| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
From the Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Oliver Kunitz, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany. Phone: +49-241-8088179; Fax: +49-241-8082406; E-mail: oliver.kunitz{at}mutterhaus.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods: This randomized controlled trial was carried out in the Aachen University Hospital. Forty-two adult patients ASA I or II, aged 18 to 60 yr, were randomized to receive either xenon or propofol anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with propofol and remifentanil in both groups (each n = 21). The xenon group received xenon via facemask until an end-expiratory concentration of 60% was reached for one minute. Meanwhile, the acceleromyograph was calibrated and a train-of-four stimulation of the adductor pollicis muscle was started. After stabilization of the signal for five minutes, a single bolus of 0.16 mg·kg–1 mivacurium was injected. Anesthesia was maintained with xenon and remifentanil or with propofol and remifentanil.
Results: There were no significant differences between groups with respect to onset time (xenon 180 ± 64 vs propofol 195 ± 77 sec; P = 0.39), duration (xenon 16.18 ± 4.97 vs propofol 15.68 ± 6.17 min; P = 0.73), recovery index (xenon 5.63 ± 2.48 vs propofol 5.73 ± 2.12 min; P = 0.42) and clinical recovery (xenon 8.75 ± 2.57 vs propofol 9.28 ± 2.28 min; P = 0.22).
Conclusion: We conclude that the neuromuscular blocking effects of mivacurium are similar when given during propofol vs xenon anesthesia.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Forty-two patients were assessed for eligibility and were randomized. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by gender. Allocation concealment was ensured by enclosing assignments in sealed, sequentially numbered envelopes. The envelope was opened in the operating room before induction of anesthesia. In each group 21 patients were allocated to intervention. All received the allocated intervention. In the xenon group one patient was excluded from analysis, as the patient received further neuromuscular blocking agents due to surgical needs. In the propofol group one patient could not be analyzed due to a data transfer error. Patients were blinded, but blinding of the anesthesiologist and investigator was not possible because of the different routes of administration of the anesthetics (total iv anesthesia via infusion pump or inhaled anesthesia). Excluded were pregnant or breastfeeding women, patients with an expected difficult intubation, body weight more or less than 20% of ideal, any known allergies, use of medications known to interact with nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents, or neuromuscular diseases.
Monitoring included electrocardiography, pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure monitoring, capnography, end-tidal oxygen, and xenon determinations. The iv line and blood pressure cuff were placed on the arm contralateral to the neuromuscular monitoring.
Neuromuscular monitoring was performed using an acceleromyograph (TOF-Watch SX®, Organon International, Roseland, NJ, USA), in accordance with GCRP guidelines10 and the manufacturer’s instructions. Train-of-four (TOF) stimulation was used (supramaximal square wave impulse at 2 Hz every 15 sec, 200 µsec duration). Onset time was defined as the time of injection of mivacurium until 95% depression of the first twitch amplitude (T1) was reached. Duration T25 of neuromuscular recovery was defined as the beginning of injection of mivacurium to a 25% recovery of the first twitch. The recovery index T25–75 was defined as the time between 25% T1 and 75% T1 response of the TOF, and clinical recovery T25–0.8 as the time interval between T25 and a TOF ratio (T1/T4) of 0.8. Data were collected using the device specific accelograph software (TOF-Watch SX®, version 1.1).
Patients were premedicated with midazolam 7.5 mg orally, 45 min prior to induction. Anesthesia was induced intravenously with a single dose of propofol 2 mg·kg–1 and remifentanil 0.5 µg·kg–1 via an infusion pump, within 60 sec in both groups. Adjustments according to clinical needs were allowed (changes in blood pressure and heart rate more than ± 20%). Xenon administration was started via a facemask (xenon group). In the propofol group, the lungs were ventilated with oxygen/air (FIO2: 0.4). Xenon was administered using a closed circuit anesthesia machine (Physioflex®, Draeger, Lübeck, Germany) with modified software to reduce xenon consumption under minimal flow conditions.
Maintenance of anesthesia was achieved either by xenon (60% in O2 reflecting a MAC value of approximately 0.95, referring to a MAC of 63% xenon) or propofol (0.09–0.13 mg·kg–1·min–1, according to clinical needs), and remifentanil was titrated to clinical needs in both groups. After an end-expiratory concentration of 60% xenon was attained, and in the propofol group after induction, the automatic set up procedure of the TOF-Watch was performed to determine the supramaximal stimulus. TOF monitoring was started and, after stabilization of the signal for five minutes, mivacurium 0.16 mg·kg–1 (2 x ED95) was injected within five seconds. Intubation of the trachea was performed after the first twitch of the TOF reached 5% of control. Ventilation was adjusted to maintain an end-expiratory carbon dioxide concentration at 32 to 40 mmHg. Complete spontaneous recovery of neuromuscular block was attained in all patients before the end of surgery, and therefore, the anesthetic state was attained in all patients during the full spontaneous recovery period from neuromuscular blockade. No patient required an additional dose of neuromuscular blocking drug or pharmacological antagonism.
Sample size was calculated with a power of ß = 0.8 and a significance level of 
= 0.05, considering a clinically important difference of 20% in the recovery index as relevant. Mean values and standard deviation were taken from the onset time of our previous study analyzing neuromuscular effects of rocuronium.9 The sample size was estimated to be 21 patients in each group, including four additional patients to account for dropouts.
Demographic data were analyzed for homogeneity. Onset-time T5, duration T25, recovery index T25–75 and clinical recovery T25–0.8 are presented as mean, standard deviation, median, and interquartile range. Data were analyzed using a two-sided rank sum Wilcoxon test. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software version 8.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
). Anesthesia was induced with propofol 2.1 ± 0.28 mg·kg–1 and remifentanil 0.47 ± 0.06 µg·kg–1 (mean ± SD) in the xenon group and 2.05 ± 0.17 mg·kg–1 and 0.45 ± 0.06 µg·kg–1 in the propofol group (P = 0.74; P = 0.23). Hemodynamic variables remained stable, and normothermia (35.5–37°C) was maintained by use of warming blankets. The maintenance xenon concentration was 60.7 ± 2.4% while the mean propofol infusion rate was 0.11 ± 0.02 mg·kg–1·min–1. The remifentanil infusion rate was 0.2 ± 0.11 µg·kg–1·min–1 in the xenon group and 0.2 ± 0.10 µg·kg–1·min–1 in the propofol group (P = 0.51).
|
). No adverse events were observed during the course of the study.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Acceleromyography with TOF stimulation was used for neuromuscular monitoring according to GCRP guidelines for phase III studies.10 However, it is important to take into account variations of each method of neuromuscular monitoring (acceleromyography, mechanomyography and electromyography) and results from different methods shouldn’t be compared.11,12
The short equilibration time used in this study may be considered a possible disadvantage of our study design. Some demand a 30 to 40 min equilibration period of the muscular compartment when using inhaled anesthetics with a high blood-gas solubility, particularly for determination of infusion rates of neuromuscular blocking drugs.13 Xenon has the lowest blood-gas solubility of all inhaled anesthetics by a wide margin. The solubility of volatile anesthetics in muscle is influenced by body temperature and the patient’s age. Solubility of xenon in muscle is 0.082, and thus extremely low compared to values for middle aged adults for halothane (1.44 ± 0.17), enflurane (1.09 ± 0.10), isoflurane (1.52 ± 0.11), sevoflurane (1.08 ± 0.20), desflurane (0.62 ± 0.06), or nitrous oxide (0.54).14–16 Based upon these data, it can be assumed that equilibration of xenon in the muscle compartment is complete when a steady state end-expiratory concentration has been achieved.
We planned this study without measuring the pseudocholinesterase activity, since it is not measured routinely in the preoperative screening of patients. Furthermore, plasma cholinesterase, responsible for the metabolism of mivacurium17 is not inhibited by either propofol or xenon.18 No patient showed an unusual prolongation of recovery, suggesting pseudo-cholinesterase deficiency.
Previous studies by Kunitz9 and Nakata19 support our results. Nakata et al. demonstrated that 57% xenon had less influence on a vecuronium induced neuromuscular block, when compared with 1.6% sevoflurane. Onset times were similar, but 25% recovery of T1 was longer in the sevoflurane group (acceleromyography). T25–75 and T0.8 values were not measured.19
Kunitz and coworkers measured onset times, duration and recovery after a single bolus of 0.6 mg·kg–1 rocuronium, using an identical protocol to ours. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to onset time, duration, recovery index and clinical recovery.9
The use of inhaled anesthetics with a low blood-gas solubility such as xenon facilitate more rapid emergence and recovery. The combination of a short-acting opioid and a neuromuscular blocking drug of short duration, such as remifentanil and mivacurium, seem to be a reasonable combination to facilitate a rapid recovery from general anesthetic. In contrast to other inhaled anesthetics, xenon does not prolong neuromuscular blockade after a single dose of mivacurium.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication August 10, 2004. Revision accepted May 6, 2005.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
2 Lowry DW, Mirakhur RK, Carroll MT, McCarthy GJ, Hughes DA, O’Hare RA. Potency and time course of mivacurium block during sevoflurane, isoflurane and intravenous anesthesia. Can J Anesth 1999; 46: 29–33.
3 Wulf H, Hauschild S, Proppe D, Ledowski T. Augmentation of the neuromuscular blocking effects of mivacurium during inhalational anaesthesia with desflurane, sevoflurane and isoflurane compared with total intravenous anaesthesia (German). Anaesthesiol Reanim 1998; 23: 88–92.[Medline]
4 Wulf H, Kahl M, Ledowski T. Augmentation of the neuromuscular blocking effects of cisatrcurium during desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or total i.v. anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 308–12.
5 Goto T, Suwa K, Uezono S, Ichinose F, Uchiyama M, Morita S. The blood-gas partition coefficient of xenon may be lower than generally accepted. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 255–6.
6 Nakata Y, Goto T, Morita S. Comparison of inhalation inductions with xenon and sevoflurane. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 1157–61.[Medline]
7 Nakata Y, Goto T, Ishiguro Y, et al. Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of xenon with sevoflurane in humans. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 611–4.[Medline]
8 Rossaint R, Reyle-Hahn M, Schulte am Esch J, et al; for the Xenon Study Group. Multicenter randomized comparison of the efficacy and safety of xenon and isoflurane in patients undergoing elective surgery. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 6–13.[Medline]
9 Kunitz O, Baumert HJ, Hecker K, et al. Xenon does not prolong neuromuscular block of rocuronium. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 1398–401.
10 Viby-Mogensen J, Engbaek J, Eriksson LI, et al. Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40: 59–74.[Medline]
11 Harper NJ, Martlew R, Strang T, Wallace M. Monitoring neuromuscular block by acceleromyography: comparison of the Mini-Accelograph with the Myograph 2000. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72: 411–4.
12 Dahaba AA, Rehak PH, List WF. Assessment of accelerography with the TOF-GUARDTM: a comparison with electromyography. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997; 14: 623–9.[Medline]
13 Bock M, Klippel K, Nitsche B, Bach A, Martin E, Motsch J. Rocuronium potency and recovery characteristics during steady-state desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 43–7.
14 Lerman J, Schmitt-Bantel BI, Gregory GA, Willis MM, Eger EI II. Effect of age on the solubility of volatile anesthetics in human tissues. Anesthesiology 1986; 65: 307–11.[Medline]
15 Yeh SY, Peterson RE. Solubility of krypton and xenon in blood, protein solutions, and tissue homogenates. J Appl Physiol 1965; 20: 1041–7.
16 Zhou JX, Liu J. The effect of temperature on solubility of volatile anesthetics in human tissues. Anesth Analg 2001; 93: 234–8.
17 Savarese JJ, Ali HH, Basta SJ, et al. The clinical neuromuscular pharmacology of mivacurium chloride (BW B1090U). Anesthesiology 1988; 68: 723–32.[Medline]
18 Ishiguro Y, Kikuchi T, Etsuki H, et al. Does xenon anesthesia inhibit cholinesterases? An in vitro radiometric assessment. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 791–2.[Medline]
19 Nakata Y, Goto T, Morita S. Vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block during xenon or sevoflurane anaesthesia in humans. Br J Anaesth 1998; 80: 238–40.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. Coburn, O. Kunitz, C. C. Apfel, M. Hein, M. Fries, and R. Rossaint Incidence of postoperative nausea and emetic episodes after xenon anaesthesia compared with propofol-based anaesthesia Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2008; 100(6): 787 - 791. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
