Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 1864 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts


 
Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 625-630  

Intravenous Fentanyl 4 μg per kg administered before scalp pin application is inferior to scalp block in preventing hemodynamic changes


1 Department of Anesthesiology, Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Anesthesiology, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission21-Jun-2019
Date of Decision09-Jul-2019
Date of Acceptance24-Jul-2019
Date of Web Publication16-Dec-2019

Correspondence Address:
Pradeep Hosagoudar
Professor and HOD, Department of Anesthesiology, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri - 571 201, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_107_19

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background: Application of scalp pins for craniotomy surgeries is a noxious stimulus, causing tachycardia and hypertension, resulting in increased cerebral blood flow and elevated intracranial pressure, hence measures to attenuate this will have beneficial role. Aims: The aim is to compare the effectiveness of scalp block (SB) to 4 μg.kg-1 intravenous (i.v) fentanyl in attenuating hemodynamic response to scalp pin application in patients who underwent elective craniotomy under general anesthesia. Settings and Design: The study design involves prospective, randomized study conducted at Tertiary care center/hospital. Subjects and Methods: Forty-four American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status Classes l and II patients were randomly allocated into the following groups: Group-SB (n = 22) received SB using 0.25% injection bupivacaine and Group-F (n = 22) received 1 μg.kg-1 i.v fentanyl. Patient's heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded from the application of pins till 60 min and rescue analgesic/anesthetic agents and their dosage were noted. Statistical analysis was performed comparing HR and MAP changes to application of scalp pins. Statistical Analysis: Software developed by the Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta, namely Epidemiological Information Package 2010 was used to derive statistical variables. Results: Patients were comparable in age, gender, hypertension as comorbidity, baseline HR, and MAP. Significant rise in HR was noted in Group-F till 20th min compared to Group-SB. MAP was high from application of pins till 60th min in Group-F compared to Group-SB. Requirement of rescue analgesics/anesthetics was high in Group-F compared to Group-SB. \Conclusion: SB effectively attenuates hemodynamic response to application of scalp pins in patients undergoing elective craniotomy and reduces requirement of rescue analgesic and/or anesthetics.

Keywords: Blood pressure, craniotomy, fentanyl, heart rate, scalp block, scalp pins


How to cite this article:
Arunashree S, Hosagoudar P. Intravenous Fentanyl 4 μg per kg administered before scalp pin application is inferior to scalp block in preventing hemodynamic changes. Anesth Essays Res 2019;13:625-30

How to cite this URL:
Arunashree S, Hosagoudar P. Intravenous Fentanyl 4 μg per kg administered before scalp pin application is inferior to scalp block in preventing hemodynamic changes. Anesth Essays Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Feb 23];13:625-30. Available from: http://www.aeronline.org/text.asp?2019/13/4/625/272941


   Introduction Top


Anesthetic management of patients undergoing craniotomy can often be challenging, because of underlying central nervous system pathology, complexity of surgery, and the need for meticulous postoperative management. The goals of neuroanesthesia in craniotomy patients are to ensure stable perioperative cerebral hemodynamics and to avoid sudden rise in intracranial pressure (ICP) to prevent acute brain swelling.

The application of skull pin holder and scalp incision during neurosurgical procedure produces a strong noxious stimulus and sympathetic activation, resulting in abrupt rise in heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and cerebral blood flow (CBF) under general anesthesia.[1],[2] These cerebrovascular responses may result in elevated ICP and reduction in cerebral perfusion pressure, which can lead to cerebral ischemia, especially in patients with impaired autoregulation and compromised cerebral compliance.[3] Blocking sensory nerve supply of the scalp and periosteum would prevent the hemodynamic response to the application of skull pin.[4]

Various anesthetic and pharmacologic techniques, including local anesthetics, have been used to blunt this deleterious effect with variable success.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] Scalp block (SB) using local anesthetics is a popular, effective, and safe method in reducing the sympathetic response to the insertion of scalp pins. Multiple injections and increase in operating room time are the disadvantages of SB. Intravenous (i.v) fentanyl is commonly used in neurosurgical patients intended to attenuate the hemodynamic response to the insertion of pins.[5] This study was conducted to know the effectiveness of SB in comparison with i.v fentanyl in these patients.

Aim of the study

To compare the effectiveness of i.v fentanyl 4 μg.kg-1 bolus compared to SB using 0.25% injection bupivacaine, in attenuating the hemodynamic response to the placement of Sugita skull pin.


   Subjects and Methods Top


This was a prospective, randomized study undertaken over 2 years from October-2013 to September-2015 after obtaining prior approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a tertiary care center with approval number NH/IRB-CL-2013-121. Written and informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study. Patients were sequentially and randomly assigned (by lottery pick method) to one of the two groups to receive either SB (Group-SB) or 1 μg.kg-1 i.v fentanyl bolus (Group-F). A total of 44 patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status Classes I or II, aged between 18 and 60 years, with a Glasgow coma scale of more than 12/15, scheduled for elective craniotomies under general anesthesia where Sugita clamp would be used were included in the study.

Patients with the ASA physical Status III and above, emergency craniotomies, known or suspected allergy to local anesthetics or fentanyl, difficult airway, incision of craniotomy extending beyond the field of the SB, for example, craniofacial surgery, intracranial aneurysms and other neurovascular procedures, chronically treated with narcotic medications (more than 2 weeks) or surgeries where readjustment of pins may be necessary were excluded from the study. Patients with bleeding diathesis, coagulation abnormality, and known cardiac disease were also excluded from the study.

Patients in Group-F received 1 μg.kg-1 i.v fentanyl bolus 90s before clamp placement, while anesthesiologist blinded to the patients monitoring details administered SB in Group-SB using 0.25% bupivacaine, 5 min before clamp placement. Sample size was calculated using the following formula: (level of α)2× (standard deviation) 2/marginal error2. The minimum sample size required for the study was 44 using an α-level at 95% confidence level and power of 95% based on a previous study by Pinosky et al.[7]

Patients enrolled in this study underwent a preanesthetic evaluation and appropriate investigations were performed. Standard intra-operative monitoring included electrocardiograph, noninvasive blood pressure, arterial blood pressure (ABP), plethysmography, end-tidal CO2(ETCO2), neuromuscular monitoring, and temperature monitoring. Baseline vital signs were recorded and a central venous catheter was placed under ultrasonographic guidance. After preoxygenation for 5 min, all patients were premedicated using injection fenatnyl 3 μg.kg-1. Anesthesia was induced using injection propofol 2 mg.kg-1, titrated to the response and neuromuscular blockade was achieved using injection vecuronium 0.1 mg.kg-1 after which laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation was performed using reinforced endotracheal tube, fixed and firmly secured after confirming bilaterally equal air entry and sustained ETCO2 waveform. Radial artery was cannulated for ABP monitoring. Anesthesia was maintained using O2 and air, isoflurane (1%–1.5%), and injection vecuronium was supplemented as necessary.

Patients in Group-SB received SB by modified Pinosky et al. technique using 0.25% injection bupivacaine, 5 min before placing clamp.[7] Whereas those in Group-F received i.v injection fentanyl bolus (1 μg.kg-1) 90 s before clamp placement, i.e., a total of 4 μg.kg-1 of injection fentanyl intravenously in Group-F. HR, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were monitored continuously but were recorded at following intervals for the purpose of analysis of the study at baseline while preparing for the application of clamp, before clamp placement, before 1 μg.kg-1 injection fentanyl bolus (Group-F) and before SB (Group B), during clamp placement and at 30 s, 60 s, 5, 10, 20, 30, 45, and 60 min. The nerves blocked in Group-SB by modified Pinosky et al. technique of SB were bilateral supraorbital nerve, supratrochlear nerve, auriculotemporal nerve, zygomaticotemporal nerve, greater, lesser, and least occipital nerves.[7] Patients who had hemodynamic response to scalp pin application received additional dose of injection fentanyl and if necessary injection propofol in boluses of 10 mg titrated to the hemodynamic response. These additional doses received were also noted by the same anesthesiologist who recorded the parameters as mentioned above.

Statistical tools

Data collected were recorded in a master chart and analyzed using software developed by Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta, namely Epidemiological Information Package 2010. Range, frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, Chi-square, “t” value, and P values were calculated using this software. “t” test was used to test the significance of difference between quantitative variables and Yate's and Fisher's Chi-square tests for qualitative variables. A value of P < 0.05 was taken to denote significant relationship. Microsoft PowerPoint was used to prepare the graphs.


   Results Top


Analysis of the data showed that patients were comparable with respect to age (P = 0.4763, not significant [ns]) and gender (P = 0.1076, ns) and were statistically ns [Table 1]. Four patients in Group-SB and five patients in Group-F had preoperative hypertension as a comorbidity and were comparable (P = 0.512, ns). Baseline HR in Group-SB (85.8 ± 14.6) and Group-F (83.7 ± 10.4) (P = 0.5874, ns) and baseline MAP in Group-SB (91.6 ± 17.2) and Group-F (94.7 ± 10.4) (P = 0.4754, ns) [Table 1] and [Table 2] were comparable. Comparison of baseline hemodynamic variables between the two groups is displayed in [Table 2]. HR and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were comparable between the two groups after administration of fentanyl bolus or SB (P = 0.5251 for HR and P = 0.679 for MAP) [Table 3].
Table 1: Demographic data and baseline hemodynamic variables

Click here to view
Table 2: Basal hemodynamic values

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of two groups with respect to heart rate and mean arterial pressure

Click here to view


However, after application of Sugita skull pins, statistically significant differences of HR and MAP were noted. Patients in Group-SB had favorable hemodynamic profile with respect to HR and blood pressure compared to Group-F [Table 3]. Patients in Group-F had statistically significant higher HR and blood pressure till 20th min, when compared to Group-SB [Table 3] and [Figure 1], [Figure 2]. After 20th min, MAP continued to stay high in Group-F with statistically significant difference when compared to Group-SB [Table 3] and [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Comparison of heart rate between the two groups. AI = After induction, AB = After block, AF = After fentanyl, Pin = Scalp pin application, Group-SB = Scalp block group, Group-F = Fentanyl group

Click here to view
{Figure 2}


   Discussion Top


Small incisions and narrow surgical window in craniotomy surgeries necessitate rigid head fixation and immobilization using scalp pins prior to neurosurgical intervention.[5] These pins pierce the layers of scalp and periosteum to the external lamina of the skull and presents as acute sympathetic activation with resultant rise in HR and blood pressure that can have deleterious effects in these patients. Abnormal autoregulation of CBF is often noted in these patients; hence, they are susceptible to small increase in ICP. Arterial hypertension can aggravate acute cerebral edema and resulting in herniation of brain.[1] This may also result in subarachnoid or intraparenchymal hemorrhage with intracranial vascular pathology. ICP rises very significantly in patients with preexisting intracranial hypertension at baseline and compensates poorly by volume compensation or intracranial compliance.[6] In susceptible patients, acute rise in blood pressure also leads to myocardial ischemia and pulmonary edema and hence, timely intervention to attenuate is necessary.[8]

In the present prospective, randomized study, hemodynamic changes associated with scalp pin application were least in patients who received SB (Group-SB) when compared to patients who received bolus 1 μg.kg-1 injection fentanyl. Both the groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, hypertension as comorbidity, baseline HR, and MAP [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Application of scalp pins resulted in significant changes in HR and blood pressure in Group-F when compared to Group-SB implying SB as an effective method in attenuating this response [Table 3], [Table 4] and [Figure 1], [Figure 2]. Less requirement of rescue analgesic and/or anesthetic in GroupSB [Figure 3] implies the effectiveness of SB in attenuating hemodynamic response to scalp pin application. Patients in Group-F received injection fentanyl 1 μg.kg-1 in addition to 3 μg.kg-1 before induction of anesthesia. A total of 4 μg.kg-1 was the dose of i.v fentanyl used before scalp pin application in Group-F. Statistically significant hemodynamic changes were noted in these patients in spite of using this fentanyl dosage necessitating requirement of rescue injection fentanyl and/or injection propofol, whereas, 2 patients in Group-SB required rescue analgesia with i.v fentanyl. These observations imply that nociceptive stimulus of pin application is effectively blocked by this technique.
Table 4: Comparison of systolic and diastolic blood pressures between two groups

Click here to view
Figure 3: Comparison of rescue analgesic/anesthetic administered

Click here to view


α-agonists have been used to obtund the hemodynamic response in anesthesia and ICU settings.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] They have also been used in craniotomy patients to achieve hemodynamic stability.[16],[17] Infiltration of local anesthetics for SB have been shown to be an effective method to abolish the hemodynamic response to skin incision or application of scalp pin.[18] Bupivacaine, lignocaine, ropivacaine, and mepivacaine have been safely used for SB.[3],[4],[5],[7],[18],[19],[20]

A prospective, randomized control study was conducted on craniotomy patients with SB using 0.5% injection bupivacaine and concluded that, it is a very effective way to attenuate hemodynamic response to head pinning with reduced usage of supplemental anesthetics.[7] Statistically significant changes in HR and blood pressure were noted and isoflurane requirement was higher in control group when compared to patients who received SB.[7] The study correlates with this study in that the hemodynamic profile was better in patients who received SB when compared to patients who received fentanyl bolus [Table 3] and [Table 4]. Hemodynamic changes associated with pinning are undesirable and hence instead of having control group, we administered 1 μg.kg-1 injection fentanyl bolus for patients in the 2nd group. Requirement of supplemental analgesics and/or anesthetics was lower in patients receiving SB and results were comparable with the above study (P < 0.001) [Table 5].
Table 5: Rescue analgesic/anesthetic administered

Click here to view


In our institute, SB for awake craniotomy is routinely administered by anesthesiologists, whereas it is practiced by neurosurgeon in patients who receive general anesthesia. In this study, SB was administered by anesthesiologist under general anesthesia after obtaining approval from the Intuitional Review Board so to compare its effectiveness when compared to 4 μg.kg-1 i.v fentanyl.

A study was conducted by infiltrating local anesthetics only at the site of pin insertion and hemodynamic parameters were noted while pinning. HR and blood pressure changes were least in these patients when compared to control group.[19] In our study, we opted for SB as this would also benefit these patients during craniotomy incision and during reapplication of scalp pins if necessitated. Using 0.25% injection bupivacaine for SB, a randomized, double-blind study was conducted and noted to have lesser changes in HR and blood pressure during the early stages of a frontotemporal craniotomy.[20] Similar to this study, we used 0.25% injection bupivacaine for SB in our study, but it was for all elective craniotomy patients and not limited to the frontotemporal region.

Reapplication of pins is likely in these patients resulting in sustained and exaggerated hemodynamic changes. SB as a technique, will have a sustained effect even during reapplication of scalp pins and hence advantageous when compared to i.v fentanyl bolus.[6] Although our study restricted to comparing hemodynamic attenuation during pin insertion, it was also observed that SB attenuated the hemodynamic response to skin incision, craniotomy, and dural opening which are also considered to be noxious stimulus. It was also observed that smooth extubation with better postoperative pain scores were achieved in patients who received SB.

The main limitation of this study was that we included patients with G.C.S of 12 and above and this could have an impact on the results obtained when compared to patients with G.C.S of 15. Advanced monitoring to assess intraoperative pain and to measure ICP was not used in our study. The other drawback of the study is multiple injections, sparing of nerves as seen with any regional technique, resulting in ineffective blockade. Future research with the inclusion of advanced monitoring methods to measure ICP and assess intraoperative pain and to correlate with hemodynamic changes would be encouraging. Studies using multimodal therapy of pain management with SB/fentanyl and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs would also be encouraging.


   Conclusion Top


SB using 0.25% injection bupivacaine results in the sensory blockade, and is a very effective method compared to 4 μg.kg-1 i.v fentanyl to attenuate hemodynamic response to scalp pin application. It decreases the requirement of rescue analgesic/anesthetic agents following scalp pin application.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Paulson OB, Strandgaard S, Edvinsson L. Cerebral autoregulation. Cerebrovasc Brain Metab Rev 1990;2:161-92.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Schutta HS, Kassell NF, Langfitt TW. Brain swelling produced by injury and aggravated by arterial hypertension. A light and electron microscopic study. Brain 1968;91:281-94.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Smith FJ, Vander Merwe CJ, Becker PJ. Attenuation of the haemodynamic response to placement of the Mayfield skull pin head holder: Alfentanil versus scalp block. South Afr J Anaesth Analg 2002;8:4-11.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Osborn I, Sebeo J. “Scalp block” during craniotomy: A classic technique revisited. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2010;22:187-94.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Yildiz K, Madenoglu H, Dogru K, Kotanoglu MS, Akin A, Boyaci A. The effects of intravenous fentanyl and intravenous fentanyl combined with bupivacaine infiltration on the hemodynamic response to skull pin insertion. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2005;17:9-12.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Shapiro HM, Wyte SR, Harris AB, Galindo A. Acute intraoperative intracranial hypertension in neurosurgical patients: Mechanical and pharmacologic factors. Anesthesiology 1972;37:399-405.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Pinosky ML, Fishman RL, Reeves ST, Harvey SC, Patel S, Palesch Y, et al. The effect of bupivacaine skull block on the hemodynamic response to craniotomy. Anesth Analg 1996;83:1256-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Roy WL, Edelist G, Gilbert B. Myocardial ischemia during non-cardiac surgical procedures in patients with coronary-artery disease. Anesthesiology 1979;51:393-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bloor BC, Flacke WE. Reduction in halothane anesthetic requirement by clonidine, an alpha-adrenergic agonist. Anesth Analg 1982;61:741-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Hoy SM, Keating GM. Dexmedetomidine: A review of its use for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care setting and for procedural sedation. Drugs 2011;71:1481-501.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Maze M, Tranquilli W. Alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonists: Defining the role in clinical anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1991;74:581-605.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ghignone M, Calvillo O, Quintin L. Anesthesia and hypertension: The effect of clonidine on perioperative hemodynamics and isoflurane requirements. Anesthesiology 1987;67:3-10.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Engelman E, Lipszyc M, Gilbart E, Van der Linden P, Bellens B, Van Romphey A, et al. Effects of clonidine on anesthetic drug requirements and hemodynamic response during aortic surgery. Anesthesiology 1989;71:178-87.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Flacke JW, Bloor BC, Flacke WE, Wong D, Dazza S, Stead SW, et al. Reduced narcotic requirement by clonidine with improved hemodynamic and adrenergic stability in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery. Anesthesiology 1987;67:11-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gaumann DM, Tassonyi E, Rivest RW, Fathi M, Reverdin AF. Cardiovascular and endocrine effects of clonidine premedication in neurosurgical patients. Can J Anaesth 1991;38:837-43.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Chadha R, Padmanabhan V, Joseph A, Mohandas K. Oral clonidine pretreatment for haemodynamic stability during craniotomy. Anaesth Intensive Care 1992;20:341-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Traill R, Gillies R. Clonidine premedication for craniotomy: Effects on blood pressure and thiopentone dosage. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 1993;5:171-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Rubial M, Castells MV, Gargallo MC, Madrid JL. Regional blockage for arterial blood pressure control during placement of head holder in neurosurgery. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 1992;39:282-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Schaffranietz L, Rüffert H, Trantakis C, Seifert V. Effect of local anesthetics on hemodynamic effects during Mayfield skull clamp fixation in neurosurgery using total intravenous anesthesia. Anaesthesiol Reanim 1999;24:51-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Lee EJ, Lee MY, Shyr MH, Cheng JT, Toung TJ, Mirski MA, et al. Adjuvant bupivacaine scalp block facilitates stabilization of hemodynamics in patients undergoing craniotomy with general anesthesia: A preliminary report. J Clin Anesth 2006;18:490-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 1], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed344    
    Printed27    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal