SUMMARY: In vitro fertilization is an upcoming speciality. Anaesthesia during assisted reproductive technique is generally required during oocyte retrieval, which forms one of the fundamental steps during the entire procedure. Till date variety of techniques like conscious sedation, general anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia has been tried with none being superior to the other. However irrespective of the technique the key point of anaesthesia for in vitro fertilization is to provide the anaesthetic exposure for least duration so as to avoid its detrimental effects on the embryo cleavage and fertilization.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The main goal of the present retrospective study is to compare four analgesic methodologies (EMLA cream, propofol, thiopental sodium, sevoflurane) for in vitro fertilization (IVF) oocyte retrieval. We found that most anaesthetic parameters were not significantly different among all treatments. In contrast, significant differences were revealed in all groups for total number of oocytes retrieved per patient, rate of mature oocytes at metaphase II stage (MII) and percentage of fertilization and embryo development. In the EMLA cream and thiopental sodium groups we observed the highest percentage of MII oocytes (P < 0.001). Fertilization rate in the EMLA and sevoflurane groups were similar but significantly higher than the propofol and thiopental sodium groups (P < 0.001). The highest rate of anomalous fertilization was observed in the propofol group. Rate of embryo development was similar in all groups but sevoflurane group had a lower percentage of good embryos. In conclusion, by comparing different anaesthetic techniques with different mechanisms of action and administration, potential negative effects of these drugs on the initial stages of human IVF procedure were revealed. Therefore, a local anaesthetic cream is proposed as an acceptable alternative option for anaesthesia during transvaginal oocyte retrieval.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Pethidine with midazolam-induced conscious sedation for pain relief during transvaginal oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures is associated with residual pain and oversedation. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with remifentanil may serve as an alternative for pethidine. We investigated whether PCA remifentanil with diclofenac was associated with improved periprocedural pain relief than pethidine analgesia during IVF/ICSI procedures, with sedation scores, safety profiles, and patient satisfaction as secondary endpoints.Methods
Seventy-six women were randomized to receive pethidine (2 mg/kg i.m.) and midazolam (7.5 mg)-induced conscious sedation (n = 40) or PCA with remifentanil and diclofenac (50 mg; n = 36). The Numeric Rating Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Ramsey Sedation Scale, and a 5-day pain-and-discomfort diary were used to evaluate pain and sedation levels.ResultsThere were no differences in baseline characteristics and reproductive outcomes between both groups. Periprocedural pain scores were comparable for remifentanil and pethidine groups (4 [3 to 7] vs. 6 [4 to 8]; P = 0.13). Pain scores in the pethidine group were significantly lower at 30 minutes after the procedure (1 [0 to 3] vs. 2 [1 to 5]; P = 0.016), but at cost of higher sedation levels when compared to remifentanil (4 [2 to 4] vs. 2 [2 to 2]; P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was higher, and MPQ scores were lower in the remifentanil group. There were no differences in safety profiles between both analgesics.Conclusions
Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil showed a similar reduction in pain scores than pethidine with midazolam during oocyte retrieval, while pethidine induced the highest pain relief after the procedure. However, PCA remifentanil was associated with less sedation and a better patient satisfaction profile than pethidine.
Pain Practice 04/2014; 15(5). DOI:10.1111/papr.12189 · 2.36 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.