Comparison of the Proseal, Supreme, and I-Gel SAD in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries

We compared proseal, supreme, and i-gel supraglottic airway devices in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressures and airway morbidities in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. One hundred and five patients undergoing elective surgery were subjected to general anesthesia after which they were randomly distributed into three groups. Although the oropharyngeal leak pressure was lower in the i-gel group initially (mean ± standard deviation; 23.9 ± 2.4, 24.9 ± 2.9, and 20.9 ± 3.5, resp.), it was higher than the proseal group and supreme group at 30 min of surgery after the trendelenburg position (25.0 ± 2.3, 25.0 ± 1.9, and 28.3 ± 2.3, resp.) and at the 60 min of surgery (24.2 ± 2.1, 24.8 ± 2.2, and 29.5 ± 1.1, resp.). The time to apply the supraglottic airway devices was shorter in the i-gel group (12.2 (1.2), 12.9 (1.0), and 6.7 (1.2), resp., P=0.001). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their fiber optic imaging levels. pH was measured at the anterior and posterior surfaces of the pharyngeal region after the supraglottic airway devices were removed; the lowest pH values were 5 in all groups. We concluded that initial oropharyngeal leak pressures obtained by i-gel were lower than proseal and supreme, but increased oropharyngeal leak pressures over time, ease of placement, and lower airway morbidity are favorable for i-gel

Clinical Study Comparison of the Proseal, Supreme, and I-Gel SAD in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries

We compared proseal, supreme, and i-gel supraglottic airway devices in terms of oropharyngeal leak pressures and airway morbidities in gynecological laparoscopic surgeries. One hundred and five patients undergoing elective surgery were subjected to general anesthesia after which they were randomly distributed into three groups. Although the oropharyngeal leak pressure was lower in the i-gel group initially (mean ± standard deviation; 23.9 ± 2.4, 24.9 ± 2.9, and 20.9 ± 3.5, resp.), it was higher than the proseal group and supreme group at 30 min of surgery after the trendelenburg position (25.0 ± 2.3, 25.0 ± 1.9, and 28.3 ± 2.3, resp.) and at the 60 min of surgery (24.2 ± 2.1, 24.8 ± 2.2, and 29.5 ± 1.1, resp.). The time to apply the supraglottic airway devices was shorter in the i-gel group (12.2 (1.2), 12.9 (1.0), and 6.7 (1.2), resp., = 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in terms of their fiber optic imaging levels. pH was measured at the anterior and posterior surfaces of the pharyngeal region after the supraglottic airway devices were removed; the lowest pH values were 5 in all groups. We concluded that initial oropharyngeal leak pressures obtained by i-gel were lower than proseal and supreme, but increased oropharyngeal leak pressures over time, ease of placement, and lower airway morbidity are favorable for i-gel

Performance of Size 1 I-Gel Compared with Size 1 ProSeal Laryngeal Mask in Anesthetized Infants and Neonates

Purpose. The size 1 I-gel, recommended for small infants and neonates weighing 2–5 kg, has recently been released. There are no prospective studies available that assess the insertion conditions, sealing pressures, or ventilation quality of it. This study was designed to compare the performance of recently released size 1 I-gel with size 1 ProSeal LMA. Methods. Fifty infants and neonates, ASA I-II were included in this prospective, randomized, and controlled study. Patients were divided into two groups for placing I-gel or ProSeal LMA. The primary outcome was airway leak pressure, and secondary outcomes included insertion time, insertion success and conditions, initial airway quality, fiberoptic view of the larynx, and complications. Results. There were no significant differences in terms of airway leak pressure between the I-gel (27.44±5.67) and ProSeal LMA (23.52±8.15) (P=0.054). The insertion time for the I-gel was shorter (12.6±2.19 s) than for the ProSeal LMA (24.2±6.059 s) (P=0.0001). Insertion success and conditions were similar in groups. We encountered few complications. Conclusion. Our study demonstrates that the size 1 I-gel provided an effective and satisfactory airway as the size 1 ProSeal LMA. It may be a good alternative supraglottic airway device for use in small infants and neonates. This trial is registered with: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01704118

Efeitos antimicrobianos de cetamina em combinação com propofol: um estudo in vitro

EXPERIÊNCIA E OBJETIVOS: Cetamina e propofol são os anestésicos gerais que também exibem efeitos antimicrobianos e promotores do crescimento microbiano, respectivamente. Embora esses agentes sejam frequentemente aplicados em combinação durante o uso clínico, não há dados sobre seu efeito total no crescimento microbiano na administração combinada. Nesse estudo, investigamos o crescimento de alguns microrganismos em uma mistura de cetamina e propofol. MÉTODO: Nesse estudo, utilizamos cepas padronizadas: Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa e Candida albicans. Realizamos uma análise de tempo-crescimento para avaliar as taxas de crescimento microbiano em propofol 1%. A atividade antimicrobiana de cetamina, isoladamente e em propofol, foi estudada pelo método de microdiluição. RESULTADOS: Em propofol, as cepas estudadas cresceram de concentrações de 10³-10(4) ufc/mL para > 10(5) ufc/mL, dentro de 8-16 horas, dependendo do tipo de microrganismo. Foram determinadas a concentração inibitória mínima (CIM) e a concentração bactericida mínima (CBM) (para Candida, concentração fungicida mínima) de cetamina, como se segue (CIM, CBM): E. coli 312,5, 312,5 µg/mL; S.aureus 19,5, 156 µg/mL; P. aeruginosa 312,5, 625 µg/mL; e C. albicans 156, 156 µg/mL. Na mistura cetamina + propofol, cetamina exibiu atividade antimicrobiana para E. coli, P. aeruginosa e C. albicans em CBMs a 1250, 625 e 625 µg/mL, respectivamente. O crescimento de S. aureus não foi inibido nessa mistura (concentração de cetamina = 1250 µg/mL). CONCLUSÃO: Cetamina preservou sua atividade antimicrobiana de maneira dose-dependente contra alguns microrganismos em propofol, que é robusta solução promotora de crescimento microbiano. O uso combinado de cetamina e propofol na aplicação clínica de rotina pode diminuir o risco de infecção causada por contaminação acidental. Entretanto, deve-se ter em mente que cetamina não pode reduzir todas as ameaças patogênicas na mistura com propofol

The antimicrobial effects of ketamine combined with propofol: An in vitro study

AbstractBackground and objectivesKetamine and propofol are the general anesthetics that also have antimicrobial and microbial growth-promoting effects, respectively. Although these agents are frequently applied together during clinical use, there is no data about their total effect on microbial growth when combined. In this study, we investigated some organisms’ growth in a ketamine and propofol mixture.MethodWe used standard strains including Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans in this study. Time-growth analysis was performed to assess microbial growth rates in 1% propofol. Antimicrobial activity of ketamine, alone and in propofol was studied with microdilution method.ResultsIn propofol, studied strains grew from 103-104 cfu/mL to ≥105 cfu/mL concentrations within 8-16hours depending on the type of organism. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) (for candida, minimal fungicidal concentration) of ketamine were determined as follows (MIC, MBC): E.coli 312.5, 312.5μg/mL; S.aureus 19.5, 156μg/mL; P.aeruginosa 312.5, 625μg/mL; and C.albicans 156, 156μg/ml. In ketamine+propofol mixture, ketamine exhibited antimicrobial activity to E.coli, P.aeruginosa and C.albicans as MBCs at 1250, 625 and 625μg/mL, respectively. Growth of S. aureus was not inhibited in this mixture (ketamine concentration=1250μg/mL).ConclusionKetamine has sustained its antimicrobial activity in a dose-dependent manner against some organisms in propofol, which is a strong microbial growth-promoting solution. Combined use of ketamine and propofol in routine clinical application may reduce the risk of infection caused by accidental contamination. However, one must keep in mind that ketamine cannot reduce all pathogenic threats in propofol mixture

Incidence of severe critical events in paediatric anaesthesia (APRICOT): a prospective multicentre observational study in 261 hospitals in Europe

Background Little is known about the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing general anaesthesia in Europe. We aimed to identify the incidence, nature, and outcome of severe critical events in children undergoing anaesthesia, and the associated potential risk factors. Methods The APRICOT study was a prospective observational multicentre cohort study of children from birth to 15 years of age undergoing elective or urgent anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures. Children were eligible for inclusion during a 2-week period determined prospectively by each centre. There were 261 participating centres across 33 European countries. The primary endpoint was the occurence of perioperative severe critical events requiring immediate intervention. A severe critical event was defined as the occurrence of respiratory, cardiac, allergic, or neurological complications requiring immediate intervention and that led (or could have led) to major disability or death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878760. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2015, 31â127 anaesthetic procedures in 30â874 children with a mean age of 6·35 years (SD 4·50) were included. The incidence of perioperative severe critical events was 5·2% (95% CI 5·0â5·5) with an incidence of respiratory critical events of 3·1% (2·9â3·3). Cardiovascular instability occurred in 1·9% (1·7â2·1), with an immediate poor outcome in 5·4% (3·7â7·5) of these cases. The all-cause 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 10 in 10â000. This was independent of type of anaesthesia. Age (relative risk 0·88, 95% CI 0·86â0·90; p<0·0001), medical history, and physical condition (1·60, 1·40â1·82; p<0·0001) were the major risk factors for a serious critical event. Multivariate analysis revealed evidence for the beneficial effect of years of experience of the most senior anaesthesia team member (0·99, 0·981â0·997; p<0·0048 for respiratory critical events, and 0·98, 0·97â0·99; p=0·0039 for cardiovascular critical events), rather than the type of health institution or providers. Interpretation This study highlights a relatively high rate of severe critical events during the anaesthesia management of children for surgical or diagnostic procedures in Europe, and a large variability in the practice of paediatric anaesthesia. These findings are substantial enough to warrant attention from national, regional, and specialist societies to target education of anaesthesiologists and their teams and implement strategies for quality improvement in paediatric anaesthesia. Funding European Society of Anaesthesiology