Minimum Alveolar Concentration Needed to Block Adrenergic Response of Sevoflurane with Nitrous Oxide Varies Depending on the Stimulation Sites in Adult Surgical Patients

Abstract

Background We examined whether minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration needed to block adrenergic response (MAC-BAR) of sevoflurane with nitrous oxide (N2O) varies depending on body surface sites to which noxious stimuli are applied. Methods Seventy-seven ASA I adult patients, aged 18-50 years old, were anesthetized with sevoflurane and 66% N2O in O2, and their tracheas were intubated. The anesthesia was maintained with 66% N2O in O2 plus sevoflurane at predetermined end-tidal concentrations (0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, or 2.6%, n = 11 in each concentration) for at least 15 minutes. Heart rate (HR) and non-invasive blood pressure (BP) was recorded at 1-minute interval automatically. As a noxious stimulus, electrical tetanic stimulation with a 15 sec burst of 50 Hz, 0.25 msec square-wave, 55 mA electric current was applied at three different sites; forehead, abdomen, or thigh. A positive cardiovascular response was defined as an increase of either mean BP or HR by more than 15% from the pre-stimulation value. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine MAC-BAR. Results MAC-BAR of sevoflurane with 66% N2O obtained by stimulating forehead, abdomen, and thigh were 2.01% (95% CI: 1.70-2.57%), 1.71% (1.13-2.74%), and 1.31% (0.77-1.66%), respectively. MAC-BAR on the forehead was significantly higher than that on the thigh. Conclusion MAC-BAR of sevoflurane with 66% N2O varied depending on the body surface sites to which noxious stimuli were applied. These findings support our clinical impression that sensitivities to pain vary among body surface sites, and that anesthetic requirement to stabilize hemodynamic variables vary among surgical sites.

Authors and Affiliations

Kimura Tetsu, Nishikawa Toshiaki

Keywords

Related Articles

Renal Artery Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Major Surgery or otherwise Critically Ill: The Short-Circuit between Association and Causality

Risk prediction is an intense field of research and there is an increasing need for an interest in being able to empirically estimate customized, patient-specific risks for virtually all surgical operations in a user fri...

Patient with Eisenmenger's Syndrome and Severe Progressive Kyphoscoliosis presents for Posterior spinal fusion

A fourteen year old male patient with Eisenmenger’s syndrome (ES) and severe, progressive kyphoscoliosis presented for posterior spinal fusion, T2-L2. A thorough, preoperative evaluation and multidisciplinary conference...

Comparative Study between Levobupivacine versus Levobupivacaine Plus Dexmedetomidine for Transversus Abdominis Plane Block ?TAP? in Post-Operative Pain Management after Abdominoplasty

Aim of the work Transversus abdominis plane “TAP’’ block has been reported to be effective for post-operative analgesia for patients undergoing surgery involving abdominal wall incision by blocking anterior branches of t...

Minimum Alveolar Concentration Needed to Block Adrenergic Response of Sevoflurane with Nitrous Oxide Varies Depending on the Stimulation Sites in Adult Surgical Patients

Background We examined whether minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration needed to block adrenergic response (MAC-BAR) of sevoflurane with nitrous oxide (N2O) varies depending on body surface sites to which noxious stimu...

SMOFlipid versus Intralipid in Postoperative ICU Patients

Aim of the work Lipids are important components of total parentral nutrition, especially for patients after major abdominal surgery. Traditionally used intralipid has many complications and can lead to increased infectio...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP618637
  • DOI -
  • Views 167
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Kimura Tetsu, Nishikawa Toshiaki (2015). Minimum Alveolar Concentration Needed to Block Adrenergic Response of Sevoflurane with Nitrous Oxide Varies Depending on the Stimulation Sites in Adult Surgical Patients. Enliven: Journal of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, 2(2), 33-36. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-618637