Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the tolerance of Ro 15-1788, a specific benzodiazepine antagonist, in reversing the effects of midazolam. Six healthy male volunteers (mean age 32 +/- 3 years; mean weight 75.5 +/- 5 kg) took part in this study. Two of the three following drugs: midazolam (0.15 mg X kg-1), Ro 15-1788 (0.1 mg X kg-1) or placebo, diluted in 10 ml isotonic saline, were injected intravenously in 15 s at 5 min intervals in a double-blind manner in each subject during six randomized sessions: midazolam-placebo; Ro-placebo; placebo-midazolam; placebo-Ro; midazolam-Ro; Ro-midazolam. At least four days were allowed between each session for each subject. The evaluation of the effects on the central nervous system was as follows. At the time of injection of the first drug and, if possible, at the time of injection of the second drug, the subject was asked to count aloud to 150. The following variables were timed: start of dysarthria, cessation of counting, abolition and duration of absence of the ciliary reflex and duration of induced sleep. Retrograde and anterograde amnesia were evaluated by the recall of a playing card and a number. Haemodynamic effects (variations of systolic and diastolic pressures and pulses rate) as well as respiratory ones (apnoea) were also studied.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The central nervous and cardiovascular effects of midazolam 0.15 mg kg-1 were studied in 20 healthy, unpremedicated volunteers (10 male and 10 female). No important side-effects were noted and the venous tolerance to midazolam was excellent. Three minutes after injection mean systolic arterial pressure decreased from 121 +/- (SEM) 2 mm Hg to 115 +/- (SEM) 2 mm Hg and diastolic pressure from 78 +/- 2 to 70 +/0 2 mm Hg (P < 0.05), and these effects persisted for at least 20 min. Heart rate increased from 77 +/- 4 beat min-1 to 90 +/- 3 and 88 +/- 3 beat min-1 and 3 min after the injection (P < 0.05). Anterograde amnesia (40 +/- 3 min duration) and drowsiness (lasting 128 +/- 23 min) were observed in all subjects. Loss of the eyelash reflex and apnoea were observed more often in the male group than in the female subjects. Midazolam 0.15 mg kg-1 was not sufficient to induce anaesthesia reliably in healthy unpremedicated volunteers.

The efficacy, usefulness and side effects of RO 15-1788 (RO), a specific benzodiazepine (BZD) antagonist, have been evaluated. Sixty-two patients (ASA I-III, mean age 72 +/- 9 yr) scheduled for urological surgery under regional anaesthesia and BZD sedation received placebo or RO in a randomized, double-blind fashion at the end of the procedure, following sedation with midazolam. When compared with placebo, RO improved alertness and collaboration for 15 min, and suppressed anterograde amnesia for 60 min. No major side effect was noted, although five patients became anxious after administration of RO. Two cases of a paradoxical reaction to midazolam were treated successfully by RO.

To determine the potential benefit of incentive spirometry, which has been advocated to prevent pulmonary complications after upper-abdominal surgery, we compared a group of patients receiving incentive spirometry to another group receiving no specialized postoperative respiratory care. Forty patients in the American Society of Anesthesiologists' class 1 and 2 who were undergoing cholecystectomy (through right subcostal incision) were included in the study and were randomly allocated to one of the two groups. Patients receiving incentive spirometry were encouraged by a specialized respiratory physiotherapist to breathe deeply for five minutes hourly, 12 times daily, for three postoperative days. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in the radiologic evidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, arterial oxygen pressure, spirometric measurement, and clinical evaluation at the second or fourth postoperative day (or both). In particular, deterioration on the chest x-ray film at the fourth postoperative day was observed in eight of 20 patients in the group receiving incentive spirometry and in six of 20 in the control group. Our study confirms the postoperative deterioration of respiratory function after upper-abdominal surgery and demonstrates the lack of therapeutic values of incentive spirometry in these patients at low risk for pulmonary complications.