Search

Study objective Day care surgery is an important arena for monitors of anesthetic depth where minimizing drug use is essential for rapid turnover. Underdosage, on the other hand, carries the risks of intraoperative awareness and pain. Transvaginal oocyte retrieval (TVOR), often performed under total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and fentanyl in Indian patients, is a procedure of special interest because, in addition to the above concerns, toxic effects of propofol on oocytes have been described. We have studied the role of entropy monitor, a depth of anesthesia monitor, in optomising drug titration and facilitating distinction between analgesic and hypnotic components of anesthesia. Design Prospective randomized controlled study. Setting Operating theater and postoperative recovery area. Patients One hundred twenty American Society of Anesthesiologists class I and II female patients coming to the IVF centre for TVOR under total intravenous anesthesia using propofol and fentanyl. They were randomly allocated into 2 groups: Group EM (drugs titrated as per entropy values: state entropy and response entropy) and group CM (drugs titrated as per standard clinical monitoring). Intervention None. Measurements Total propofol consumption (TP), total fentanyl consumption (TF), on-table recovery time (T1), time to discharge (T2), intraoperative awareness (A). Main results Patients in group EM demonstrated 6.7% lesser consumption of propofol ( P = .01), 10.9% more consumption of fentanyl ( P = .007) and 1 minute faster recovery on-table ( P = .009) as compared to group CM. In the PACU, only 10% patients of group EM required supplemental analgesia as opposed to 28.3% in CM group ( P = .01). Time to discharge was similar in both groups and no intraoperative awareness was noted. Conclusion Entropy monitor is a useful tool allowing distinction between analgesic and hypnotic components of general anesthesia in patients undergoing TVOR and facilitating drug titration accordingly. Its impact on intraoperative awareness needs to be further evaluated.

Study Objectives: To compare the outcome of assisted reproductive technology procedures in women who undergo monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with remifentanil versus general anesthesia. Design: Retrospective data analysis. Setting: University hospital. Patients: 251 ASA physical status I and II women participating in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) program. Interventions: During the first phase of the study, all patients underwent general anesthesia induction with alfentanil, propofol, and nitrous oxide, which was maintained with isoflurane or propofol infusion. In the second phase of the study, all patients received a standardized MAC technique with a remifentanil infusion; local anesthetics were not used. Measurements: The primary endpoint was pregnancy rate per transfer. The number of oocytes collected, fertilized, and cleaved was recorded, as was the number of oocytes transferred. Main Results: Patients who underwent MAC had a greater pregnancy rate with IVF (28.2 vs. 16.3%), with ICSI (32.2% vs. 18.8%), and overall (30.6% vs. 17.9%). Conclusions: Pregnancy rates in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval for assisted reproductive technologies were significantly higher with a remifentanil-based MAC technique than with a general anesthetic technique.

This study retrospectively compares patients who underwent outpatient transvaginal follicle aspiration with either a propofol- or methohexital-based intravenous sedation technique. Data collected from patient charts (n = 212) over a 46-month period were analyzed to determine the effects of each sedation technique on procedure and recovery times, number of retrieved ova, as well as rates of nausea, fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy, and delivery. All patients were included in the study, regardless of age or diagnosis. procedure time was lower in the propofol group (51 t 18 min) than in the methohexital group (61 I 20 min) (p > 0.01). Patients in the methohexital group (139 2 51 min) spent more time in the recovery room than did those in the propofol group (71 ? 34 min) (p > 0.01). The nausea rates were significantly lower in the propofol group compared with the methohexital group (1.9% vs. 14.4%, respectively) (p > 0.02). Fertilization rate in the propofol group was 77.7% and was 62.9% in the methohexital group (p > 0.01). The numbers of retrieved ova and the cleavage rates were similar in both groups. The rate of pregnancy in patients sedated with propofol (46.1%) was higher than the methohexital group (26.9%) (p > 0.02). Delivery rate was 38.5% in the propofol group and 20.6% in the methohexital group (p > 0.02). In summary, propofol intravenous sedation for transvaginal follicle aspiration was associ- ated with an improved outcome. Pregnancy and delivery rates were higher while nausea, an unpleasant side effect, was sharply reduced.