Effect of patient-controlled sedation on recovery from ambulatory monitored anesthesia care.

R. Cork, E. Guillory, S. Viswanathan, J. Eyrich, J. Heaton
{"title":"Effect of patient-controlled sedation on recovery from ambulatory monitored anesthesia care.","authors":"R. Cork, E. Guillory, S. Viswanathan, J. Eyrich, J. Heaton","doi":"10.1097/00000542-199409001-00031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol has been shown to be an effective means of conscious sedation during monitored anesthesia care. The purpose of this study was to assess both the intraoperative conduct and postoperative recovery of patients receiving propofol for conscious sedation, randomized to either PCS or anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS). Forty-three patients scheduled for outpatient procedures requiring monitored anesthesia care were randomized to PCS or ACS. Both groups received an initial bolus of propofol 0.5 mg/kg and fentanyl 1 microgram/kg i.v., followed by an identical background infusion of propofol 50 micrograms/kg per minute. Subsequent doses of propofol 30 mg i.v. were either self-administered (PCS) or administered at the discretion of the anesthetist (ACS). Variables measuring hemodynamics, ventilation, saturation, and level of sedation were measured at baseline, after initial bolus of propofol and fentanyl, after skin incision, at last stitch, at admission to recovery, and 1 hour later. More propofol was used by the PCS group (P < 0.05). Finger-tapping was slower and responsiveness scores were lower in the PCS group at the end of the procedure (P < 0.05). More patients in the PCS group required oxygen supplementation (saturation < 90%) on admission to recovery (P < 0.05). At 1 hour after recovery admission, however, there were no differences between groups. These results indicate that when patients determine their own sedation, they are more sedated at the end of a procedure than when the anesthetist determines the level of sedation.","PeriodicalId":80191,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of anesthesiology","volume":"22 2 1","pages":"94-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/00000542-199409001-00031","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199409001-00031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol has been shown to be an effective means of conscious sedation during monitored anesthesia care. The purpose of this study was to assess both the intraoperative conduct and postoperative recovery of patients receiving propofol for conscious sedation, randomized to either PCS or anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS). Forty-three patients scheduled for outpatient procedures requiring monitored anesthesia care were randomized to PCS or ACS. Both groups received an initial bolus of propofol 0.5 mg/kg and fentanyl 1 microgram/kg i.v., followed by an identical background infusion of propofol 50 micrograms/kg per minute. Subsequent doses of propofol 30 mg i.v. were either self-administered (PCS) or administered at the discretion of the anesthetist (ACS). Variables measuring hemodynamics, ventilation, saturation, and level of sedation were measured at baseline, after initial bolus of propofol and fentanyl, after skin incision, at last stitch, at admission to recovery, and 1 hour later. More propofol was used by the PCS group (P < 0.05). Finger-tapping was slower and responsiveness scores were lower in the PCS group at the end of the procedure (P < 0.05). More patients in the PCS group required oxygen supplementation (saturation < 90%) on admission to recovery (P < 0.05). At 1 hour after recovery admission, however, there were no differences between groups. These results indicate that when patients determine their own sedation, they are more sedated at the end of a procedure than when the anesthetist determines the level of sedation.
病人控制镇静对门诊监测麻醉护理后恢复的影响。
病人控制镇静(PCS)与异丙酚已被证明是一种有效的手段,在麻醉监护清醒镇静。本研究的目的是评估接受异丙酚清醒镇静的患者的术中行为和术后恢复情况,随机分为PCS组和麻醉师控制镇静组(ACS)。43例需要麻醉监护的门诊病人被随机分为PCS组和ACS组。两组患者初始静脉滴注异丙酚0.5 mg/kg,芬太尼1微克/kg,随后以相同的背景静脉滴注异丙酚50微克/kg /分钟。随后的异丙酚30mg静脉注射是自行给药(PCS)或由麻醉师(ACS)自行给药。在基线、异丙酚和芬太尼初始剂量后、皮肤切开后、最后一针、入院恢复时和1小时后测量血液动力学、通气、饱和度和镇静水平等变量。PCS组使用异丙酚较多(P < 0.05)。操作结束时,PCS组的手指敲击速度较慢,反应性评分较低(P < 0.05)。PCS组患者入院恢复时需补氧(饱和度< 90%)较多(P < 0.05)。然而,在恢复入院后1小时,两组间无差异。这些结果表明,当患者自行决定镇静时,他们在手术结束时比由麻醉师决定镇静水平时更镇静。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书