STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of physostigmine on 1.5% sevoflurane anesthesia and recovery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING:Operating room of a university-affiliated, metropolitan hospital (Aretaieion Hospital and St Savas Hospital). PATIENTS: Forty female American Society of Anesthesiologistsphysical status I and II patients scheduled for breast biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned in physostigmine (PHYSO) and normal-saline (NS) group. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane 8% using a vital capacity breath technique, and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was given to facilitate Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) No. 4 insertion. Anesthesia was maintained with end-tidal sevoflurane 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC; 3% end-tidal concentration) throughout the procedure. MEASUREMENTS: After skin closure and under steady-state sevoflurane anesthesia1.5 MAC, heart rate, blood pressure, and Bispectral Index (BIS) were recorded. Immediately after, the PHYSO group received intravenous 2 mg of physostigmine, whereas the NS group received equal volume of normal saline. Bispectral Index and hemodynamic measurements were recorded 5, 8, and 10 minutes after treatment. Anesthesia was then discontinued and the LMA was removed. Zero, 15, and 30 minutes after LMA removal, patients were evaluated for orientation, sedation, sitting ability, and the "picking up matches" test, as well as for nausea and vomiting. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found in BIS (29 +/- 4, 32 +/- 6, 31 +/- 6, 30 +/- 7, 84 +/- 11 in the PHYSO group vs 29 +/- 6, 30 +/- 6, 30 +/- 5, 31 +/- 5, 86 +/- 7 in the NS group), hemodynamic parameters, or recovery parameters between the 2 groups at any time. No nausea or vomiting was observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS:Physostigmine did not influence BIS values or early recovery when administered to patients anesthetized with 1.5 MAC sevoflurane anesthesia.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of physostigmine on 1.5% sevoflurane anesthesia and recovery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: Operating room of a university-affiliated, metropolitan hospital (Aretaieion Hospital and St Savas Hospital). PATIENTS: Forty female American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II patients scheduled for breast biopsy. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly assigned in physostigmine (PHYSO) and normal-saline (NS) group. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane 8% using a vital capacity breath technique, and rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was given to facilitate Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) No. 4 insertion. Anesthesia was maintained with end-tidal sevoflurane 1.5 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC; 3% end-tidal concentration) throughout the procedure. MEASUREMENTS: After skin closure and under steady-state sevoflurane anesthesia 1.5 MAC, heart rate, blood pressure, and Bispectral Index (BIS) were recorded. Immediately after, the PHYSO group received intravenous 2 mg of physostigmine, whereas the NS group received equal volume of normal saline. Bispectral Index and hemodynamic measurements were recorded 5, 8, and 10 minutes after treatment. Anesthesia was then discontinued and the LMA was removed. Zero, 15, and 30 minutes after LMA removal, patients were evaluated for orientation, sedation, sitting ability, and the "picking up matches" test, as well as for nausea and vomiting. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found in BIS (29 +/- 4, 32 +/- 6, 31 +/- 6, 30 +/- 7, 84 +/- 11 in the PHYSO group vs 29 +/- 6, 30 +/- 6, 30 +/- 5, 31 +/- 5, 86 +/- 7 in the NS group), hemodynamic parameters, or recovery parameters between the 2 groups at any time. No nausea or vomiting was observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS:Physostigmine did not influence BIS values or early recovery when administered to patients anesthetized with 1.5 MAC sevoflurane anesthesia.
Authors: Jonathan D Kenny; Jessica J Chemali; Joseph F Cotten; Christa J Van Dort; Seong-Eun Kim; Demba Ba; Norman E Taylor; Emery N Brown; Ken Solt Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Johannes B Zimmermann; Nadine Pinder; Thomas Bruckner; Monika Lehmann; Johann Motsch; Thorsten Brenner; Torsten Hoppe-Tichy; Stefanie Swoboda; Markus A Weigand; Stefan Hofer Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 2.279