Tehran University Medical Journal

---

One of the disturbing complications of propofol is pain on injection and the incidence ranges from 28% to 90%. Metoclopromide is commonly used as an anti emetic drug. Some investigators reported that this drug could reduce the pain on injection of propofol. The aim of this study was to assess and comparison of the efficacy of propofol pretreatment with metoclopromide in incidence and severity of its pain on injection.
Materials and Methods: In a randomized, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trail, 150 patients 18 to 40 yr old were randomly allocated in one three groups. C group (2ml of normal saline), L group (40mg lidocaine in 2ml), M group (l0mg metoclopromide in 2ml). Immediately after injection of study or placebo drugs, 10 mg of propofol with injection rate of 0.5 ml/s (In 4 Seconds) were injected in to the same vein that was inserted to the most prominent dorsal hand vein. Pain severity was measured using Visual Analogue Pain Scale that were educated to the patients before the trail (0 for no pain and 100 for the most aggressive pain in life) and values other than zero was encountered pain appearance. Patients with signs of sedation were excluded.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between patients in three groups in number of men and women (P = 0.66), age (P = 0.29) and weight (P = 0.49). Furthermore severity (P = differences (C = 41.18, L - 25.4 and M = 13.1, P < 0.001) and patients in metoclopromide group experiences lower pain than other two groups (P < 0.001). Pain incidence in Control group was 77.1% and it was significantly reduced in lidocaine and metoclopromide group (P = 0.002), but there were no significant difference between them (P = 0.051). The 0.69) and incidence (P ~ 0.29) of pain has no significant difference between men and women. Pain severity between three groups has significant results showed that metoclopromide could significantly reduce the seventy of pain on injection of propofol more than lidocaine (opposite to diazepam), but they had no difference in pain incidence. It might lie on the different mechanisms that they produce pain. Pain on injection of diazepam is primarily attributed to propylene glycol, as a vehicle, but the pain mechanism in propofol is remaining unknown.
Conclusion: Finally as regards to other useful effects of metoclopromide including postoperative nausea and vomiting and propofol induction dose reduction, especially when there is a medical condition where lidocaine is contraindicated, it may be a reasonable alternative before injection of propofol.

---

Background: One of the disturbing complications of propofol is pain on venous injection. Some investigators had reported that corticosteroids effectively induce and prolong the duration of local anesthetics. The aim of this study was to assess and comparing the efficacy of propofol pretreatment with dexamethasone in prevalence and severity of its pain on injection.

Materials and Methods: In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled prospective study, 90ASA I and II, 20 to 60 years-old patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled. In all patients, one of the veins of both hands was catheterized with a 20 G catheter. Then randomly, and simultaneously 2 ml dexamethasone (8 mg) was injected to one of them and 2 ml of normal saline was injected to other. After 30 seconds, 2 ml propofol (20 mg) was injected to both hands, at the same time in 30 seconds. Pain intensity was measured using VAS system.

Results: The age mean was 32.87±5.61. Twenty nine patients were male (32.2%). The mean of pain during propofol injection was significantly lower in dexamethasone group than normal saline group (1.61 vs.4.21 respectively, p< 0.05). Also the pain incidence was significantly lower in dexamethasone group compared to normal saline group (20% vs. 57.78% respectively, p> 0.05).

Conclusion: Intravenous administration of 8 mg dexamethasone before propofol IV injection significantly decreases the pain on injection of propofol.

---

Background: Propofol, an anesthetic noted to give rapid recovery, causes discomfort at the site of injection. A number of methods to reduce propofol-induced pain have been tried, including pretreatment with lidocaine, with varying results. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of magnesium sulfate compared to that of lidocaine and normal saline in mitigating propofol-induced pain.
Methods: One hundred ASA I and II adults, aged 20-50 years, scheduled for elective surgery requiring two IV lines with 20-gauge cannulae in the dorsum of each hand, were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly placed into two groups of 50 patients. In each patient, one hand was the case study and other hand was the control. Group A received 10% magnesium sulfate in one hand and normal saline in the other hand. Group B received 10% magnesium sulfate in one hand and 1% lidocaine in the other hand. All injections had a volume of 2 ml. After 30 seconds, 2 cc of 1% propofol was injected simultaneously into each hand. Pain was assessed according to the VAS rating system, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (the most severe pain), with a minimum interval of 3 as significant pain. Data were analyzed by chi-square and independent t tests. A P value <0.05 was considered significant.
Results: In Group A, the mean pain in the hand premedicated with magnesium was 1.46±1.07, compared to 4.54±2.15 for that of the other hand that had received normal saline (P=0.001). In group B, the mean pain in the hand that had received magnesium was 0.82±1.34, compared to 0.78±1.07 for that of the other hand, which had received lidocaine (P=0.86).
Conclusion: Intravenous magnesium and lidocaine pretreatments are equally effective in attenuating propofol-induced pain, and were better than normal saline in attenuating propofol-induced pain.

---

Background: Propofol and Thiopental are intravenous anesthetics having relatively different hemodynamic influences and adverse effects. In addition, there is significant pain on intravenous injection of propofol. This study was performed to examine the effects of Propofol-Thiopental admixture on hemodynamic variables, pain on injection and hypnotic dose at the time of induction of general anesthesia.
Methods: One hundred and twenty-five ASA I or II patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomized into four groups for induction of anesthesia in a double-blinded manner. With an original concentration of Propofol of 1% and that of Thiopental of 2.5%, we used these drugs in each group as follows: group P100: Propofol alone group P75: ¾ Propofol and ¼ thiopental (volume/volume) group P50: ½ Propofol and ½ thiopental group T100: Thiopental alone (control group). Hemodynamic variables (before and after induction), score of pain on injection and hypnotic doses were recorded and statistically analyzed.
Results: Admixture of Thiopental and Propofol reduces the injection pain of Propofol, as admixtures P75 and P50 were significantly less painful on injection than P100. Induction of hypnosis was significantly more rapid in group T100 than in groups P100 and P75. The interaction of Propofol and Thiopental with regard to their hypnotic effect is additive. Therefore a reduction in the dose of one was compensated by proportional increase in the dose of the other drug for a hypnotic effect. After anesthesia induction, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower in group P100 than in groups P75, P50 and T100. The heart rate after laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation was significantly lower in group P100 than in groups P50 and T100.
Conclusion: Propofol-Thiopental admixture causes minimal pain on injection for intravenous induction of anesthesia with modified hemodynamic effects in comparison with each drug when used separately.

---

Background: The risk of atherosclerosis and cancer is high in hemodialysis (HD) patients. There is evidence that HD causes oxidative stress. However, the causative factors of oxidative stress are unknown. It has been suggested that HD imposes an additional oxidative stress on patients with chronic renal failure by activation of granulocytes on dialyzer membranes resulting in an imbalance between oxidants and antioxidants. In this regard, a number of reports, either measuring specific analytes or enzymes, or estimating the total antioxidant activity of the plasma have given contradictory and inconclusive results. To investigate the oxidative stress status in Iranian HD patients, in this study, we evaluated GSH and FRAP levels along with Ca and pH in the blood of these patients.

Methods: Along with 20 healthy age and gender matched control subjects, 24 patients underwent dialysis, three times per week, for four hours in each session. Before and after dialysis, blood was taken for biochemical and liver function tests and to evaluate oxidative stress markers and measure Ca and pH levels.

Results: There was a significant decrease in FRAP and GSH levels after dialysis compared to those before treatment. Dialysis caused an increase in pH and Ca levels compared to levels in control subjects after dialysis.

Conclusion: In general, before dialysis, there is a balance between oxidants and antioxidants however, due to higher levels of oxidants as well as the possible binding of antioxidants to the dialyzer membrane during dialysis, an imbalance occurs. The instability in the balance of oxidants and antioxidants may be the major cause of cellular oxidative damage found in HD patients. This study indicates that there is a significant level of oxidative stress in renal chronic patients and this stress is augmented by dialysis. Antioxidant therapy should be considered in these patients.

---

Background: Pain associated with IV injection of propofol is seen in 28 to 90% of patients. A number of techniques have been tried to minimize propofol-induced pain, with variable results. We compared the efficacy of pretreatment with ephedrine and lidocaine for the prevention of propofol-induced pain.

Methods: One hundred and twenty adult patients, ASA physical status I-II, undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned into six groups (20 each). Normal saline group received normal saline, lidocaine group received lidocaine 2% (40 mg), and ephedrine (E 30) group received 30 µg/kg ephedrine, ephedrine (E 70) group received 70 µg/kg ephedrine, ephedrine (E 100) group received 100 µg/kg ephedrine, ephedrine (E 150) group received 150 µg/kg ephedrine. All pretreatment drugs were made in two mL. Pain was assessed by a 100-point scale of visual analogue (VAS) (0= no pain, 100= the most severe pain) and (VRS) verbal rating scale at the time of propofol injection. Noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HR were recorded before induction, just before intubation, and 1, 2, and 3 min after intubation, respectively.

Results: The mean of pain scorel during propofol injection was significantly more in Normal Saline group compared to lidocaine and ephedrine (E30, E70, E100, E150) groups but there was no significant difference between lidocaine and ephedrine (E30, E70, E100, E150) groups (80.9vs 59.6 and 56.2, 51.05, 52.8, 57.45) Kruskal- wallis P=0.009. The incidence of pain was also significantly more in Normal Saline group compared to lidocaine group and ephedrine's groups but there was no significant difference between lidocaine and different dose levels of ephedrine. A small dose of ephedrine (30 and 70 µg/kg) could prevent propofol induced pain before intubation and did not produce significant hemodynamic changes compared with the other groups after intubation.

Conclusions: Pretreatment with ephedrine (specially low dose) effectively attenuated pain intensity, and frequency with propofol injection without undesired complications.

---

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE AR-SA MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Background: Bispectral index (BIS index) shows the depth of anesthesia. The effects of drugs on BIS and amnesia are different. This study was performed to evaluate the association between two different sedative regimens on BIS and amnesia.
Methods: In this clinical trial, 60 patients who needed elective orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia with intravenous sedation were elected. Patients divided in two equal groups based on sedation protocol by block randomization method: midazolam plus fentanyl group (MF group) or propofol group (P group). Dose of sedative drugs were adjusted according to clinical findings of sedation. Depth of sedation in all patients, preserved in four based on modified Ramsey Sedation Score. Patients questioned about spontaneous recall after full awakening in recovery room. Recall of any event during operation considered as failed amnesia. Correlation of BIS index with recall was measured in two different groups separately.
Results: The frequency of recall was 2 (6.7%) in P group and 10 (33.3%) in MF group (p=0.01). The mean± SD of BIS in P group was 76±5 (68-91) and in MF group was 93.4±5 (77-98) (p<0.001). The difference of BIS in patients without amnesia (p=0.019) and with amnesia (p<0.001) in two groups were significant, respectively. No delay in recovery was observed.
Conclusion: Although the Modified Ramsey Sedation Score and clinical sedation indices were the same, but BIS in patients varied in a wide range. Hypnotic drug was a main determinant of BIS score and amnesia.

---

Background: Sinus surgeries are usually associated with bleeding, thus can result in hemodynamic instability. This study investigated the hemodynamic changes induced by remifentanil plus isoflurane administration in comparison with propofol plus remifentanil in patients undergoing sinus surgery.
Methods: In this randomized clinical trial study, 96 patients were divided into two groups of isoflurane (1.2 MAC) plus remifentanil (44 patients, group A) and propofol (100 μg/kg/min) plus remifentanil (52 patients, group B). Twenty-two patients in group A and 23 in group B were male. The remifentanil dosage (0.1 μg/kg/min) was equal in both groups and all received 500 ml isotonic solution during the operation too.  Premedications and anesthetic inductions of both groups were similar. The variables included age, BMI, blood loss during surgery, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, pulse rate and mean arterial blood pressure.
Results: The mean age, BMI, amount of blood loss, mean systolic (30 minutes before and after the intervention) and diastolic blood pressures (60 minutes before and after the intervention), pulse rate (30 and 60 minutes before and after the intervention), mean arterial blood pressure (60 minutes before and after the intervention) were similar in both groups. The average mean arterial blood pressure, 30 minutes after the intervention (p=0.027) and the mean diastolic blood pressure, 30 minutes after the intervention (p=0.011) in the case group had statistically significant differences with the controls.
Conclusion: Based on this study, the combination of isoflurane plus remifentanil could better maintain the hemodynamic stability during sinus surgeries.

---

Background: Control of intracranial pressure (ICP) before, during and after neurosurgical operations is crucially important. Therefore, trying different methods and drug combinations to attain this goal is an ongoing effort in anesthesiology. In this study we compared two combinations of a narcotic agent with propofol in neurosurgical operations to control intracranial pressure.
Methods: In this prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial, we enrolled 34 patients with supratentorial brain tumors who were candidates for craniotomy in Alzahra Hospital in Isfahan, Iran from April 2008 to April 2009. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 17, in whom the first and the second group, respectively, received a combination of "propofol and fentanyl" and a combination of "propofol and remifentanyl" as maintenance of anesthesia. The hemodynamic status, ICP during the surgery, and post-surgical complications in recovery unit were observed for and registered in a questionnaire.
Results: Hemodynamic status was similar in both groups and they did not differ in recovery complications except for pain which was more prevalent in remifentanil group (P<0.03). Although the patients in fentanyl group better responded to the drug for lowering ICP than remifentanyl group, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: There is no difference between these two anesthetic agent combinations and both could be useful in the anesthesia of neurosurgical operations. However combination of propofol and fentanyl seem to be superior because of more pain relief and a smoother recovery period.

 

---

Results: In this study, between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics there was no significant difference (P>0.05). In the KM group, higher percentage of patients achieved the desired quality of sedation, but, between the two groups no statistically significant difference was shown (P=0.75). Surgeon satisfaction was higher in the KP group (P=0.18) and patient satisfaction was higher in the KM group (P=0.18) but there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Recovery time between groups was Similar and no statistically significant difference was shown (P>0.98). In the KM group at 5 minutes, systolic blood pressure (SBP) was notably greater than the other group (P=0.02) and diastolic blood pressure was notably greater than the KP group (P=0.08). Conclusion: It can be stated that adding a small dose of ketamine to propofol and midazolam is associated with effective sedation and a similar cardiovascular response during phacoemulsification surgery.