Thrombolytic therapy for treatment of pulmonary embolism in the postoperative period: Case report and review of the literature

A patient with morbid obesity and insulin-dependent diabetes was admitted to the surgical intensive care unit, four days status postsurgical repair of an umbilical hernia. A pulmonary embolus (PE) was diagnosed by ventilation/perfusion scan and confirmed by transthoracic echocardiogram. A right ventricular ejection fraction/volumetric/oximetry pulmonary artery catheter revealed a very low ejection fraction and cardiac index. Systemic urokinase therapy was initiated and the patient improved considerably over the ensuing 12 hours. Anesthesiologists must be able to diagnose the signs and symptoms of PE and should be familiar with treatment modalities to reverse right ventricular dysfunction. Review of the literature regarding thrombolytic therapy in the perioperative period indicates potential benefit in select patients.     

Ropivacaine 0.2% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Outpatient Surgery

Background: A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery.

Methods: With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively.

Results: Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant.     

Intradermal sufentanil does not improve lidocaine-induced local anesthesia

PURPOSE: Peripheral opioid receptors may result in antinociceptive effects when occupied by opioids. This study examined intradermally injected sufentanil (S), a highly lipid soluble opioid, administered with and without lidocaine (L), in a thermal pain model. METHODS: Nine volunteers were instructed on the method of magnitude estimation of pain before undergoing baseline testing with seven seconds thermal stimuli between 44 and 52 degrees C, delivered by a contact thermal stimulator at five cutaneous forearm sites. Then, four sites randomly received injections of equal volumes (0.1 mL) of either normal saline (NS), lidocaine 0.5% (L), sufentanil 0.75 microg (S), lidocaine 0.5% plus sufentanil 0.75 microg (L+S), and one site was not injected and served as reference (REF). Testing was repeated at six, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 min following injection. The pain elicited by each stimulus was normalized to the subject's response to the 50 degrees C stimulus at the REF site. RESULTS: Baseline testing showed small (P = ns) differences in pain scores. At six minutes, the lidocaine sites (L, L+S) had pain scores that were mean 83% (range 78-88%) lower than the other sites (P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the L and L+S sites or between the S and NS or REF sites. At 30 and 60 min these pain scores were mean 38% (29-44%) and 20% (8-30%) less than at the REF, NS, and S sites (P = ns). At 90 min and later times, the pain scores had returned to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that intradermal sufentanil alone has no analgesic effect. Further, in combination with lidocaine, sufentanil does neither potentiate nor prolong the analgesic effect of lidocaine.     

Central nervous system side effects are less important afteriv regional anesthesia with ropivacaine 0.2% compared to lidocaine 0.5% in volunteers

PURPOSE: Following release of a double tourniquet for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA), ropivacaine was shown to have a longer duration of action and less central nervous system (CNS) side effects than lidocaine. This study examines the correlation of CNS side effects to plasma levels of lidocaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.2% when injected intravenously for IVRA. METHODS: In a double-blind, cross-over study, ten volunteers received IVRA with 40 mL ropivacaine 0.2% or lidocaine 0.5% at least four days apart. Both cuffs of a double-cuff tourniquet remained inflated until they could no longer be tolerated. The incidence, duration and intensity of CNS side effects were recorded at three, ten, and 30 min after tourniquet release and correlated with simultaneous venous blood samples. RESULTS: There was a lower incidence of CNS side effects with ropivacaine (6/10 volunteers) when compared to lidocaine (10/10 volunteers). There was also less duration of these side effects (mean +/- SD, 5.1 +/- 5.2 min vs 11.7 +/- 6.7 min). Measured total plasma levels were highest at ten minutes with ropivacaine 0.2% (1.2 +/- 0.3 microg.mL(-1)) and at three minutes with lidocaine 0.5% (1.7 +/- 0.6 microg.mL(-1)). Peak CNS symptoms correlated with measured venous plasma levels for lidocaine, but occurred earlier with ropivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a lower incidence of CNS side effects with ropivacaine as compared to lidocaine. Although ropivacaine's greater lipid solubility should, theoretically, lead to more CNS side effects, this was, likely, offset by slower release from tissues and lesser percentage of unbound (free) drug.     

Comparison of ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers.

A longer acting local anesthetic such as ropivacaine may offer advantages over lidocaine for IV regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether the use of ropivacaine improves the quality and duration of IVRA. In a randomized, double cross-over design, 10 volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IVRA of the upper extremity on two separate days with a standard double-cuff technique. Sensation to pinprick, response to tetanic stimuli, and tourniquet pain were assessed on a 0-10 verbal numeric score scale at 5-min intervals throughout the period of tourniquet inflation. Motor function was evaluated by grip strength. After release of the second (distal) cuff, pinprick sensation, motor strength, and systemic side effects were evaluated at 3, 10, and 30 min. No significant differences were observed for onset times of anesthesia and times to proximal (38 +/- 3 and 36 +/- 3 min) or distal (34 +/- 13 and 36 +/- 13 min) tourniquet release after the administration of ropivacaine and lidocaine, respectively. However, postdeflation hypoalgesia and motor blockade were prolonged with ropivacaine, and postdeflation light-headedness, tinnitus, and drowsiness were more prominent with lidocaine. We conclude that ropivacaine may be an alternative to lidocaine for IVRA. It may result in prolonged analgesia and fewer side effects after tourniquet release. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, volunteers received lidocaine 0.5% or ropivacaine 0.2% for IV regional anesthesia on two study days. Ropivacaine and lidocaine provided similar surgical conditions. However, after release of the distal tourniquet, prolonged sensory blockade and fewer central nervous system side effects were observed with ropivacaine.     

Levobupivacaine 0.125% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in volunteers

BACKGROUND: Levobupivacaine, a long acting, amino-amide, local anesthetic, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to compare levobupivacaine to lidocaine for IVRA. METHODS: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, eight unpremedicated male American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II volunteers received 40 ml of levobupivacaine 0.125% or lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA on separate days. Onset and regression of sensory anesthesia by pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), and of motor function were tested before, during, and after release of the tourniquet. Central nervous system and cardiac side effects were evaluated after local anesthetic administration and tourniquet release. The tourniquet remained inflated for 30-45 min. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with either agent provided surgical anesthesia. Sensory anesthesia to pinprick (lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) was faster with lidocaine at median 1.5 min. versus 12.5 min with levobupivacaine. Loss of sensation to TES occurred at median 22.5 and 27.5 min for lidocaine and levobupivacaine, respectively. Loss of motor function occurred earlier after lidocaine administration. After release of the tourniquet, return of sensation to TES, pinprick (ulnar nerve), and return of motor function occurred later with levobupivacaine at median 25, 15, and 21.25 versus 10, 4.5, and 10 min with lidocaine. Central nervous system side effects were absent in volunteers given levobupivacaine, but five of eight volunteers given lidocaine experienced mild side effects. No cardiac events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine 0.125% may be an alternative to lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA. Longer lasting analgesia after release of the tourniquet may be caused by a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of levobupivacaine.     

Ropivacaine 0.2% and lidocaine 0.5% for intravenous regional anesthesia in outpatient surgery

BACKGROUND: A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. METHODS: With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.     

Levobupivacaine 0.125% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Volunteers

Background: Levobupivacaine, a long acting, amino-amide, local anesthetic, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA). The objective of this investigation was to compare levobupivacaine to lidocaine for IVRA.

Methods: After institutional review board approval and informed consent, eight unpremedicated male American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II volunteers received 40 ml of levobupivacaine 0.125% or lidocaine 0.5% for IVRA on separate days. Onset and regression of sensory anesthesia by pinprick, transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), and of motor function were tested before, during, and after release of the tourniquet. Central nervous system and cardiac side effects were evaluated after local anesthetic administration and tourniquet release. The tourniquet remained inflated for 30-45 min.

Results: Intravenous regional anesthesia with either agent provided surgical anesthesia. Sensory anesthesia to pinprick (lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) was faster with lidocaine at median 1.5 min. versus 12.5 min with levobupivacaine. Loss of sensation to TES occurred at median 22.5 and 27.5 min for lidocaine and levobupivacaine, respectively. Loss of motor function occurred earlier after lidocaine administration. After release of the tourniquet, return of sensation to TES, pinprick (ulnar nerve), and return of motor function occurred later with levobupivacaine at median 25, 15, and 21.25 versus 10, 4.5, and 10 min with lidocaine. Central nervous system side effects were absent in volunteers given levobupivacaine, but five of eight volunteers given lidocaine experienced mild side effects. No cardiac events were noted.