13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prophylactic effect of ephedrine to reduce hemodynamic changes associated with anesthesia induction with propofol and remifentanil

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          One of the complications of anesthesia induction with propofol is a substantial decrease in arterial blood pressure and heart rate (HR), which can be intensified by adding remifentanil. This study aimed to assess the prophylactic effects of two doses of ephedrine to control the hypotension and bradycardia caused by anesthesia induced with propofol and remifentanil.

          Materials and Methods:

          A total of 150 patients candidate for short-term minor elective orthopedic and ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to three groups receiving normal saline, low dose ephedrine (0.07 mg/kg) or high dose ephedrine (0.15 mg/kg). Anesthesia was induced in all groups with propofol 2.5 mg/kg and remifentanil 3 μg/kg. No neuromuscular blocking agent was used. Patients’ hemodynamic status was assessed in the following four steps: Immediately before, 2 min after induction of anesthesia, as well as 1 and 5 min after intubation.

          Results:

          A total of 143 patients consisting of 46 patients in the low dose ephedrine (0.07 mg/kg) group, 49 patients in the high dose ephedrine (0.15 mg/kg) group and 48 controls completed the trial. In all three groups, after induction of anesthesia, significant decreases occurred in the mean systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures, as well as in the mean HR. This decline was highest in the control group and lowest in the high dose ephedrine (0.15 mg/kg) group.

          Conclusion:

          Our findings suggest that the administration of high dose ephedrine (0.15 mg/kg) may have a significant effect in preventing hypotension and bradycardia after anesthesia induction with propofol and remifentanil.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Remifentanil for general anaesthesia: a systematic review.

          We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomised, controlled trials that compared remifentanil to short-acting opioids (fentanyl, alfentanil, or sufentanil) for general anaesthesia. Eighty-five trials were identified and these included a total of 13 057 patients. Intra-operatively, remifentanil was associated with clinical signs of deeper analgesia and anaesthesia, such as fewer responses to noxious stimuli (relative risk 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.87), more frequent episodes of bradycardia (1.46, 1.04-2.05), more hypotension (1.68, 1.36-2.07) and less hypertension (0.60, 0.46-0.78). Postoperatively, remifentanil was associated with faster recovery (difference in extubation time of -2.03, 9.5% CI, -2.92 to -1.14 min), more frequent postoperative analgesic requirements (1.36, 1.21-1.53) and fewer respiratory events requiring naloxone (0.25, 0.14-0.47). Remifentanil had no overall impact on postoperative nausea (1.03, 0.97-1.09) or vomiting (1.06, 0.96-1.17), but was associated with twice as much shivering (2.15, 1.73-2.69). Remifentanil does not seem to offer any advantage for lengthy, major interventions, but may be useful for selected patients, e.g. when postoperative respiratory depression is a concern.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hemodynamic effects of ephedrine, phenylephrine, and the coadministration of phenylephrine with oxytocin during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery.

            Hemodynamic responses to vasopressors used during spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean delivery, have not been well described. This study compared the effects of bolus phenylephrine and ephedrine on maternal cardiac output (CO). The hypothesis was that phenylephrine, but not ephedrine, decreases CO when administered in response to hypotension during spinal anesthesia. Forty-three patients were randomized to receive 80 microg of phenylephrine or 10 mg of ephedrine. Both pulse wave form analysis and transthoracic bioimpedance changes were used to estimate stroke volume in each patient. Hemodynamic responses to spinal anesthesia and oxytocin were also recorded. A subgroup of 20 patients was randomized to receive oxytocin compared with oxytocin plus 80 microg of phenylephrine after delivery. Mean CO and maximum absolute response in CO were significantly lower during the 150 s after phenylephrine administration than after ephedrine (6.2 vs. 8.1 l/min, P = 0.001, and 5.2 vs. 9.0 l/min, P < 0.0001, respectively for pulse wave form analysis, and 5.2 vs. 6.3 l/min, P = 0.01 and 4.5 vs. 6.7 l/min, P = 0.0001, respectively for bioimpedance changes). CO changes correlated with heart rate changes. Coadministration of phenylephrine obtunded oxytocin-induced decreases in systemic vascular resistance and increases in heart rate and CO. Trends in CO change were similar using either monitor. Bolus phenylephrine reduced maternal CO, and decreased CO when compared with ephedrine during elective spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery. CO changes correlated with heart rate changes after vasopressor administration, emphasizing the importance of heart rate as a surrogate indicator of CO. Coadministered phenylephrine obtunded hemodynamic responses to oxytocin.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hemodynamic effects of propofol: data from over 25,000 patients.

              To investigate clinically important hypotension and bradycardia after induction of anesthesia with propofol, we analyzed data from a Phase IV stepwise study involving 25,981 patients, 1722 institutions, and 1819 anesthesiologists. In Step 1, propofol was used for induction only. In Step 2, propofol was used for induction and then maintenance by intermittent injection. In Step 3, an induction dose was followed by a maintenance infusion. Participants were to be 18-80 yr of age and ASA physical status I-III; they could not have a continuing pregnancy or prior adverse anesthetic experience. Detailed data on demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables were recorded on data collection forms. The overall incidence of hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) was 15.7%; 77% of the episodes were recorded within 10 min of induction of anesthesia with propofol. Bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beats/min) occurred in 4.8% of patients, with 42% of the episodes in the first 10 min. Only 1.3% of patients had both hypotension and bradycardia. The incidence of hypotension was significantly higher for the elderly, females, Caucasians, those undergoing abdominal and integumentary procedures, and those given propofol with opioids, benzodiazepines, or propranolol. Bradycardia was significantly more common when propofol was combined with opioids or chronically taken beta-adrenergic receptor-blocking drugs. Bradycardia and hypotension were not commonly associated. Giving this new drug by protocol, even inexperienced anesthesiologists incurred few adverse hemodynamic changes. Hemodynamic changes were transient and rarely (< 0.2%) required drug therapy. Cardiovascular changes and drug interactions were predictable and manageable based on knowledge of the pharmacology of propofol.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol
                J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol
                JOACP
                Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                0970-9185
                2231-2730
                Apr-Jun 2014
                : 30
                : 2
                : 217-221
                Affiliations
                [1]Shiraz Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Dr. Farid Zand, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Nemazee Hospital, Nemazee Square, 71937-11351 Shiraz, Iran. E-mail: zandf@ 123456sums.ac.ir
                Article
                JOACP-30-217
                10.4103/0970-9185.130024
                4009643
                24803761
                1b4452c3-0fd6-47d4-8ff9-0ce929ce5fee
                Copyright: © Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Original Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                adverse effects,ephedrine,hemodynamics,propofol,remifentanil
                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                adverse effects, ephedrine, hemodynamics, propofol, remifentanil

                Comments

                Comment on this article