Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Major Burn Surgery.
Total intravenous anesthesia for major burn surgery.
Int J Burns Trauma. 2013; 3(2): 108-14
Cancio LC, Cuenca PB, Walker SC, Shepherd JM
Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) is frequently used for major operations requiring general anesthesia in critically ill burn patients. We reviewed our experience with this approach.During a 22-month period, 547 major burn surgeries were performed in this center’s operating room and were staffed by full-time burn anesthesiologists. The records of all 123 TIVA cases were reviewed; 112 records were complete and were included. For comparison, 75 cases were selected at random from a total of 414 non-TIVA general anesthetics. Some patients had more than one operation during the study: as appropriate for the analysis in question, each operation or each patient was entered as an individual case. For inter-patient analysis, exposure to 1 or more TIVAs was used to categorize a patient as member of the TIVA group.Excision and grafting comprised 78.2% of the operations. 14 TIVA regimens were used, employing combinations of 4 i.v. drugs: ketamine (K, 91 cases); i.v. methadone (M, 62); fentanyl (F, 58); and propofol (P, 21). The most common regimens were KM (34 cases); KF (26); KMF (16); and K alone (8). Doses used often exceeded those used in non-burn patients. TIVA was preferred for those patients who were more critically ill prior to surgery, with a higher ASA score (3.87 vs. 3.11). Consistent with this, inhalation injury (26.7 vs. 1.6%), burn size (TBSA, 36.3 vs. 15.8%), and full-thickness burn size (FULL, 19.8 vs. 6.5%) were higher in TIVA than in non-TIVA patients. Despite this, intraoperative pressor use was as common in TIVA as in non-TIVA cases (23.9 vs. 22.7%).TIVA was used in patients whose inhalation injury rate and TBSA were greater than those of non-TIVA patients. TIVA cases were not associated with increased hemodynamic instability. TIVA is a viable approach to general anesthesia in critically ill burn patients.
HubMed – Methadone
ANKK1 and DRD2 pharmacogenetics of disulfiram treatment for cocaine abuse.
Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2013 Apr 30;
Spellicy CJ, Kosten TR, Hamon SC, Harding MJ, Nielsen DA
OBJECTIVE: Disulfiram is a potential cocaine addiction pharmacotherapy. Since dopamine deficiency has been found with cocaine addiction, our objective was to examine whether functional variants in the ankyrin repeat and kinase domain-containing 1 (ANKK1) and/or the dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) genes interact with response to treatment with disulfiram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cocaine and opioid codependent (DSM-IV) patients were stabilized on methadone and subsequently randomized into treatment groups – disulfiram (250 mg/day, N=31) or placebo (N=37). They were genotyped for ANKK1 (rs1800497) and DRD2 (rs2283265) polymorphisms, and the data were evaluated for an association between a cocaine-free state, as assessed by cocaine-free urine samples, and disulfiram treatment. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance corrected for population structure. RESULTS: Patients with CT or TT ANKK1 genotypes dropped from 80 to 52% cocaine-positive urines on disulfiram (N=13; P?0.0001), whereas those on placebo (N=20) showed no treatment effect. Patients carrying the CC ANKK1 genotype showed no effect on treatment with disulfiram (N=18) or placebo (N=17). The GT/TT DRD2 genotype group showed a significant decrease in the number of cocaine-positive urine samples on disulfiram (N=9; 67-48%; P?0.0001), whereas the GG DRD2 genotype group showed only a marginal decrease (N=23; 84-63%; P=0.04). Genotype pattern analysis revealed that individuals carrying at least one minor allele in either gene responded better to disulfiram treatment (N=13; P?0.0001) compared with individuals carrying only the major alleles (N=17). CONCLUSION: A patient’s genotype for ANKK1, DRD2, or both, may be used to identify individuals for whom disulfiram may be an effective pharmacotherapy for cocaine dependence.
HubMed – Methadone
Remifentanil-Induced Tolerance, Withdrawal or Hyperalgesia in Infants: A Randomized Controlled Trial. RAPIP Trial: Remifentanil-Based Analgesia and Sedation of Paediatric Intensive Care Patients.
Neonatology. 2013 Apr 26; 104(1): 34-41
Welzing L, Link F, Junghaenel S, Oberthuer A, Harnischmacher U, Stuetzer H, Roth B
Background: Short-acting opioids like remifentanil are suspected of an increased risk for tolerance, withdrawal and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). These potential adverse effects have never been investigated in neonates. Objectives: To compare remifentanil and fentanyl concerning the incidence of tolerance, withdrawal and OIH. Methods: 23 mechanically ventilated infants received up to 96 h either a remifentanil- or fentanyl-based analgesia and sedation regimen with low-dose midazolam. We compared the required opioid doses and the number of opioid dose adjustments. Following extubation, withdrawal symptoms were assessed by a modification of the Finnegan score. OIH was evaluated by the CHIPPS scale and by testing the threshold of the flexion withdrawal reflex with calibrated von Frey filaments. Results: Remifentanil had to be increased by 24% and fentanyl by 47% to keep the infants adequately sedated during mechanical ventilation. Following extubation, infants revealed no pronounced opioid withdrawal and low average Finnegan scores in both groups. Only 1 infant of the fentanyl group and 1 infant of the remifentanil group required methadone for treatment of withdrawal symptoms. Infants also revealed no signs of OIH and low CHIPPS scores in both groups. The median threshold of the flexion withdrawal reflex was 4.5 g (IQR = 2.3) in the fentanyl group and 2.7 g (IQR = 3.3) in the remifentanil group (p = 0.312), which is within the physiologic range of healthy infants. Conclusions: Remifentanil does not seem to be associated with an increased risk for tolerance, withdrawal or OIH.
HubMed – Methadone
Related Methadone Clinics Information…