edge over methohexital.     

Intra-operative patient-controlled sedation

The quality of sedation and postoperative recovery have been assessed for intra-operative sedation provided by either patient-controlled sedation with propofol or a standard method using divided doses of midazolam and fentanyl, in 40 ASA 1 day surgery patients undergoing extraction of third molar teeth under local analgesia. Patient-controlled sedation with propofol produced sedation no deeper than full eyelid closure with prompt response to verbal command, but deeper levels were seen in three patients in the midazolam and fentanyl group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the patient-controlled sedation propofol group for both subjective intra-operative feelings (p less than 0.01) and willingness to have the procedure again in the same manner (p less than 0.05). Amnesia was more limited to intra-operative events (rather than extending into the postoperative period) in the patient-controlled sedation propofol group (p less than 0.05). Drug dose was correlated with duration of procedure and surgical difficulty in the patient-controlled sedation propofol group but not in the midazolam and fentanyl group. Postoperative testing included a new computerised test, the FAST index, which indicated a dose-dependent reduction in cognitive function in the midazolam and fentanyl group, which persisted until the time of discharge. Changes in cognitive function in the patient-controlled sedation propofol group in the same postoperative interval were significantly less and not related to propofol dose.     

Propofol and midazolam versus propofol alone for sedation following coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized,placebo-controlled trial

The aim was to compare the efficacy and side-effects of propofol combined with a constant, low dose of midazolam versus propofol alone for sedation. In a prospective, randomized and double-blinded study, 60 male patients scheduled for elective coronary bypass grafting were enrolled. Postoperatively, patients were stratified to receive either a continuous intravenous infusion of midazolam 1 mg/h or placebo. Target Ramsay sedation score was 3 to 5 corresponding to conscious sedation. An intention-to-treat design for propofol was performed to reach target sedation. Efficacy of sedation was statistically significantly higher in the group midazolam + intention-to-treat with propofol compared with the group placebo + intention-to-treat with propofol (91% vs 79%; P=0.0005). Nine of 27 patients in the midazolam group (33.4%) and nine of 26 patients in the placebo group (34.6%) needed no supplementary propofol. Weaning time from mechanical ventilation was longer in the midazolam group whether or not they required supplemental propofol when compared with placebo group (all: 432 +/- 218 min vs 319 +/- 223 min; P=0.04; supplementary propofol: 424 +/- 234 min vs 265 +/- 175 min; P=0.03). The cumulative number of patients remaining intubated was significantly higher in the group midazolam + propofol compared with the group placebo + propofol (P=0.03). In conclusion, target sedation is reached slightly more often by the co-administration of propofol and a low dose of midazolam, but weaning time from mechanical ventilation is prolonged by the co-administration of propofol and a low dose of midazolam.     

A comparison of patient-controlled sedation using either remifentanil or remifentanil-propofol for shock wave lithotripsy.

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been used for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) because it allows for rapid individualized titration of anesthetics. Because of its sedating effects, the addition of propofol to remifentanil may improve patient tolerance of SWL with PCS. One hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil 10 microg or remifentanil 10 microg plus propofol 5 mg for PCS with zero-lockout interval. Nine patients in the Remifentanil group and three patients in the Remifentanil-Propofol group required additional sedatives to complete their SWL (P = 0.128). Compared with the Remifentanil group, the Remifentanil-Propofol group required less remifentanil, had a decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and had a better overall satisfaction level. However, they had an increased incidence of transient apnea and oxygen desaturation. The incidence of apnea was 15% in the Remifentanil group and 52% in the Remifentanil-Propofol group (P < 0.001). All patients were able to move themselves to the stretcher at the end of SWL, and median time to home discharge was <70 min in both groups. Both remifentanil and remifentanil-propofol were useful for PCS during SWL. IMPLICATIONS: The addition of propofol to remifentanil improves patient satisfaction and decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, it causes more respiratory depression than remifentanil alone. When remifentanil-propofol is used with patient-controlled sedation, appropriate monitoring and a minimum 1-2 min lockout interval is required.     

Effects of propofol on ipecacuanha-induced nausea and vomiting

Background : The purpose of this study was to evaluate if propofol has 5-HT₃ antagonistic effects. Ipecacuanha is known to release serotonin (5-HT) in the gastrointestinal tract and therefore ipecacuanha syrup was used to induce nausea and vomiting. The 5-HT₃ antagonist ondansetron was used as a control substance.
Results : During the first 150 min after ingestion of ipecacuanha there were no retchings during the ondansetron infusion ( P = 0.01 vs placebo, P =0.02 vs propofol) and significantly fewer retchings during propofol infusion compared to placebo ( P <0.02). There was no nausea during the ondansetron infusion ( P <0.01 vs placebo and propofol) but the volunteers experienced nausea both during the placebo and propofol infusion (NS).
Conclusion : This study in volunteers has shown that propofol reduces the intensity of retching after oral intake of ipecacuanha syrup. As ipecacuanha releases 5-hydroxytryptamine, it can be concluded that propofol may have a weak 5-HT₃ antagonistic effect.
Method : Ten healthy male volunteers (20–37 years) were studied on three occasions and were randomly allocated to receive a concomitant infusion of propofol (initial bolus 0.1 mg kg^-1 then 1 mg kg^-1h^-1), ondansetron (initial bolus 0.11 mg kg^-1 then 14 μg kg^-1 h^-1) and placebo on either occasion. The infusions started 30 min before oral ingestion of 30 ml of ipecacuanha and continued until 150 min after the intake. The number of retchings was recorded and the intensity of nausea was estimated by the subjects on a visual analog scale.     

Subhypnotic doses of propofol possess direct antiemetic properties.

Propofol is associated with a low incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we investigated the possible direct antiemetic properties of a subhypnotic dose of propofol. Fifty-two ASA physical status I or II patients, aged 15-60 yr with nausea and vomiting after minor gynecologic, orthopedic, or digestive tract surgery, were included in the study and received either propofol (10 mg = 1 mL) or placebo (1 mL Intralipid) intravenously in the postanesthesia care unit. Patients treated with propofol experienced a larger reduction in nausea and vomiting than patients treated with placebo (81% vs 35% success rate; P less than 0.05). Patients successfully treated had a similar incidence of relapse (propofol 28%; placebo 22%) within the first 30 min after therapy. Thirty-three percent of the propofol-treated patients and 44% of the placebo-treated patients showed a minor increase in sedation. The level of postoperative pain did not change in either group. Hemodynamic values remained unchanged in both groups. Pain on injection (7.6%) or dizziness (3.6%) only occurred in the propofol group. We conclude that propofol has significant direct antiemetic properties.     

Effects of music on target-controlled infusion of propofol requirements during combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia

The sedative effects of music were evaluated using the bispectral index (BIS) during target-controlled infusion (TCI) propofol. A total of 110 women undergoing hysterectomy were randomly allocated to receive either music or no music. Propofol was administered using target-controlled infusion and the concentration adjusted gradually to achieve an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score of 3 intra-operatively. The haemodynamic and bispectral index values during the sedation phase were recorded. Interleukin-6 was evaluated before, immediately after and 1 h following intervention. The music group had a significant reduction in mean (SD) induction time of sedation: 12 (12) min vs. 18 (12) min, p < 0.01; propofol target concentration: 1.6 (0.3) microg.ml(-1) vs. 2.4 (0.4) microg.ml(-1), p < 0.0001; intra-operative amount of propofol: 171 (98) mg vs. 251 (92) mg, p < 0.0001; and significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their peri-operative care: 9.6 (0.6) compared to the control group: 8.1 (1.0), p < 0.0001. No other differences were found. The results show the influence of music on the induction time of sedation, concentration and level of propofol during surgery, and suggest sedative benefits of music.     

Home readiness after day-case knee arthroscopy: spinal, desflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia?

In this study, four accepted methods of anaesthesia were compared during out-patient knee arthroscopy (KA). Immediate (<2 h) postoperative recovery was evaluated in terms of pain, sedation, nausea and time for home readiness. 173 patients undergoing elective KA were randomised to receive either spinal, propofol infusion, isoflurane or desflurane inhalation anaesthesia. Postoperative pain, sedation and nausea were recorded at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min after arrival in the recovery unit (RU). Discharge readiness was defined as fulfilment of the following criteria in all groups: alert, stable vital signs, able to ambulate, able to take oral fluids, no nausea and pain controllable by oral medication. Postoperative pain, in general, was low in all groups. The spinal patients had significantly lower VAS scores (p<0.001) than the general anaesthesia patients at 30, 60 and 90 min after arrival in RU. At 120 min the pain level was equal in all groups. No remarkable differences between the general anaesthesia groups were noted in terms of pain and nausea. The overall incidence of nausea was 3.4%. Propofol and isoflurane patients were more sedated at 30 min postoperatively than spinal and desflurane patients. At 60 min postoperatively all groups were alert. The time required for home readiness was significantly shorter in all the general anaesthesia groups (propofol 55 min, isoflurane 56 min and desflurane 46 min) than in the spinal anaesthesia group (168 min) (p<0.001). General anaesthesia is a practical alternative in elective knee arthroscopy. The immediate recovery profile is smooth with low levels of pain and nausea and home readiness is achieved significantly sooner than after spinal anaesthesia.     

Comparison of patient-controlled sedation with either methohexitone or propofol

We studied 42 patients undergoing oral surgery under local anaesthesia with i.v. sedation, allocated randomly to receive either methohexitone (group M) or propofol (group P) for patient-controlled sedation (PCS). Group M patients self-administered 2.5-mg (0.5 ml) bolus doses of methohexitone and group P, 5-mg (0.5 ml) doses of propofol, without a lockout. The 0.5-ml bolus dose was delivered over 7.2 s for both drugs. The procedure was completed satisfactorily in all patients. Patients in both groups achieved their desired levels of sedation. No patient lost verbal contact. Group M patients had higher heart rates during the procedure. The lowest SpO2 values recorded were 92% and 95% for group P and group M, respectively. Immediately after operation patients in group M reported that they felt more sleepy than those in group P (P < 0.01) but there were no differences at subsequent times. The results of the psychomotor tests were comparable for the two groups after operation, except for the "posting box task" at 15 min after operation when the mean decrement (compared with preoperative performance) was - 3% for group P and -13% for group M (P < 0.05). More patients in group P complained of pain in their hand. We conclude that methohexitone is a suitable alternative drug to propofol for PCS.      

Bispectral Index Monitoring during Sedation with Sevoflurane, Midazolam, and Propofol

Background : Bispectral Index (BIS) has been used to measure sedation depth. Ideally, to guide anesthetic management, range of BIS scores at different sedation levels should not overlap, and BIS should be independent of drug used. This study assessed ability of BIS to predict sedation depth between sevoflurane, propofol, and midazolam. Quality of recovery was also compared.

Methods : Patients undergoing surgery with local or regional anesthesia and sedation were randomized to sevoflurane (n = 23), midazolam (n = 21), or propofol (n = 22). Sedation was titrated to Observers's Assessment of Alertness-Sedation score of 3 (responds slowly to voice). BIS and Observers's Assessment of Alertness-Sedation were measured every 5 min. BIS prediction probability (PK) was compared between drugs. Recovery was assessed by BIS and Digit Symbol Substitution and memory tests.

Results : Bispectral Index of responders to voice was significantly different from nonresponders (86 +/- 10 vs. 74 +/- 14, mean +/- SD;P < 0.001) However, wide variability and overlap in BIS were observed (25th-75th percentile, responders vs. non-responders: 79-96 vs. 65-83). BIS of responders was different for sevoflurane versus propofol and midazolam. BIS was a better predictor of propofol sedation than sevoflurane or midazolam (PK = 0.87 +/- 0.11, 0.76 +/- 0.01, and 0.69 +/- 0.02, respectively;P < 0.05). At 10 min after the procedure, 76, 48, and 24% of sevoflurane, propofol, midazolam patients, respectively, returned to baseline Digit Symbol Substitution scores (P < 0.05). Excitement-disinhibition occurred in 70, 36, and 5% of sevoflurane, propofol, and midazolam patients, respectively (P < 0.05).