Search

This survey was designed to evaluate the use of autologous blood transfusion techniques in Germany in 2000 and to identify how the use of these techniques has changed over the past 5 years.Questionnaires were mailed to the chief anaesthesiologists of 400 randomly selected German hospitals with≥25 surgical beds. Information was sought about the current and past use of preoperative autologous blood donation (PABD), acute preoperative haemodilution and peri-operative blood salvage. Data were requested for the calendar year 2000.Three hundred and forty-three (86%) completed questionnaires were returned. PABD, haemodilution and peri-operative blood salvage were used by 85, 54 and 67% of respondents, respectively. Thirty-seven per cent of PABD users reported that PABD use declined, 28% reported that it increased and 34% reported that it remained unchanged over the past 5 years. The proportions of those reporting declining vs. increasing use of PABD did not differ significantly (P = 0·09). Sixty per cent of users of haemodilution reported that its use declined, 10% reported that it increased and 29% reported that it remained unchanged over the past 5 years. Sixteen per cent of hospitals that were equipped with cell-washing devices reported that the use of these devices declined, 47% reported that it increased and 37% reported that it remained unchanged over the past 5 years.The results indicate that autologous blood transfusion techniques were widely used in Germany in 2000, with PABD being the most common technique. The use of PABD did not change significantly, the use of haemodilution declined markedly and the use of peri-operative cell salvage increased markedly during the past 5 years before the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of a new galenic formulation of propofol (AM149 1%), which does not contain soyabean oil, with a standard formulation of propofol (Disoprivan 1%). In a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study, 30 healthy volunteers received a single intravenous bolus injection of 2.5 mg.kg-1 propofol. Plasma propofol levels were measured for 48 h following drug administration and evaluated according to a three-compartment model. The pharmacodynamic parameters assessed included induction and emergence times, respiratory and cardiovascular effects, and pain on injection. Patients were monitored for side effects over 48 h. Owing to a high incidence of thrombophlebitis, the study was terminated prematurely and only the data of the two parallel treatment groups (15 patients in each group) were analysed. Plasma concentrations did not differ significantly between the two formulations. Anaesthesia induction and emergence times, respiratory and cardiovascular variables showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups. Pain on injection (80 vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and thrombophlebitis (93.3 vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001) occurred more frequently with AM149 than with Disoprivan. Although both formulations had similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles the new formulation is not suitable for clinical use due to the high incidence of thrombophlebitis produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of a new galenic formulation of propofol (AM149 1%), which does not contain soyabean oil, with a standard formulation of propofol (Disoprivan® 1%). In a randomised, double-blind, cross-over study, 30 healthy volunteers received a single intravenous bolus injection of 2.5 mg.kg−1 propofol. Plasma propofol levels were measured for 48 h following drug administration and evaluated according to a three-compartment model. The pharmacodynamic parameters assessed included induction and emergence times, respiratory and cardiovascular effects, and pain on injection. Patients were monitored for side effects over 48 h. Owing to a high incidence of thrombophlebitis, the study was terminated prematurely and only the data of the two parallel treatment groups (15 patients in each group) were analysed. Plasma concentrations did not differ significantly between the two formulations. Anaesthesia induction and emergence times, respiratory and cardiovascular variables showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups. Pain on injection (80 vs. 20%, p < 0.01) and thrombophlebitis (93.3 vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001) occurred more frequently with AM149 than with Disoprivan®. Although both formulations had similar pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles the new formulation is not suitable for clinical use due to the high incidence of thrombophlebitis produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]