Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion (Diprifusor) vs manually controlled infusion of propofol for anaesthesia. Propofol anaesthesia via target controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion: effects on the bispectral index as a measure of anaesthetic depth. [Comparison of a propofol-based anesthesia regimen using optimated-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) technique]. [Comparison of manual infusion of propofol and target-controlled infusion: effectiveness, safety and acceptability]. Target-controlled infusion or manually controlled infusion of propofol in high-risk patients with severely reduced left ventricular function. [Comparison between TCI-TIVA, manual TIVA and balanced anaesthesia for stereotactic biopsy of the brain]. Bispectral index in patients with target-controlled or manually-controlled infusion of propofol. A prospective randomised trial comparing spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric cinchocaine with general anaesthesia for lower limb vascular surgery. TCI compared with manually controlled infusion of propofol: a multicentre study. Bispectral index and A-line AAI index as guidance for desflurane-remifentanil anaesthesia compared with a standard practice group: a multicentre study. Topical anaesthesia for minor lacerations: MAC versus TAC. Perioperative small-dose S(+)-ketamine has no incremental beneficial effects on postoperative pain when standard-practice opioid infusions are used. Regional anaesthesia for cataract surgery: comparison of three techniques. The relationship between the outcome of studies of autologous chondrocyte implantation and the presence of commercial funding. A randomized controlled trial comparing an intraoperative goal-directed strategy with routine clinical practice in patients undergoing peripheral arterial surgery.
In this multi-centre, randomized trial, we compared the safety and efficacy of Diprifusor TCI with manually controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol for anaesthesia. With approval, 123 adult male and female patients were studied. Firstly, each investigator anaesthetized five patients to familiarize themselves with Diprifusor TCI. In Stage 2, 98 patients were randomized to receive propofol-based anaesthesia via TCI or MCI. Adjuvant drugs, airway management and monitoring were managed at the discretion of the anaesthetist. Results are presented as mean (SD). Induction times were significantly longer [67 (32) vs 54 (17)s] and induction doses were significantly lower [14 (5) vs 16 (4) ml] in the TCI vs the MCI group. Recovery times and total doses were not significantly different. There were statistically but not clinically significant differences in mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate. Quality of anaesthesia and ease of control of anaesthesia were similar. We conclude that Diprifusor TCI and MCI are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. Target controlled infusions (TCI) of propofol allow anaesthetists to target constant blood concentrations and respond promptly to signs of inappropriate anaesthetic depth. Studies comparing propofol TCI with manually controlled infusion (MCI) reported similar control of anaesthesia, but did not use an objective measure of anaesthetic depth. We therefore tested whether the Bispectral Index (BIS), an electroencephalographic (EEG) variable, is more stable during propofol TCI or MCI. Forty patients received midazolam and fentanyl before induction and were randomized to TCI or MCI. Target propofol concentrations in the TCI group were 3 to 8 microg/ml. The MCI group received propofol bolus (approximately 2 mg/kg) and infusion (3 to 10 mg/kg/h). Neuromuscular blockade was achieved with rocuronium. Following endotracheal intubation, nitrous oxide (66%) in oxygen was delivered and propofol infusion and fentanyl boluses were titrated against clinical signs. Blood pressure, heart rate and EEG were recorded, although the anaesthetist was blind to BIS values. The ideal BIS for general anaesthesia was defined as 50. Performance error, absolute performance error, wobble and divergence of BIS, and maximum changes in blood pressure and heart rate were compared using two-sample t-tests or rank-sum tests where appropriate. There was no difference in absolute performance errors during maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol TCI or MCI (23 +/- 11% vs 23 +/- 9%; P=0.97). The two groups did not differ significantly in performance error, wobble, divergence on haemodynamic changes. We conclude that TCI and MCI result in similar depth of anaesthesia and haemodynamic stability when titrated against traditional clinical signs. Propofol anesthesia based on target-controlled-infusion (TCI) has been shown to be superior to a manually-controlled-infusion (MCI) technique. A new optimal-target-controlled-infusion (OTCI) technique enables an individual plasma-targeted adjustment by including the concentration in the effect-compartment. This study compared practicability and costs of the new system with a conventional MCI-based propofol anesthesia regimen.
                In a prospective study, 50 patients scheduled for elective surgery of nose or nasal sinuses were randomly enrolled to receive BIS-controlled anaesthesia (level: 40-55) using either OTCI (n = 25) or MCI (n = 25). Hemodynamics, extubation times and time of awaking, rate and quality of propofol adjustment, total drug requirements, costs, postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) stay, Aldrete and pain scores, and adverse effects (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering) were recorded.
                Demographics, hemodynamics, and perioperative data including extubation times were comparable for both study groups. Propofol consumption was similar within the first 60 min for both groups, thereafter, significantly less propofol in the OTCI group (5.03 mg/kg/h) than the MCI group (5.79 mg/kg/h) was used. Costs for propofol was significantly reduced with OTCI (0.2 vs. 0.23 Cent/anaesthesia minute/kg), the administration of other anaesthetics (fentanyl, remifentanil, cis-atracurium) did not differ between the groups. The number of infusion adjustments to BIS values were not significantly different.
                The new OTCI-system is a safe and easily controllable technique. The obvious advantage of this infusion system appears to be a reduction in propofol consumption and direct drug costs for anaesthesia lasting longer than 60 min. Diprifusor TCI is a newly developed target-controlled system for the infusion of propofol. Purpose of this study is to evaluate the acceptability, efficacy and safety of Diprifusor TCI in comparison with the manually controlled technique.
                This multicentre, randomised, parallel group study was carried out in 160 patients undergoing surgical procedures of 10 min to 4 h duration in 8 centres. In each centre 20 male or female patients, aged > or = 18 years, ASA I-III were randomised to treatment with either Diprifusor TCI (TCI group--80 patients) or manually controlled infusion (MI group--80 patients). Assessments included hemodynamics; adverse events, including accidents, actual or possible; recovery times; anesthetist ratings of quality of induction and maintenance, and of ease of control and use of technique. Ratings were summed up in a global quality score (study end-point).
                Induction doses were significantly lower (median values 1.4 vs 1.9 mg/kg) and maintenance infusion rate significantly higher (median values 10.2 vs 8.8 mg/kg/h) in the TCI group; anesthetists ratings obtained maximum scores in most patients of either group, but more frequently in the TCI group, with significant differences for ease of control (good 91.2% TCI vs 74.7% IM; adequate 8.8 vs 21.5%; poor 0 vs 3.8%), and of use of technique (good 91.2% TCI vs 60.8% IM; adequate 8.8 vs 39.2%); the global quality score showed a significant advantage for the TCI system (median value 12 vs 11).
                The TCI technique is effective and safe, and has a better acceptability than the manually controlled infusion technique. To compare hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) with manually controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol in high-risk cardiac surgery patients.
                Prospective, randomized.
                Major community university-affiliated hospital.
                Twenty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator with severely reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%).
                Anesthesia was performed using remifentanil, 0.2 to 0.3 microg/kg/min, and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2 to 3 microg x mL; n = 10) or MCI (2.5 to 3.5 mg/kg/hr; n = 10).
                Hemodynamics were measured at 6 data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the 2 groups. Dobutamine was required to maintain cardiac index >2 L/min/m(2) in significantly more patients of the TCI group than of the MCI group. Mean dose of propofol was higher in the TCI patients (6.0 +/- 1.0 mg/kg/hr) than in the MCI patients (3.0 +/- 0.4 mg/kg/hr) (p < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation was significantly shorter in the MCI (11.9 +/- 2.4 min) versus the TCI group (15.6 +/- 6.8 min). Costs were significantly lower in MCI patients (34.73 dollars) than in TCI patients (44.76 dollars).
                In patients with severely reduced left ventricular function, TCI and MCI of propofol in combination with remifentanil showed similar hemodynamics. TCI patients needed inotropic support more often than MCI-treated patients. Although extubation time was longer in TCI patients and costs were higher, both anesthesia techniques can be recommended for early extubation after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator.
                Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) is increasingly used in diagnostic surgery such as stereotactic biopsy of the brain. TIVA could lead to a faster recovery of cerebral function, which may lead to a better behavior and advantages in the postoperative management. The aim of this prospective, single-blind study was to compare the hemodynamics, the postoperative recovery period, the side-effects and the need for additional cardiovascular medication during and after the operation between the three study groups.
                After giving informed consent and approval by the ethical committee of our hospital, 51 patients (ASA I and II) undergoing stereotactic biopsy of a brain tumor were randomized to receive either propofol via the TCI-system (group 1: TCI-TIVA), propofol by a manual technique (group 2: MAN-TIVA) or methohexitone-sevoflurane (group 3: BAL-SEVO). Remifentanil was used as the analgetic component in all groups. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate und transcutaneous oxygen saturation were noted before and after induction and before and after the end of anaesthesia. The time until return of complete orientation relative to person, location and time were measured. The patients' ranking of their satisfaction with the anaesthesia was questioned 60 min and 24 hours after the end of the procedure (VAS). Undesirable side-effects (i. e. PONV, shivering, pain, dysphoria, tiredness) were noted, whenever they occurred. The number of hemodynamic interventions by the anaesthesiologist was counted, and the total doses of remifentanil and propofol were quoted. Depth of anaesthesia was monitored by using a BIS-system, a range between 40 and 50 was thought to be adequate. Besides this, the total doses of remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane were ruled out and the costs of the three regimens were ranked.
                Heart rate dropped markedly in all groups with a maximum in the TIVA-collective. Systolic and diastolic pressure also fell in the groups. In the SEVO-group, the difference was statistically significant only at the end of anaesthesia. After extubation, the three groups reached their hemodynamic starting-point with a slight overshoot in the SEVO-group. The number of required hemodynamic interventions was two (TCI-TIVA) vs. 7 (MAN-TIVA) vs. 8 (BAL-SEVO) in each group, respectively. The difference scarcely failed to get significance. The remifentanil requirements were similar between the collectives, group 1 needed more propofol per time than group 2. The number of side-effects was very little after the different regimens. There were no differences with regard to the other measured parameters between the groups. The use of TCI-TIVA was more expensive than manual TIVA (18,85 euro vs. 12,50 euro). Surprisingly, balanced anaesthesia using Sevoflurane was the most expensive method during the first hour, mainly due to the use of methohexitone as the induction agent (23,90 euro).
                Each of the three techniques compared in our study is suitable for anaesthesia in diagnostic neurosurgery. Since fast recovery of vigilance is important to justify the neurological outcome, none of the methods seems to be superior to the others. The hemodynamics were largely stable with a strong trend towards minor necessity for hemodynamic intervention in the TCI-TIVA group. This is also the best method from the subjective point of view of the anaesthesiologist due to the easy handling and the low number of interventions. The use of newer TCI-systems (e. g. fm-controller, Braun, Melsungen) not operating with special application syringes will cheapen TCI-TIVA. In this prospective, randomized study we compared bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and the costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion (MCI) of propofol. Forty patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator were included. Anesthesia was performed with remifentanil (0.2-0.3 micro g. kg(-1). min(-1)) and propofol. Propofol was used as TCI (plasma target concentration, 2.5-3.5 micro g/mL; n = 20) or MCI (3.0-4.0 mg. kg(-1). h(-1); n = 20). BIS, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure were measured at six data points: T1, before anesthesia; T2, after intubation; T3, after skin incision; T4, after first defibrillation; T5, after third defibrillation; and T6, after extubation. There were no significant hemodynamic differences between the two groups. BIS was significantly lower at T3 and T4 in the TCI group than in the MCI group. The mean dose of propofol was larger in TCI patients (5.8 +/- 1.4 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) than in the MCI patients (3.7 +/- 0.6 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)) (P < 0.05), whereas doses of remifentanil did not differ. Time to extubation did not differ between the two groups (TCI, 13.7 +/- 5.3 min; MCI, 12.3 +/- 3.5 min). One patient in the MCI group had signs of intraoperative awareness without explicit memory after first defibrillation (BIS before shock, 49; after shock, 83). Costs were significantly less in the MCI group (34.83 US dollars) than in the TCI group (39.73 US dollars). BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus.
                In this prospective, randomized study, bispectral index (BIS), hemodynamics, time to extubation, and costs of target-controlled infusion (TCI) and manually-controlled infusion of propofol were compared. TCI increased the amount of propofol used. BIS failed to predict the adequacy of anesthesia for the next painful stimulus. One hundred and one patients were randomly allocated to have their peripheral vascular surgery performed under general anaesthesia (51 patients) or spinal anaesthesia (50 patients). Intraoperative haemodynamic changes were markedly different between the two groups with a higher incidence of hypotension in the spinal group (72% vs 31%) and a higher incidence of hypertension in the general anaesthesia group (22% vs 0%). Blood loss was significantly less in the spinal group (560, SD 340, ml vs 792, SD 440, ml). Postoperatively three patients from the general anaesthesia group died from causes unrelated to the anaesthesia, and one had a myocardial infarct. Two patients in the spinal group had myocardial infarcts, both had been treated for bradycardia and hypotension intraoperatively, and one died. There was a significantly higher incidence of postoperative chest infection in the general anaesthesia group (33% vs 16%). There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative confusion, or lower limb amputation rate or need for further surgery prior to hospital discharge. This prospective, randomised multicentre study was designed to determine the clinical profile of 'Diprifusor' target controlled infusion compared with manually controlled infusion of propofol in 562 patients, aged 18-85 years, in a range of surgical procedures in 29 centres. The dose of propofol required for loss of consciousness was statistically significantly lower in the target controlled infusion group [1.69 (0.50) vs. 2.31 (0.75) mg.kg-1, p < 0.001] but the overall rate of propofol administration was slightly, but significantly, higher [12.1 (5.1) vs. 11.0 (6.0) mg.kg-1.h-1, p < 0.05]. The target concentration (CT) required for induction decreased with increasing age and ASA class, with premedication and with the administration of an opioid before induction. However, the amount of opioid given did not influence the CT required for induction, but enhanced the haemodynamic effects of propofol induction in both groups. Most investigators expressed an overall preference for target controlled infusion (93%) and found it easier to use (76%). Despite the lack of experience of most investigators in using target controlled infusion, the clinical profiles of both propofol administrations were similar. Data suggest that the clinical profile of target controlled infusion may be improved with experience, for example by more active titration of CT to effect. Target controlled infusion may well become the preferred choice for anaesthetists. This study was designed to investigate the impact of bispectral index (BIS) or A-line AAI index (based on middle-latency auditory evoked potential) monitoring on recovery times and drug consumption when compared with standard anaesthetic practice during desflurane-remifentanil anaesthesia.
                After having obtained approval from the institutional review board and written informed consent, 200 adult patients undergoing minor surgical procedures were randomized to receive a desflurane-remifentanil anaesthetic controlled either solely by clinical parameters or by BIS or AAI to the following target values: during maintenance of anaesthesia to a value of '50' (BIS) or '30' (AAI), 15 min before the end of surgery to '60' (BIS) or '45' (AAI). Recovery times and drug consumption were recorded by a blinded investigator.
                Compared with standard practice, patients with BIS or AAI monitoring needed similar desflurane concentrations (standard practice 2.9 [0.5] vol%, BIS 3.3 [0.9] vol%, AAI 2.6 [0.5] vol%), and had similar recovery times (open eyes 5.6 [2.5] min, 5.9 [3.4] min, 5.0 [3.1] min; extubation 6.3 [2.4] min, 6.6 [3.5] min, 5.6 [3.0] min; stating name 7.3 [2.4] min, 7.6 [3.5] min, 7.3 [6.6] min).
                Compared with standard anaesthetic practice BIS and AAI guided titration to the used target ranges did not result in a reduction of desflurane consumption or recovery times during minor surgery with use of remifentanil. To determine whether a solution of bupivacaine Marcain [Astra]), adrenaline and cocaine (MAC) is as safe and effective as tetracaine, adrenaline and cocaine (TAC) as topical anaesthesia for wound suturing.
                Double-blind, randomised, prospective trial.
                Emergency departments of two tertiary referral hospitals (one specialising in paediatric care) in Adelaide, South Australia, between February 1992 and April 1994.
                181 patients, aged six or older, with simple dermal lacerations less than 5mm deep, not involving mucous membranes or areas with end-arterial blood supply.
                Patients received a weight-adjusted dose of either MAC or TAC.
                Needle-prick testing of wound for pain before suturing, pain ratings by patients and physicians during suturing, signs and symptoms of cocaine toxicity, wound complications and patient preference for topical anaesthesia.
                Topical anaesthesia was adequate for suturing in 73% of patients (83% or those with head wounds and 56% of those with extremity wounds). MAC and TAC did not differ significantly in efficacy overall or by wound location. Pain ratings from patients treated with MAC and TAC were comparable, as was patients acceptance of topical anesthesia (77%, MAC; 81%, TAC) and the incidence of adverse effects (4% infection rate overall).
                Topical anesthesia is a safe and effective means of anaesthetising selected lacerations for suturing. As we found no significant differences in either the efficacy or safety of the two solutions, we believe that MAC can be substituted for the less readily available TAC whenever expedient. Several studies report that when small-dose racemic ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is administered perioperatively, opioid consumption is reduced postoperatively. S(+)-ketamine has a higher affinity for the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor and less-serious side effects than racemic ketamine. Thirty patients scheduled for elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded clinical trial designed to determine the preemptive effect of S(+)-ketamine on postoperative analgesia requirements in a setting of clinically relevant perioperative analgesia. Total IV anesthesia was induced and maintained with remifentanil (0.125-1.0 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and a propofol target-controlled infusion (target 2-4 microg/mL). The Ketamine group received a bolus of 0.5 mg/kg S(+)-ketamine before incision, followed by a continuing infusion of 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) until 2 h after emergence from anesthesia. The Control group received NaCl in the same sequence. After IV morphine provided pain relief down to < or =3 on a visual analog scale scored from 0 to 10, patients were connected to a patient-controlled analgesia device. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total morphine consumption or VAS scores, either at rest or with movement. In our study, S(+)-ketamine did not contribute to postoperative pain reduction, possibly because of the clinically routine perioperative opioid analgesia.
                Small-dose S(+)-ketamine had no positive effect on postoperative analgesia when administered perioperatively for elective arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair. Unlike investigations of the racemic mixture of ketamine, our study methods included timely standard-practice perioperative opioid analgesia, which seems to make supplemental analgesia unnecessary. Two methods of periocular anaesthesia (PI and PII) were compared with the traditional retrobulbar block in a prospective study of 450 patients undergoing elective cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. A solution of local anaesthetic containing equal amounts of 2% lignocaine and 0.5% bupivacaine was used in all the groups. Hyaluronidase (75 IU/10 ml of local anaesthetic solution) was added. Three groups of patients were studied, with 150 patients in each group. The retrobulbar injection (group R) was performed with 4 ml of the anaesthetic solution through the lower eyelid inferotemporally and a further 6 ml was injected for seventh cranial nerve block. In the first periocular technique (group PI) the local anaesthetic was injected inferotemporally (5 ml) through the lower lid and superonasally (5 ml) through the upper lid. In the second periocular technique (PII) the injections were performed inferotemporally (5 ml) and into the medial compartment (2 ml) of the orbit at the medial canthus. Satisfactory anaesthesia could be achieved with all of these methods. Additional block because of insufficient akinesia of the muscles was required in 12% (18/150) in group R, in 19% (28/150) in group PI, and in 11% (16/150) in PII. The medial compartment technique (PII) was associated with the highest percentage of total akinesia of the muscles and lowest reblock rate. All three methods produced sufficient analgesia during surgery and there were no differences in the requirements for additional analgesic drugs during surgery. It is concluded that the medial compartment technique represents a good alternative to retrobulbar block. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an expensive treatment option for focal cartilage defects, and commercial funding of research is associated with a study reaching a positive conclusion. The purpose of this analysis is to compare outcomes (and levels of evidence) between published ACI outcome studies that were commercially funded and studies that were not commercially funded.
                Commercially funded ACI literature could be commercially biased.
                Comparative meta-analysis.
                MEDLINE was searched for human, knee, ACI, nonmembrane, English language, and clinical outcome studies. Studies were evaluated with regard to funding status (commercially funded or not commercially funded), outcomes, and levels of evidence. Outcomes and levels of evidence were evaluated and compared for commercially funded studies versus those that were not commercially funded.
                Twenty-three studies were included; 16 (70%) were commercially funded. Pooled clinical outcome measures data were not significantly different (Lysholm, Modified Cincinnati, patient-reported Cincinnati, Tegner, pain Visual Analog Scale) when comparing commercially funded studies with those that were not commercially funded. However, distribution of levels of evidence was significantly lower (P = .045) for commercially funded studies.
                Reassuringly, commercial funding of ACI studies did not result in a difference in published clinical outcomes versus those that were not commercially funded. However, the lower levels of evidence of commercially funded studies suggests that commercially funded ACI studies may be of less value to surgeons desiring to practice evidence-based medicine, and, in the future, commercial entities funding medical research could selectively fund studies of the highest levels of evidence. We hypothesized that, in vascular surgery patients, the application of a goal-directed strategy based on a pulse contour-derived cardiac index would be associated with a better haemodynamic status than the application of routine perioperative care and that the amount of fluid and/or inotropes required in such a goal-directed therapy depended on the general anaesthetic technique used.
                Patients undergoing peripheral arterial bypass grafting were randomly assigned to three groups. In group 1, haemodynamic management was performed according to routine clinical practice. In the two other groups (groups 2 and 3) a goal-directed therapy was applied aiming to maintain the pulse contour-derived cardiac index above 2.5 l m min. Patients in groups 1 and 2 received sevoflurane-based anaesthesia and patients in group 3 propofol-based anaesthesia. Haemodynamic variables, amount of fluid and administration of inotropes were assessed at different time intervals.
                The amount of fluid administered was not significantly different between the groups. Two patients in group 1, 13 patients in group 2 and 12 patients in group 3 were treated with dobutamine (P < 0.001). None of the patients anaesthetized with sevoflurane (groups 1 and 2) experienced postoperative cardiovascular complications, whereas four patients in the total intravenous group (group 3) experienced major postoperative cardiovascular complications (P = 0.005).
                In the conditions of the present study, the application of a goal-directed therapy aiming to maintain the cardiac index above 2.5 l min m did not result in a higher tissue oxygen delivery than when applying the standard haemodynamic strategy nor did it depend on the anaesthetic technique used.
This systematic review does not provide sufficient evidence for us to make firm recommendations about the use of TCI versus MCI in clinical anaesthetic practice.