Search

UNLABELLED We used a randomized, controlled, double-blinded design to study the effect of ondansetron (OND) pretreatment on the pain produced by the IV injection of propofol. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group I received 2 mL of IV 0.9% saline pretreatment, and Group II received OND (4 mg in 2 mg/mL solution) pretreatment in the dorsum of the hand, followed by propofol 1 min later. Pain was reduced significantly in the OND group (P

Pain on injection of propofol is a common problem, the cause of which remains unknown. The chemical properties and preparation of propofol, proposed mechanisms for the cause of the pain and clinical strategies to prevent pain on injection of propofol are reviewed in the hope of shedding some light on the subject.

A controlled, randomised double-blind study was performed to compare the prior intravenous administration of ketamine 10 mg (1 ml) or 0.9% saline (1 ml) on propofol injection pain. One hundred patients of ASA status 1 or 2 presenting for gynaecological surgery were studied. Following an initial 5-ml bolus of propofol into a dorsal hand vein, 30 s after the treatment, 84% of the saline control patients experienced mild or severe pain compared to 26% of those who were given ketamine pretreatment (p < 0.05).

Study Objective: To investigate if the use of a new double lumen IV set (DLIS) decreases the incidence of propofol injection pain compared with single lumen IV set (SLIS) administration. Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Setting: Operating rooms in a university hospital. Patients: 50 adult ASA physical status I and II patients of both genders undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery. Interventions: Patients were injected with propofol either through a DLIS or a SLIS. Measurements and Main Results: Three different pain indices were recorded to be present or absent: (1) verbal report of pain during propofol injection, (2) grimacing during propofol injection, and (3) recall of injection pain in the recovery room. When the DLIS was used, the incidence of verbal pain, grimacing during propofol injection, and recall of pain during recovery were lowered significantly by 53%, 46%, and 52 %, respectively (chi square analysis of contingency table with Yates correction, p Conclusions: The DLIS significantly reduced the incidence of propofol injection pain compared with SLIS. Further studies are indicated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this device.

This study investigated propofol injection pain in patients undergoing ambulatory anaesthesia. In a randomized, double-blind trial, 90 women were allocated to receive one of three treatments prior to induction of anaesthesia with propofol. Patients in Group C received 2 ml normal saline, Group L, 2 ml, lidocaine 2% (40 mg) and Group T, 2 ml thiopentone 2.5% (50 mg). Venous discomfort was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS) 5-15 sec after commencing propofol administration using an infusion pump (rate 1000 micrograms.kg-1.min-1). Loss of consciousness occurred in 60-90 sec. Visual analogue scores (mean +/- SD) during induction were lower in Groups L (3.3 +/- 2.5) and T (4.1 +/- 2.7) than in Group C (5.6 +/- 2.3); P = 0.0031. The incidence of venous discomfort was lower in Group L (76.6%; P0.05) than in Group C (100%) but not different from Group T (90%). The VAS scores for recall of pain in the recovery room were correlated with the VAS scores during induction (r = 0.7045; P0.0001). Recovery room discharge times were similar: C (75.9 +/- 19.4 min); L 73.6 +/- 21.6 min); T (77.1 +/- 18.9 min). Assessing their overall satisfaction, 89.7% would choose propofol anaesthesia again. We conclude that lidocaine reduces the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain in ambulatory patients whereas thiopentone only reduces its severity.

Pain is a well known complication of propofol injection. Premixing with lignocaine 0.1 mg.kg−1 and injection into a large forearm vein has been recommended. The amount of lignocaine to be added is often empirical when the vein on the dorsum of the hand is used. In this study we attempt to determine the optimal amount of lignocaine necessary to reduce pain when propofol is injected into a hand vein. Our study shows that a propofol emulsion containing 0.05% lignocaine is effective in reducing the incidence of propofol injection pain. The addition of lignocaine also reduces the incidence of excitatory effects. Increasing the dosage of lignocaine above 0.05% does not improve the results.

Adequately studied, but inadequately managed P Marazzi/SPL Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic drug used to provide sedation or anaesthesia in operating rooms, critical care units, and emergency departments. Its popularity is not surprising. It has a rapid onset, is easily titrated, allows a smooth emergence from anaesthesia,1 and has other benefits such as preventing nausea or vomiting⇑.2 Propofol has serious side effects including hypotension and respiratory depression.1 However, these risks are well understood and readily mitigated when it is administered by experienced clinicians in appropriate environments. Pain after intravenous injection is one of the most common adverse effects but is much less well understood and poorly managed. In the linked systematic review and meta-analysis (doi:10.1136/bmj.d1110), Jalota and colleagues compared the effects of different interventions for the prevention of pain after propofol injection.3 Pain occurs in 70% of untreated patients,4 and it has been ranked by expert anaesthesiologists as the third most common avoidable adverse event related to anaesthesia.5 A previous systematic review found that a modified Bier’s block was the most effective intervention for preventing …

Background: Pain is a common side-effect of propofol injection. A remifentanil pretreatment has been reported to decrease the incidence and intensity of pain during a propofol injection and has been suggested to act through a central or peripheral effect. This trial was designed to explore the action site of remifentanil on reducing propofol injection pain, using the venous occlusion technique and a time interval between the applications of remifentanil and propofol. Methods: This randomized, double-blind study was designed to explore the action site of remifentanil on reducing propofol injection pain in 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery. The peripheral properties were examined using the venous occlusion technique for 30 s while a 1 min time interval between remifentanil and propofol injections was allowed for the central effect. Before the propofol injection, group A was pretreated with remifentanil (0.5 μg/ kg) with a venous occlusion, group B with remifentanil and a 1 min interval, and group C with remifentanil with a venous occlusion and a 1 min interval. Pain severity was assessed using a four-point scale. Results: 40 patients (80%) complained of pain in the placebo group compared with 35 (70%) in group A, 20 (40%) in group B (p < 0.05) and 17 (34%) in group C (p < 0.05). The incidence and severity of propofol injection pain were lower in groups B and C than in group A (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between groups B and C. Conclusions: The remifentanil mediated analgesic effect occurs mainly through the central effect.

Propofol has a high incidence of pain with injection, particularly into small veins. We sought to determine whether concomitant administration of lidocaine could prevent this pain. In a randomized double-blind trial, 368 women were allocated to one of four groups to receive 19 mL of propofol mixed with either 1 mL of 0.9% saline, 1 mL of 0.5% (5 mg) lidocaine, 1 mL of 1% (10 mg) lidocaine, or 1 mL of 2% (20 mg) lidocaine. The pain of injection was scored as none, mild, moderate, or severe. There was a significant reduction in the overall incidence of pain from 73% with saline to 32% with 20 mg lidocaine. A highly significant negative dose-response relationship between the dose of lidocaine and the severity of pain was demonstrable, both at induction of anesthesia and as recalled in the recovery room (P less than 0.001 for both). Lidocaine (20 mg IV) will significantly reduce the incidence and severity of pain with propofol injection, but about 6% of patients will still suffer unpleasant pain if the dorsum of the hand is used.

Background: Propofol produces anesthesia with rapid recovery but also causes pain on injection. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of two different concentrations of remifentanil for minimizing the pain caused by propofol and to compare the hemodynamic changes during propofol-remifentanil infusion. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind study of 80 patients, we compared the severity of the injection pain of propofol between two groups of patients. The initial effect-site target concentration of remifentanil was set at 4 ng/ml (the R4 group, n = 40) or 8 ng/ml (the R8 group, n = 40). After the effect-site concentration of remifentanil was achieved, the infusion of propofol was started with the concentration of 4 μg/ml. The remifentanil-related complications were evaluated and the severity of the pain caused by propofol was compared by using a four-point scale during the propofol infusion. The heart rate and arterial blood pressure were measured at pre-induction, just before intubation and at 1 minute after intubation. Results: The severity of injection pain of propofol was significantly lower in the R8 group than in the R4. There was no significant difference in the incidence of remifentanil-related complications between the two groups. Compared with the pre-induction values, the heart rate and arterial blood pressure were significantly lower at pre-intubation and at 1 minute after intubation in the R4 and R8 groups. Conclusions: Pretreatment with an effect-site concentration of 8 ng/ml remifentanil may be useful for minimizing the propofol injection pain compared with 4 ng/ml remifentanil. (Korean J Anesthesiol 2009; 57: 155∼60)

The temporomandibular joint can be dislocated during anesthesia as a result of excessive oral opening and direct laryngoscope handling. Occasionally, yawning can be observed during the induction of anesthesia with propofol. The forceful and voluntary yawning after a propofol injection can lead to a dislocation of the temporomandibular joint. We report a case of an anterior dislocation of the temporomandibular joint upon induction with propofol, which caused difficulties in mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation. Although intubation had been carried out successfully in this case, an unanticipated difficult airway can be confronted at anytime. Therefore, anesthesiologists should be aware of the management of a difficult airway and practice various methods according to a difficult airway algorithm.

A single-blind, randomised, controlled study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of three methods of preventing pain during injection of propofol on induction of anaesthesia. Patients were allocated randomly to receive unmodified propofol, propofol with 0.05% lignocaine, propofol at 4 degrees C and unmodified propofol preceded by 10 ml of 0.9% saline at 4 degrees C. Prior injection of cold saline reduced the incidence of pain and discomfort significantly (22%) compared with unmodified propofol (75%; p less than 0.005) and was similar to that after cold propofol (33%) and propofol with lignocaine (44%). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups.

Background : Induction of anesthesia with propofol commonly associated with reduction in systemic arterial pressure, especially in elderly and high risk patients. This reduction is influenced by the dose and rate of propofol injection. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of different injection rate of propofol on vital signs, dose requirement and induction time during induction period. Methods : Unpremedicated one hundred and twenty ASA physical status I and II patients aged 20∼60 years scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated into one of four(150, 300, 600, 1200 ml/hr) groups according to speed of injection of propofol during induction period. Loss of verbal contact was taken as the end-point of induction. Vital signs, SpO2, dose requirement of propofol and induction time were checked. Results : As the injection rate of propofol became slower, there were significant reduction in induction dose and increase in induction time(P

Summary A double-blind, randomised clinical study was undertaken to compare the effect of temperature on the incidence and severity of the pain experienced on injection of propofol. The number of patients who experienced pain and the severity of the pain were reduced significantly when propofol was administered at a temperature of 4°C. The efficacy of propofol as an induction agent appeared to remain unaltered.

The effect of diluting propofol in 5% dextrose on the incidence of i.v. injection pain was studied in 100 adult patients. Severe injection pain occurred in 32% (16 patients) who received undiluted propofol, compared with 10% (five patients) who received dilute propofol. We concluded that the dilution of propofol significantly reduced the incidence of severe pain during injection without increasing postoperative venous sequelae.

Summary Assessment of pain on injection of the emulsified formulation of di-isopropylphenol (propofol, ‘Diprivan’) was undertaken in 120 unpremedicated patients and comparison made with thiopentone. A high incidence of pain (37.5%) was found using dorsal hand veins, but use of forearm veins showed only a 2.5% incidence of pain. The use of intravenous lignocaine immediately before propofol injection only partially reduced the incidence of pain using dorsal hand veins (17.5%). A degree of cardiorespiratory depression accompanied induction but the incidence of other side effects was low.

Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of propofol as an alternative drug to amobarbital for the Wada test. Methods: The authors analyzed 67 right-handed patients out of 123 patients who were candidates for neurosurgical therapy and thus underwent the Wada test as a preoperative evaluation. Twelve were tested with propofol and 55 were tested with amobarbital. Test conditions of the Wada test, recovery time of muscle power to manual muscle testing (MMT) Grade 3 (T3/5) and Grade 5 (T5/5), onset time of the first verbal response (Tverb) after injection and that of the first nonverbal response (Tnon-verb), were compared between the two groups. Power spectrum analysis of EEG background activity during the Wada test was performed and the time and spatial distribution of polymorphic slow activities were also compared in three cases. Results: With propofol injection, lateralities of language and memory function were identified in 12 and 9 of 12 patients in comparison to amobarbital (52 and 41 of 55 patients detection in language and memory function). No complications with direct intracarotid injection of propofol were observed. T3/5 and T5/5 with propofol injection were shorter while Tverb and Tnon-verb were longer compared to amobarbital. Absolute power of polymorphic slow EEG waves gradually increased and then rapidly decreased with propofol, which was in contrast to amobarbital injection. Conclusions: With direct intracarotid propofol injection, the Wada test was satisfactorily performed in all 12 patients and 2 more patients with left-handedness or with different injection dose for each side without any complications. Clinical usefulness of propofol as an alternative drug to amobarbital for the Wada test was indicated.