To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Background and objective: We investigated whether a high bolus dose of cisatracurium (8× ED95) given at induction can provide muscle relaxation for the major part of a cardiac procedure with hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, avoid important postoperative residual curarization and cause no waste of product.
Methods: Twenty patients were randomly assigned either to Group 1 (n = 10) or Group 2 (n = 10). Those in Group 1 were given cisatracurium in a high bolus dose (0.4 mg kg−1). Those in Group 2 received cisatracurium 0.1mg kg−1 at induction followed after 30 min by a continuous infusion of cisatracurium. As an escape medication in case of patient movement, a bolus dose of cisatracurium 0.03 mg kg−1 was given.
Results: In Group 1 (large cisatracurium bolus dose), the clinical duration of effect (until T1/T0 = 25%) was 110 min. Six of 10 patients in Group 1 required additional boluses of cisatracurium intraoperatively. Four of these six had received an additional bolus near the end of surgery and had a train-of-four (TOF) ratio = 0 at the end. The other four patients in Group 1 had a final TOF ratio >0.9. In Group 2 (continuous cisatracurium infusion), only two patients had a TOF ratio >0.9 at the end of surgery, no patient moved and none received additional boluses. The total amount of cisatracurium used in the bolus and infusion Groups was 34.5 ± 7.8 and 21.3 ± 5.7 mg, respectively (P = 0.0004).
Conclusions: For continued neuromuscular block during hypothermic cardiac surgery, a high bolus dose of cisatracurium appears to be safe, although it is not an alternative to a continuous infusion, as its neuromuscular blockade does not cover the intraoperative period and a high incidence of movements occurs. In the patients who received a high bolus dose of cisatracurium, postoperative residual curarization appeared after additional boluses had been given. The consumption of cisatracurium by high bolus was significantly greater than with continuous infusion.
Background and objective: We conducted an open, prospective, randomized study to compare the efficacy, safety and recovery characteristics of remifentanil or propofol during monitored anaesthesia care in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
Methods: Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (1 mg kg−1 followed by 10 mg kg−1 h−1, n = 20) or remifentanil (0.5 μg kg−1 followed by 0.2 μg kg−1 min−1, n = 20). The infusion rate was subsequently adapted to clinical needs.
Results: In the propofol group, arterial pressure and heart rate decreased significantly from the baseline. These variables remained unchanged in the remifentanil group, but hypoventilation occurred in 55% of patients. Early recovery was delayed in the propofol group (P < 0.002). Recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions was faster in the remifentanil group. Fifteen minutes after anaesthesia, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test score was 28.6 ± 12.8 versus 36.2 ± 9.4 and the Trieger Dot Test score was 25.6 ± 8.1 versus 18.7 ± 4.1 in the propofol and remifentanil groups, respectively (both P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction, using a visual analogue scale, was higher in the propofol group (96 ± 7 versus 77 ± 21, P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Remifentanil proved efficient in reducing pain during colonoscopy. Emergence times were shorter and the recovery of cognitive function was faster with remifentanil compared with propofol. Remifentanil provided a smoother haemodynamic profile than propofol; however, the frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced hypoventilation requires the cautious administration of this agent.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.