Skip to main content

Quid novi in the eldery patient’s anesthesia

Background

Today the availability of new local anesthetics and the use of analgesics, allow the modulation of the analgesia, maintaining a state of consciousness.

An answer to the needs of patients >75 years undergoing surgery is the technique Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC), defined “the middle land” (Figure 1).

Figure 1
figure1

Monitored anestesia care

MAC allows:

  • the modulation of the level of analgesia at different stages of surgery due to the availability of analgesic action, but with rapid onset-time

  • the additional analgesia using local anesthetics with prolonged effect without the use of noradrenaline, dangerous for elderly patients

the consciousness and cooperation of the patient (Table 1).

Table 1 MAC.

Materials and methods

With this study we tested the efficacy, safety and limitations of the MAC.

The design of the study was a prospective, double-blind, parallel-group, with 42 patients randomly selected from 87 patients recruited between those eligible for inclusion in the circuit one-day surgery (Table 2)

Table 2 Patients’ criteria of homogeneity.

Two groups were subjected to two different regimes of sedation with propofol and midazolam, pain controlled with remifentanil.

  • Primary end-point was verifying the level and quality of sedation achieved

  • Secondary end-point was identifying and quantifying potential adverse effects (Table 3-4)

Table 3 Access Criteria.
Table 4 Exclusion Criteria.

Levels of sedation, pain and mental status were assessed using different clinical approaches :

  • Observational data (Table 5).

Table 5 Observer’ s assessment of alertness/sedation scale (oaa/s scale).

We proceeded as follows:

  1. 1)

    O2 inhalation (SpO2 > 98 and normocapnia)

  2. 2)

    during surgical manipulation a continuous infusion of remifentanil: 0.03 to 0.06 mg / kg / h was activated

Patients were randomly dichotomized into two arms with two different infusion regimens:

  • group P (45 patients): starter bolus of 0.5 mg / kg propofol (to fill the central compartment) → P infusion of 1-2 mg / kg / h (to offset the rapid deployment)

  • group M (41 patients): bolus starter from 0.03 to 0.05 mg / kg midazolam (average dose of 2-4 mg) infusion of 1-2 mg / kg / h

Every 10 m’ scores are recorded, BIS and OAA / S scale.

  • objective parameters based on Ramsay Scale (Table 6).

Table 6 Ramsay Scale.
  • Instrumental response with Bispectral Index (Table 789)

Table 7 Average values of clinical and instrumental group P.
Table 8 Average values of clinical and instrumental group M.
Table 9 Propofol, Midazolam, Remifentanil during MAC.

Conclusions

The combination midazolam-remifentanil presented a lower synergistic effect compared with propofol-remifentanil. The first fact documented a mean BIS of 62.5 +3 vs. 64.7 +4 midazolam-remifentanil association and has finally, although sporadic, incidents of desaturation content and never > 30%. The evaluation of the kinetic values of BIS, the interesting fact that emerges concerns the values> 70, which represented a significant predictor in the study to better recovery of consciousness, which has helped the fast-traking ongoing day-surgery.

References

  1. 1.

    Kenny DN: Patient sedation: technical problems and developements. Eur J Anesth. 1996, 13: 18-21. discussion 22-5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Liu J, Singh H, White PF: EEG: BIS correlates with intraoperative recall and depth of propofol induced sedation. Anesth Analg. 1997, 84 (1): 185-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Dexter F, Aker J, Wright WA: Development of a measure of patient satisfaction with monitored anesthesia care:the Jawa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale. Anesthesiology. 1997, 87 (4): 865-73. 10.1097/00000542-199710000-00021.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Murdoch JA, Hyde RA, Kenny GN: Target-controlled remifentanyl in combination with propofol for spontaneously breathing day-care patients. Anaesth. 1999, 54 (11): 1028-31. 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00951.x.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rego JA, White MM: What is new in monitored anesthesia care?. Anesth. 1998, 11: 601-6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Corck RC, Guillory EA: Effect of patient –controlled sedation on recovery from ambulatory monitored anesthesia care. An J Anesth. 1995, 22 (2): 94-100.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Twersy SR: The ambulatory anesthesia handbook. St. Louis, Ed.Mosby. 1997

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B Lettieri.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lettieri, B., Mingione, M., d’Elia, A. et al. Quid novi in the eldery patient’s anesthesia. BMC Geriatr 11, A26 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-S1-A26

Download citation

Keywords

  • Midazolam
  • Local Anesthetic
  • Remifentanil
  • Central Compartment
  • Potential Adverse Effect