Desafíos Digitales


Preguntas desafiantes con respuestas alternativas. Corrobore la suya.

Introducción

Table 2. Hemodynamic data.
Data are mean ± SD. * Significant (p < 0.05) difference into the group at different times; § significant (p < 0.05) difference between groups at same time of study.
Abbreviations: T0 = baseline; T1 = 2 min after induction; T2 = 2 min after intubation; T3 = 2 min after sternotomy; T4 = 2 min after weaning from CPB; T5 = end of surgery; T6 = 2 hr after end of surgery; A = group alfentanil; S = group sufentanil; AS = group alfentanil + sufentanil; HR = heart rate in bpm; MAP = mean arterial pressure in mmHg; mPAP = mean pulmonary artery pressure in mmHg; CVP = central venous pressure in mmHg; PCWP = pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in mmHg; CI = cardiac index in L . min . m-2; SVI = stroke volume index in ml . beat-1 . m-2; LVSWI = left ventricular stroke work index in gm . beat-1 . m-2; SVRI = systemic vascular resistance index in dyne . sec-1 . cm-5 . m2; PVRI = pulmonary vascular resistance index in dyne . sec-1 . cm-5 . m2.
Statistics
Randomization was performed by a computerized procedure of sequential allocation. Preoperative and intraoperative data of the patients were compared using chi-square analysis. The hemodynamic data were compared among time points using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by paired t-test within each group. For all tests, was set at 0.05, and a Bonferroni adjustment was used for multiple pairwise comparisons. Comparisons for each variable between the three groups were made using ANOVA by applying split plot model to evaluate group-time interaction. The results are expressed as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 7.5 program for Windows (Chicago, IL).
Results
The groups were comparable with respect to age, weight, body surface area and left ventricular ejection fraction (Table 1). There were no significant differences among the groups with respect to preoperative medications.
Hemodynamic data and their significant differences are shown in Table 2. There was a reduction of HR at induction in all three groups (p < 0.05), but more pronounced in Group A and AS. Respect to baseline, HR had a different conduct: in Group A, HR was reduced throughout the study period, whereas in Group S and AS was higher, especially at the end of surgery. These modifications were not significantly different into the each group, but significant differences between groups were present at T2-T6 (p < 0.05). Same modification occurred to MAP at induction in all three groups, but, in Group S, MAP increased at intubation (p < 0.05). During the study period MAP, mPAP, CVP and PCWP did not change compared to baseline. CI diminished at induction in all three groups (p < 0.05), but without any consequences: this reduction was permanent in Group A during the study time also if without statistical significance, whereas, in Group S and AS, initially decreased and returned to baseline at T6. SVI was reduced in Group A and S at induction and intubation (p < 0.05), while it was more stable in Group AS. There was a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between groups at the same time (T2 in Group AS and T5 in Group A). LVSWI diminished in all groups at T2 (p < 0.05). SVRI increased in all groups at induction and intubation, reaching statistical significance at T2 in Group S (p < 0.05) and at T3 in Group A (p < 0.05). Only in Group AS, SVRI at T6 was similar to baseline. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between groups at the same time point: T2 ( p < 0.05 in Group AS) and T3 ( p < 0.05 in Groups S and AS). PVRI minimally increased at induction (p < 0.05 in Group AS), but was stable during the study period in Group S and AS. In Group A, PVRI was higher at T3 compared to baseline (p < 0.05). A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between groups at the same time point was reached at T1 in Group S, at T3 in Groups S and AS, and at T4 in Group S.
Computerized ST-segment monitoring and hemodynamic modifications did not meet criteria to define myocardial ischemia. No difference between three groups for duration of CPB, aortic clamp, and surgery was observed. Number of hypertensive crises, collected in the study time intervals, was similar in each group (7 pts in Group A; 9 pts in Group S and 7 pts in Group AS) and did not show statistical significance (Table 3).
#IMAGEN = tritat3.jpg">
Significant difference between three groups occurred with regard to extubation time: Group AS (p < 0.001) was extubed faster (2.3 ± 1.2 hrs) than Group A (4.2 ± 1.7 hrs) and S (3.1 ± 1.1 hrs; p < 0.05) (Table 4). Length of stay in the ICU was lower in Group AS (p < 0.05) than in Group A and S; hospital discharge and outcome of patients were similar in the groups (Tables 4 and 5), also if in Group A (p < 0.05) there were more patients (n = 13) treated with infusion of dopamine (4.5 ± 1.8 μg/kg/min) at the end of CPB. There was neither awareness during anesthesia nor intraoperative recall. The patients early extubated were 91% in Group A, 92% in Group S and 94% in Group AS. No patients were re-intubated for gas-exchange failure. Data about extubation are showed in Table 6.
#IMAGEN = tritat4.jpg">
#IMAGEN = tritat5.jpg">
#IMAGEN = tritat6.jpg">
Discussion
Reducing hospital stay and minimizing costs have been of uppermost importance in the last years in cardiac surgery.9 Early extubation and new surgical approaches are some aspects of “fast-track” procedure and reduce ICU and hospital stay.10,11 In particular, early extubation anesthesia protocols in cardiac surgery are feasible and safe.12,13 Generally, it is believed that an inhalation-based technique is the key of “fast-track” anesthesia.14 However, inhalation agents produce hemodynamic instability and supplemental intrathecal or thoracic epidural analgesia15,16 is often needed intra- and postoperatively. The inconstant results and frequency of side effects with this technique suggest caution for a routine use in cardiac surgery.
Recent pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling techniques have changed our concepts of intravenous anesthesia, in particular regarding the use of opioids.8,17 By increasing the precision of titrating the dose of these agents, we can maintain the minimum therapeutic concentrations reducing side effects.7,18 To understand drug kinetics modeling, the first concept to access is the biophase, i.e. the site of action.17 The time required for steady concentration of the drugs in blood and biophase is fast for alfentanil and remifentanil (1-1.2 min respectively), and intermediate for fentanyl and sufentanil (4-6 min).19 To obtain a constant, stable drug effect, a constant drug concentration in the biophase should be achieved. By infusion, rather than by repeated bolus injection, the observed drug effect in the biophase more closely parallels plasmatic concentration.8 Opioid agents, used in the past in high or very-high doses, provide profound analgesia with hemodynamic stability, positive balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand, and preservation of circulatory autoregulation in organs.1-3 Several studies have reported that large doses of fentanyl effectively prevent HR and arterial pressure increase due to laringoscopy and intubation. However, they may cause hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, skeletal muscle rigidity, and delayed recovery.20,21 Alfentanil shows about one-fifth the potency of fentanyl, it has a shorter action and a faster onset-to-peak effect, but its the context-sensitive half-time following a two-hour infusion is 51 min.19 Alfentanil is not short-acting after two hours of infusion, and may be even longer-acting than fentanyl.22
Sufentanil is 7-10 times more potent than fentanyl. It has a higher affinity for stereospecific receptor-binding sites, but shows minimal binding to nonspecific sites23 and a slower dissociation rate from the receptor. Sufentanil and fentanyl have similar onset times, but the half-time of sufentanil is shorter, particularly when given in multiple boli or continuous infusion.8 The elimination half-life of sufentanil (140-200 min) is shorter than that of fentanyl (150-400 min)19 and when given in doses of 10-25 μg/kg, as a single agent for induction in cardiac and major vascular surgery, it improves outcome,24 but some authors were unable to define plasma concentrations associated with safe intubation and sternotomy.25 There is some evidence that, in cardiac surgery, sufentanil decreases hypertension and tachycardia events, provides better intraoperative stability, reduces myocardial oxygen consumption, and reduces postoperative respiratory depression compared to fentanyl.2
Remifentanil is a new opioid that undergoes extensive hepatic and extrahepatic breakdown by non-specific tissue and blood esterases, and therefore has a rapid clearance and short duration of action.26 The short context-sensitive half-time of remifentanil is considered a potential advance in “fast tracking” patients undergoing CABG.27 As remifentanil rapidly produces hypotension, bradycardia, apnea and muscle rigidity,19,28 it should be best given as a short infusion (over 1 min) rather than as a bolus and patients should be pre-treated with anticholinergics.19 In cardiac surgery it should be associated with adequate postoperative analgesic medications, to treat severe chest pain and to avoid potentially dangerous sympathetic cardiovascular reactions.29 However, ketorolac, paracetamol and tramadol are not devoid of side effects as increase of bleeding, hepatic disturbances, and moderate but significant respiratory depression.30 The association of low dose opioids and propofol seems to be the best choice for induction and maintenance of anesthesia as they provide intraoperative hemodynamic stability, early extubation and fast ICU discharge, and prevent administration of supplementary and potentially dangerous drugs, until extubation.31,32
In our study, as reported in Table 2, intraoperative hemodynamic stability has been reached by each anesthesia protocol. Differences between the three groups were observed at induction and intubation due to different context-sensitive half-time of alfentanil and sufentanil.19 For its faster onset-to-peak effect, alfentanil is preferred to sufentanil or fentanyl at the induction of anesthesia, to blunt the circulatory responses to tracheal intubation.33,34 In our patients, in fact, HR and MAP were more stable in Group A and AS. On the other hand, from the literature, sufentanil seems to be more protective against the hyperdynamic responses to surgical stimuli2. The hemodynamic profile of Group S and AS was similar to Group A, with the exception of CI, that was lower in Group A. Considering the lower values of SVRI and higher MAP at the end of surgery, the change in CI should be attributable to variations in HR. The sequential administration of alfentanil and sufentanil may minimize the side effects of each agent and reduce the intubation time in the ICU.8 The combination of vagomimetic properties of alfentanil19 and hypotension effect of propofol, may cause a vasoplegic effect that required, in Group A, the postoperative use of dopamine, which, however, did not cause any consequences. In accordance with the specific properties of the drugs used, no patient required analgesic supplement until extubation, compared to other series in which remifentanil was used.19,30 Between the patients early extubated, none required reintubation, all remained overnight in the ICU and were discharged the following morning. The most important goal in our strategy was the hemodynamic stability, that was achieved by the use of opioids in the perioperative period. Our preference to combine alfentanil and sufentanil was to minimize the side effects of these opioids, preventing hyperdynamic reaction to induction and intubation, that may occur when opioids are used alone and in reduced dose.2,25
Another important goal was to perform early extubation without exaggerated hyperdynamic responses.6,27 The lower intubation time of Group AS compared to Group A and S, was related to the kinetic of sufentanil compared to alfentanil when used in infusion.19 The context-sensitive half-times for alfentanil and sufentanil following two hours infusion are 51 and 21 minutes, respectively,8 and the elimination half-life (t1/2β) of alfentanil is three times longer than normal after CPB due to an increase in its distribution volume (Vd). A decrease of protein-bound plasmatic alfentanil, due to CPB-related hemodilution, contributed to the change in Vd.5 Using a computer-simulated pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic model, Shafer and Varvel8 predicted for sufentanil a relative short context-sensitive half-time (30 to 60 min), that is not modified by the duration of infusion (1 to 10 hours) due to a large Vd, which cannot be completely filled during infusion. In spite of its long terminal half-life for sufentanil, it may be predicted a more rapid recovery time.8 In our patients, the shortest time of intubation in Group AS, in which alfentanil was administered at the induction of anesthesia, granted hemodynamic stability without any pharmacological supplementation. Accordingly, sufentanil infusion was probably not enough to fill the large Vd, allowing a faster recovery from anesthesia. While the differences between groups regarding extubation time, ICU length of stay, and some hemodynamic data were statistically significant, the differences were clinically minor (and overall outcome was equivalent). Moreover, all three anesthetic protocols were proven to be safe and appropriate for patients undergoing elective CABG and early postoperative tracheal extubation. The sequential use of alfentanil and sufentanil for CABG seems to be the nearest neighbour to high opioid dose, that was the most widely used protocol in cardiovascular anesthesia in the eighties.1-3
Limits
In this study, the plasma concentration of opioids was not measured and the infusion rate was guided by clinical signs of adequate anesthesia. Although propofol target-controlled infusion allows safe and adequate administration,31 we have used a low standard dose because the synergistic action of opioids prevents intraoperative awareness or signs of inadequate anesthesia.

 

La respuesta correcta se infiere al leer atentamente el trabajo:

COMBINACION DE OPIOIDES EN EL INJERTO DE DERIVACION ARTERIAL CORONARIA

Programa SIIC  de Eduación Médica Contínua (PEMC-SIIC)

ua40317
Home

Copyright siicsalud © 1997-2024 ISSN siicsalud: 1667-9008