4.6 Article

Thoracic epidural analgesia in post-thoracotomy patients: comparison of three different concentrations of levobupivacaine and sufentanil

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 418-423

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aep004

关键词

anaesthetic techniques; epidural; surgery; thoracic; vomiting; nausea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Relative effects of dosage, volume and concentration of local anaesthetics used for postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia are still under debate. In this randomized, prospective, double-blinded study, we evaluated the incidence of side-effects such as changes in arterial pressure, postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pruritus in patients admitted for thoracic surgery during continuous thoracic epidural infusion using levobupivacaine and sufentanil mixture in three different volumes. We studied 150 patients who underwent thoracotomy with a thoracic epidural catheter placed between T4 and T7. The patients were randomized into three groups which received 10 mg h(-1) of levobupivacaine at three different concentrations (0.5%, 0.25%, and 0.15%), in combination with sufentanil at 2.6 mu g h(-1). Haemodynamic effects, pruritus, nausea, vomiting, sensory and motor block, pain score, additional analgesic requirement, sedation, and patient satisfaction were registered immediately after the surgical operation and on the first, second, and third postoperative days. We did not detect any differences in the incidence of side-effects such as changes in arterial pressure, and also postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. The three groups were also similar with regard to patient characteristics, sensory and motor block, pain score, analgesic rescue dose, sedation, and patient satisfaction. The same dose of a mixture of levobupivacaine and sufentanil administered in three different volumes and concentrations during continuous thoracic epidural infusion for thoracotomy provided an equal incidence of adverse haemodynamic effects, nausea, vomiting, or pruritus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据