Biomedical subjects

M T Fent

Publications and source records attributed to M T Fent.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Urapidil does not prevent postanesthetic shivering: a dose-ranging study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of 0.2 mg x kg(-1), 0.3 mg x kg(-1) and 0.4 mg x kg(-1) urapidil on the incidence and severity of postanesthetic shivering. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients (ASA I-III) scheduled for elective abdominal, urologic or orthopedic surgery under standardized general anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of five groups (each group n=30) using a double-blind protocol: group A received 0.2 mg x kg(-1) urapidil, group B: 0.3 mg x kg(-1) urapidil, group C: 0.4 mg x kg(-1) urapidil, group D: 3 microg x kg(-1) clonidine (positive control group), and group E: saline 0.9% as placebo (negative control group). Postanesthetic shivering was scored using a five-point scale. RESULTS: Twelve patients of group A, 11 of group B, nine of group C, three of group D and 14 of group E showed signs of postanesthetic shivering. Postanesthetic shivering was significantly decreased in the clonidine group compared to the three urapidil groups and the placebo group. Significantly less patients treated with clonidine needed anti-shivering therapy. There were no significant differences between the urapidil and placebo groups. Therapeutic interventions for hemodynamic effects were not required in any group. Time to extubation, but not time to discharge, was prolonged in the clonidine group. CONCLUSION: Urapidil showed no beneficial effect on shivering in any of the doses evaluated, whereas prophylactic administration of clonidine was effective in preventing postanesthetic shivering.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Placebo-controlled comparison of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we compared the efficacy of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing hysterectomy. METHODS: Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups: group A (n = 50) received 50 mg dolasetron orally, group B (n = 50) received 20 mg metoclopramide intravenously and placebo orally, group C (n = 50) received placebo orally. If patients complained of retching or vomiting, or if patients demanded an antiemetic, 1.25 mg droperidol was administrated intravenously. To quantify postoperative nausea and vomiting the following score was used: 0 = no nausea, 1 = nausea, 2 = retching, 3 = single vomiting, 4 = multiple vomiting. The Raatz test was used to analyse postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores. RESULTS: Dolasetron reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score significantly (P < 0.02 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Metoclopramide also reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score (P < 0.02 vs. placebo). Fisher's exact test showed a significant reduction of vomiting in the dolasetron group compared with metoclopramide-treated patients (P < 0.007) and placebo-treated patients (P < 0.000006) and a significantly lower rate of nausea in comparison to the placebo group (P < 0.009). There were no significant differences between the metoclopramide and the placebo groups (in Fisher's exact test). The use of postoperative droperidol per patient was significantly lower in the dolasetron group (P < 0.04 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo) than in the metoclopramide (P < 0.02 vs. placebo) and in the placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral dolasetron is more effective than either metoclopramide given intravenously or placebo for preventing vomiting after hysterectomy. It also was significantly superior to either metoclopramide or placebo concerning the PONV score and the need for droperidol rescue.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2001

Effects of postoperative sedation with propofol and midazolam on pancreatic function assessed by pancreatitis-associated protein.

This prospective randomised controlled study evaluated the effects of postoperative sedation with propofol and midazolam on pancreatic function. We studied 42 intensive care unit patients undergoing elective major surgery who were expected to be sedated postoperatively. Patients were randomly assigned to a propofol group (n = 21) or a midazolam group (n = 21). To assess pancreatic function, the following parameters were measured: pancreatitis-associated protein, amylase, lipase, cholesterol and triglyceride prior to start of sedation on the intensive care unit, 4 h after the sedation was started and at the first postoperative day. Patients in the propofol group received on average (SD) 1292 (430) mg propofol and were sedated for 9.03 (4.26) h. The midazolam group received 92 (36) mg midazolam and were sedated for 8.81 (4.68) h. Plasma cholesterol concentrations did not differ significantly between groups. Triglyceride plasma levels 4 h after the start of infusion were significantly higher in the propofol group (140 (54) mg.dl(-1)) than the midazolam-treated patients (81 (29) mg.dl(-1)), but were within normal limits. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding amylase, lipase and pancreatitis-associated protein plasma concentrations at any time. No markers of pancreatic dysfunction were outside the normal range. We conclude that postoperative sedation with propofol induced a significant increase of serum triglyceride levels but that pancreatic function is unchanged with standard doses of propofol.

Acute-Phase Proteins↗