[Postoperative routine use of physostigmine on vigilance, cardiovascular parameters and need of analgesics].

OBJECTIVE

A central anticholinergic syndrome (CAS) can be related to the majority of anesthetic agents, but is often not recognized as such. Thus, most anesthesiologists seem to miss the occurrence of an anticholinergic syndrome especially when agitation and/or restlessness are the major symptoms. Therefore, the following study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that routine administration of the anticholinergic agent physostigmin is of benefit for patients in regard to vigilance, the cardiovascular system and the need of analgesics easing the time in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

METHODS

After approval by the local ethics committee and written informed consent, 100 patients undergoing a cholecystectomy or a struma resection, were given either physostigmin (n = 51) or saline 0.9 % (n = 49) in a randomized fashion. The study was conceived to block a possible isoflurane-N2O/O2 (opioid-based plus relaxant) induced central anticholinergic syndrome and to evaluate the effects on the cardiovascular system on vigilance and on postoperative analgesic demand. Following parameters were measured: systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and arterial blood gases. In addition, vigilance was determined and typical anticholinergic symptoms (disorientation, slurred speech, agitation, nausea, emesis, cardiac arrhythmia and muscle shivering) were determined 10, 20, 40 and 60 minutes following the intravenous injection of physostigmin. Also, the need for the postoperative analgesic pethidine was evaluated among the two groups.

RESULTS

Except for a significant reduction in the need of analgesics, a reduced diastolic pressure and heart rate and a lower incidence of muscle shivering there was no difference among the two groups. One major side effect following the use of physostigmin was the higher incidence of nausea in the im mediate minutes following injection. This effect may be due to the rapid injection of the anticholinergic compound. Otherwise there were no detrimental effects of physostigmin in patients.

CONCLUSION

From the results it can be concluded that routine administration of an anticholinergic agent results in a short term beneficial effect in regard to vigilance, a lesser incidence of muscle shivering and a lesser demand for analgesics. However, because of the low incidence of a classical central anticholinergic syndrome, routine physostigmine is only indicated when agitation is diagnosed.