To evaluate if the standard anesthetic regimen – topical combined with intracameral anesthesia without sedation – in a population-based cohort of unselected cataract surgery cases is adequate, optimal, and good practice, or if improvements are necessary.
We conducted a prospective, observational study on all cases of cataract surgery during a 1-year period at one institution (n=1249). Data were collected from the patients’ records. Outcome measures were use of preoperative sedation, type of anesthesia, complications, and adverse events. In a subgroup of patients (n=124) satisfaction with the anesthetic regimen was evaluated using a short questionnaire.
Most cases (90%, 1125/1249) had combined topical and intracameral anesthesia without sedation. Patients who chose preoperative sedation (midazolam hydrochloride sublingually) were significantly younger and more often female (P=0.0001 and P=0.011, respectively). In the questionnaire subgroup, the median pain score after surgery was 0.7 (visual analog scale, 0–10). A pain score of 1.9 or less was reported by 76% of the patients. Patients reporting a pain score of 2 or more had sedation and additional anesthetics more often. No significant difference was found regarding age, sex, pulse rate, oxygen saturation, first or second eye surgery, or adverse intraoperative events for patients with pain scores of 1.9 or less and 2 or more.
This large population-based series of small-incision phacoemulsification surgery shows that combined topical and intracameral anesthesia without sedatives is well tolerated for most phacoemulsification patients. It is also effective in cases when complications or adverse events occur. It is important to be responsive to the individual patient’s needs and adjust operating procedures if necessary, as there were a few patients who experienced insufficient anesthesia.
anesthesia; local/methods; phacoemulsification; cataract extraction; humans; prospective observational studies
Over a period of years general anesthesia has been a standard anesthetic technique for defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at the time of implant. DFT testing without general anesthesia cover has gained limited acceptance. Use of local anesthesia combined with deep sedation for DFT testing might facilitate and simplify these procedures by reducing the procedural time, staff time, avoiding inefficient service in organizing anesthetic cover; thereby improving patient compliance.
The objective of this study was to evaluate feasibility, safety and efficacy of conscious sedation for DFT testing during Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) implantation.
Data of 87 non-selected patients who achieved adequate sedation with titrated doses of midazolam and pethidine were analyzed retrospectively. These medications were administered by a circulating nurse under the supervision of the implanting physicians. All hemodynamic measures, treatment and complications were monitored and recorded throughout the procedure.
A retrospective analysis of data from 87 patients who underwent ICD implantation and DFT testing under conscious sedation at our center was reported. The mean dose of midazolam and pethidine administered was 4.9 ± 1.8 and 47.7 ± 20 mg, respectively. During the period of conscious sedation, no patient depicted episode of sustained apnea. No major complication or mortality was reported.
Use of conscious sedation as an alternative to the use of general anesthesia for DFT testing during ICD implantation is found to be feasible, safe and effective, with an added advantage of reduced procedural time and improved patient compliance.
Conscious sedation; Defibrillation threshold testing; Implantable cardioverter defibrillators
Brain function monitors have improved safety and efficiency in general anesthesia; however, they have not been adequately tested for guiding conscious sedation for periodontal surgical procedures. This study evaluated the patient state index (PSI) obtained from the SEDline monitor (Sedline Inc., San Diego, CA) to determine its capacity to improve the safety and efficiency of intravenous conscious sedation during outpatient periodontal surgery. Twenty-one patients at the periodontics clinic of Baylor College of Dentistry were admitted to the study in 2009 and sedated to a moderate level using midazolam and fentanyl during periodontal surgery. The PSI monitoring was blinded from the clinician, and the following data were collected: vital signs, Ramsay sedation scale (RSS), medications administered, adverse events, PSI, electroencephalography, and the patients' perspective through visual analogue scales. The data were correlated to evaluate the PSI's ability to assess the level of sedation. Results showed that the RSS and PSI did not correlate (r = −0.25) unless high values associated with electromyographical (EMG) activity were corrected (r = −0.47). Oxygen desaturation did not correlate with the PSI (r = −0.08). Satisfaction (r = −0.57) and amnesia (r = −0.55) both increased as the average PSI decreased. In conclusion, within the limits of this study, PSI appears to correlate with amnesia, allowing a practitioner to titrate medications to that effect. It did not provide advance warning of adverse events and had inherent inaccuracies due to EMG activity during oral surgery. The PSI has the potential to increase safety and efficiency in conscious sedation but requires further development to eliminate EMG activity from confounding the score.
The relative efficacy and safety of drugs and combinations used clinically in dentistry as premedicants to alleviate patient apprehension are largely unsubstantiated. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of agents used for parenteral sedation through controlled clinical trials, it is first necessary to identify which drugs, doses, and routes of administration are actually used in practice. A survey instrument was developed to characterize the drugs used clinically for anesthesia and sedation by dentists with advanced training in pain control. A random sample of 500 dentists who frequently use anesthesia and sedation in practice was selected from the Fellows of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology. The first mailing was followed by a second mailing to nonrespondents after 30 days. The respondents report a variety of parenteral sedation techniques in combination with local anesthesia (the response categories are not mutually exclusive): nitrous oxide (64%), intravenous conscious sedation (59%), intravenous “deep” sedation (47%), and outpatient general anesthesia (27%). Drugs most commonly reported for intravenous sedation include diazepam, methohexital, midazolam, and combinations of these drugs with narcotics. A total of 82 distinct drugs and combinations was reported for intravenous sedation and anesthesia. Oral premedication and intramuscular sedation are rarely used by this group. Most general anesthesia reported is done on an outpatient basis in private practice. These results indicate that a wide variety of drugs is employed for parenteral sedation in dental practice, but the most common practice among dentists with advanced training in anesthesia is local anesthesia supplemented with intravenous sedation consisting of a benzodiazepine and an opioid or a barbiturate.
Our case series prospectively evaluate the concept of Patient/Family-Controlled Sedation with midazolam, as an alternative to sedation by continuous infusion in terminal cancer patients.
Our method was applied in 8 pts. Midazolam was administered in a Patient Control Analgesia mode. The infusion pump was activated "as-needed" by the pt or a caretaker. Sedation was rated as: 1) awake 2) arousable to voice 3) arousable to light pain or 4) unarousable. Family satisfaction was rated as: 1) good, 2) fair, 3) poor, or 4) unacceptable. Mean midazolam consumption was 12 – 40 mg/24 hours. We did not observe respiratory depression. Death occurred 1–6 days after sedation started. Family satisfaction was mainly good and median sedation was in the range 2 – 3.
Patient/Family-Controlled Sedation with midazolam was effective in providing comfort, by allowing titration of sedation to each patient's needs.
The practice of anesthesia and sedation continues to expand beyond the operating room and now includes the gastroenterology suite, magnetic resonance imaging suites, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Non-anesthesiologists frequently administer sedation, in part because of a lack of available anesthesiologists and economic aspect, which emphasizes the safety of sedation. The Joint Commission International (JCI) set a standard responding to this issue indicating that qualified individuals who have drug and monitoring knowledge as well as airway management skills can only administer sedating agents. In Korea, the Ministry of Health and Welfare developed new sedation standards for hospital evaluation, which is similar to the JCI standards. This review intends to help with the understanding of the JCI sedation standard and compare it to the Korean sedation standard.
General descriptions or “snapshots” of sedation/general anesthesia practices during dental care are very limited in reviewed literature. The objective of this study was to determine commonalities in dental sedation/anesthesia practices, as well as to accumulate subjective information pertaining to sedation/anesthesia care within the dental profession. This questionnaire-based survey was completed by participating anesthesia providers in the United States. A standardized questionnaire was sent via facsimile, or was delivered by mail, to 1500 anesthesia providers from a randomized list using an online database. Data from the returned questionnaires were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet and were imported into a JMP Statistical Discovery Software program for analyses. Quantitative evaluations were confined to summation of variables, an estimation of means, and a valid percent for identified variables. A total of 717 questionnaires were entered for data analysis (N = 717). Data from this study demonstrate the wide variation that exists in sedation/anesthesia care and those providing its administration during dental treatment in the United States. The demographics of this randomized population show anesthesia providers involved in all disciplines of the dental profession, as well as significant variation in the types of modalities used for sedation/anesthesia care. Data from this study reveal wide variation in sedation/anesthesia care during dental treatment. These distinctions include representation of sedation/anesthesia providers across all disciplines of the dental profession, as well as variations in the techniques used for sedation/anesthesia care.
Anesthesia; Dentistry; Practice characteristics; Techniques
The bispectral (BIS) index has been used to interpret partial EEG recordings to predict the level of sedation and loss of consciousness in patients undergoing general anesthesia. The author has evaluated BIS technology in determining the level of sedation in patients undergoing outpatient deep sedation. These experiences are outlined in this review article. Initially, the correlation of the BIS index with traditional subjective patient evaluation using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAA/S) scale was performed in 25 subjects. In a second study, the recovery profile of 39 patients where the BIS was used to monitor sedation was compared with a control group where the monitor was not used. A strong positive relationship between the BIS and OAA/S readings was found in the initial subjects. From the recovery study, it appears that use of the BIS monitor may help titrate the level of sedation so that less drugs are used to maintain the desired level of sedation. A trend to earlier return of motor function in BIS-monitored patients was also demonstrated. BIS technology offers an objective, ordinal means of assessing the depth of sedation. This can be invaluable in comparing studies of techniques. The BIS index provides additional information to standard monitoring techniques that helps guide the administration of sedative-hypnotic agents. The trend to earlier return of motor function in BIS-monitored patients warrants further investigation.
Conscious sedation is used in dentistry to improve access and quality of care in patients who have difficulty coping with treatment. The aim of this prospective study was to describe a postgraduate training course in conscious sedation for dentists, with specific evaluation of the safe and effective administration of a 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen premix.
45 practitioners were trained between 2002 and 2004. They carried out 826 sessions of inhalation sedation in 662 patients. The clinical competency of this group was compared with an expert group.
There was no difference between trainees and experts in ability to complete the planned dental treatment under sedation (89.6% vs 93.2%). Trainees were less successful than experts for patients with intellectual disability (87.4% vs 94.2%, p < 0.01). For both groups, the degree of cooperation improved between initial induction and each perioperative step (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.01). However, for trainees, Venham behaviour scores varied with the type of patient (Kruskal Wallis test, p < 0.001). No major adverse effects were recorded. Trainees reported more minor adverse effects than experts (13% vs. 5.3% respectively, Fisher exact test, p < 0.001)
The trainee practitioners provided effective and safe inhalation sedation. This challenges the current French restriction of the 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen premix to the hospital setting. Further emphasis is required on the teaching of behaviour management skills for patients with intellectual disability.
The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate sedation with intravenous xylazine (1.1 mg/kg bodyweight [BW]) versus intravenous romifidine (100 micrograms/kg BW) followed by induction of anesthesia with intravenous diazepam (0.04 mg/kg BW) and ketamine (2.2 mg/kg BW). Twelve healthy horses were used in a blinded, randomized, cross-over design. Heart rate, presence of 2nd degree atrioventricular heart blocks (2 degrees AVB), respiratory rate, arterial blood pressures, blood gases, packed cell volume, total serum proteins, and duration of anesthesia and recumbency were recorded. Induction and recovery quality was evaluated using a 0 to 4 score. Response to stimulation with noise, pressure, and cutaneous electrical stimulation was assessed at 5 minute intervals during recumbency to evaluate the depth of anesthesia. Heart rate was lower and 2 degrees AVB more frequent in the romifidine group, while blood pressure was lower in the xylazine group. Duration of anesthesia was longer in the romifidine group (mean 20.8, s mean 2.3 min) versus the xylazine group (mean 15.8, s mean 1.6 min), while induction and recovery were excellent in both groups. Respiratory rates, blood gas values, packed cell volumes, and total protein levels did not differ between groups. The results indicate that romifidine premedication followed by diazepam and ketamine is a very satisfactory regime for short duration intravenous anesthesia in horses.
To compare oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) versus oral clonidine (4 μg/kg) as a premedication in pediatric patients aged between 2-12 years with regard to sedation and anxiolysis.
Sixty pediatric patients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists class I and II between the age group of 2-12 years scheduled for elective surgery were randomly allocated to receive either oral midazolam (group I) 30 min before induction or oral clonidine (group II) 90 min before induction of anesthesia. The children were evaluated for levels of sedation and anxiety at the time of separation from the parents, venepuncture, and at the time of mask application for induction of anesthesia.
After premedication, the percentage of children who were sedated and calm increased in both the groups. The overall level of sedation was better in the children in the clonidine group, but children in the midazolam group had a greater degree of anxiolysis at times of venepuncture and mask application. In addition, midazolam did not cause significant changes in hemodynamics unlike clonidine where a significant fall in blood pressure was noted, after premedication, but preinduction.
We conclude that under the conditions of the study, oral midazolam is superior to clonidine as an anxiolytic in pediatric population. Clonidine with its sedative action especially at the time of separation from parents along with its other perioperative benefits cannot be discounted.
Anxiolysis; oral clonidine; oral midazolam; pediatric anesthesia; premedication; sedation
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.
We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.
PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17–65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65–80 years) were in the 65–80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81–97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.
In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.
deep sedation; propofol; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic ultrasonography; elderly; developing country
The patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows for rapid individualized titration of sedative drugs. Propofol has been the most widely used IV adjuvant, during the monitored anesthesia care (MAC). This study was designed to compare the sedation quality, side effect and recovery of the propofol alone, and propofol-remifentanil combination, using PCS for breast biopsy.
Seventy five outpatients, undergoing breast biopsy procedures with local anesthesia, were randomly assigned to receive propofol alone (group P), propofol-25 ug/ml of remifentanil (group PR25), and propofol-50 ug/ml of remifentanil (group PR50), using PCS. Pain visual analogue scores (VAS) and digit symbol substitution test (DSST), Vital signs, bi-spectral index (BIS) and observer assessment of alertness and sedation (OAA/S) score were recorded.
Apply/Demand ratio in the group PR50 had a significant increase over the other groups (P < 0.05). The incidence of excessive sedation and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the group PR50 (P < 0.05). BIS and OAA/S score significantly decreased in the group PR25, PR50 at 15 min after the operation, the end of surgery (P < 0.05). At 5 min after the start of PCS, patients in the group PR25 and PR50 gave significantly less correct responses on the DSST than that of the group P (P < 0.05).
Compared with the propofol alone, intermittent bolus injection of propofol-remifentanil mixture could be used, appropriately, for the sedation and analgesia during MAC. The group PR25 in a low dose of remifentanil has more advantages in terms of sedation and satisfaction because of the group PR50's side effects.
Monitored anesthesia care; Patient-controlled sedation; Propofol; Remifentanil
Dexmedetomidine, an alpha2-adrenoceptor agonist, has been evaluated as an adjunct to anesthesia and for the delivery of sedation and perioperative hemodynamic stability. It provokes dose-dependent and centrally-mediated sympatholysis. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with extracorporeal circulation is a stressful procedure increasing sympathetic nervous system activity which could attenuate renal function due the interrelation of sympathetic nervous system, hemodynamics and renal function. We tested the hypothesis that dexmetomidine would improve kidney function in patients undergoing elective CABG during the first two postoperative days.
This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Patients with normal renal function and scheduled for elective CABG were randomized to placebo or to infusion of dexmedetomidine to achieve a pseudo steady-state plasma concentration of 0.60 ng/ml. The infusion was started after anesthesia induction and continued until 4 h after surgery. The primary endpoint was creatinine clearance. Other variables included urinary creatinine and output, fractional sodium and potassium excretion, urinary potassium, sodium and glucose, serum and urinary osmolality and plasma catecholamine concentrations. The data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.
Sixty-six of 87 randomized patients were evaluable for analysis. No significant between-group differences were recorded for any indices of renal function except for a mean 74% increase in urinary output with dexmedetomidine in the first 4 h after insertion of a urinary catheter (p < 0.001). Confidence interval examination revealed that the sample size was large enough for the no-difference statement for creatinine clearance.
Use of intravenous dexmedetomidine did not alter renal function in this cohort of relatively low-risk elective CABG patients but was associated with an increase in urinary output.
This study was carried out in 1994-1997 and was thus not registered.
Safety is always the primary concern of surgeons and patients in any office-based procedure. With the growing use of safe intravenous sedation in this setting, a need for a standardized protocol for dissociative anesthesia exists. We have accomplished this task by using a sedation monitoring system, which could easily be implemented in any existing office-based operating setting. Our sedation monitor, abbreviated SeMo, provides a standardized means of monitoring deep intravenous sedation administration to patients in the operating room setting. The idea of SeMo is to develop a stand-alone system capable of integrating all facets of the operating room staff through a common communication media to improve efficiency and safety.
Dissociative anesthesia; intravenous sedation; sedation monitor; office-based protocol
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is an evolving field in pediatric emergency medicine. As new drugs breach the boundaries of anesthesia in the Pediatric Emergency Department, parents, patients, and physicians are finding new and more satisfactory methods of sedation. Short acting, rapid onset agents with little or no lingering effects and improved safety profiles are replacing archaic regimens. This article discusses the warning signs and areas of a patient's medical history that are particularly pertinent to procedural sedation and the drugs used. The necessary equipment is detailed to provide the groundwork for implementing safe sedation in children. It is important for practitioners to familiarize themselves with a select few of the PSA drugs, rather than the entire list of sedatives. Those agents most relevant to PSA in the pediatric emergency department are presented.
Analgesia; pediatric; sedation
The scientific congress of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties aims to review and improve the guidelines for the selection process of trainees, a selection process that is based on equal opportunity and upholds the principles of consistency, objectiveness, transparency, and procedural fairness. The study represents a step toward the goal of fostering quality patient care, by adopting a selection process that would result in graduating good, committed, and competent specialists.
Materials and Methods:
Reports of admission examinations in Jeddah, Riyadh, and the Eastern region have been collected, and they contain detailed lists of names, scores, and percentages of the criteria of admissions, that is, MBBS 25%, General Examination 50%, Interview 25%, and overall score of 100%.
Mean MBBS scores, average general examination scores, average interview scores, and average overall scores were not statistically different between candidates from different regions. The leading predictor was the ‘Interview Score’. 49.5% of variation in the dependent variable (overall score) could be significantly explained (F = 69.4, P < 0.05) by the independent variable ‘Interview Score’. The second predictor was the ‘MBBS score’.
The three components MBBS, General Examination, and Interview, were significant predictors of the overall score. The leading predictor was the ‘Interview Score’. The author recommended that the selection process should be under continuous review. The general interview guide approach is recommended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected from each interviewer. Questions of a personal or discriminatory nature should be avoided.
Saudi Anesthesia Program; acceptance criteria; resident training program
A conscious sedation regimen consisting of alphaprodine, hydroxyzine, and methohexital together with intensive behavior modification was evaluated in an open pilot study for patients undergoing minor gynecologic surgery. This combination was found to result in hemodynamic stability, satisfactory patient compliance, and patient and surgeon acceptance. Patients were unable to recognize words taught to them just after drugs were administered.
Electroencephalogram (EEG) changes seen in general anesthesia or deep sedation were not found in the EEG records of a subset of patients. These findings suggest that conscious sedation can provide adequate relief of pain and anxiety for minor gynecologic procedures when local anesthesia can achieve only partial pain relief.
Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is a safe, effective, and appropriate form of anesthesia for many minor surgical procedures. The proliferation of outpatient procedures has heightened interest in MAC sedation agents. Among the most commonly used MAC sedation agents today are benzodiazepines, including midazolam, and propofol. Recently approved in the United States is fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol which hydrolyzes in the body by alkaline phosphatase to liberate propofol. Propofol liberated from fospropofol has unique pharmacological properties, but recently retracted pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations make it difficult to formulate clear conclusions with respect to fospropofol's PK/PD properties. In safety and efficacy clinical studies, fospropofol demonstrated dose-dependent sedation with good rates of success at doses of 6.5 mg/kg along with good levels of patient and physician acceptance. Fospropofol has been associated with less pain at injection site than propofol. The most commonly reported side effects with fospropofol are paresthesia and pruritus. Fospropofol is a promising new sedation agent that appears to be well suited for MAC sedation, but further studies are needed to better understand its PK/PD properties as well its appropriate clinical role in outpatient procedures.
To compare oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) with oral butorphanol (0.2 mg/kg) as a premedication in 60 pediatric patients with regards to sedation, anxiolysis, rescue analgesic requirement, and recovery profile.
Materials and Methods:
In a double blinded study design, 60 pediatric patients belonging to ASA class I and II between the age group of 2–12 years scheduled for elective surgery were randomized to receive either oral midazolam (group I) or oral butorphanol (group II) 30 min before induction of anesthesia. The children were evaluated for levels of sedation and anxiety at the time of separation from the parents, venepuncture, and at the time of facemask application for induction of anesthesia. Rescue analgesic requirement, postoperative recovery, and complications were also recorded.
Butorphanol had better sedation potential than oral midazolam with comparable anxiolysis at the time of separation of children from their parents. Midazolam proved to be a better anxiolytic during venepuncture and facemask application. Butorphanol reduced need for supplemental analgesics perioperatively without an increase in side effects such as nausea, vomiting, or unpleasant postoperative recovery.
Oral butorphanol is a better premedication than midazolam in children in view of its excellent sedative and analgesic properties. It does not increase side effects significantly.
Anxiolysis; oral midazolam; oral butorphanol; premedication; pediatric anesthesia; sedation
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure has become an essential modality for evaluation and treatment of GI diseases. Intravenous (IV) sedation and General Anesthesia (GA) have both been employed to minimize discomfort and provide amnesia. Both these procedures require, at the very least, monitoring of the level of consciousness, pulmonary ventilation, oxygenation and hemodynamics. Although GI endoscopy is considered safe, the procedure has a potential for complications. Increased awareness of the complications associated with sedation during GI endoscopy in children, and involving the anesthesiologists in caring for these children, may be optimal for safety. Belonging to a younger age group, having a higher ASA class and undergoing IV sedation were identified as risk factors for developing complications. Reported adverse events included inadequate sedation, low oxygen saturation, airway obstruction, apnea needing bag mask ventilation, excitement and agitation, hemorrhage and perforation. A complication rate of 1.2% was associated with procedures performed under GA, as compared to 3.7% of complications associated with IV sedation. IV sedation was seen to be independently associated with a cardiopulmonary complication rate 5.3% times higher when compared to GA. GA can therefore be considered safer and more effective in providing comfort and amnesia.
Gastrointestinal; Endoscopy; Pediatrics; Sedation; General anesthesia
The subject of endoscopic sedation continues to generate controversy and debate. This article provides a critical analysis of several key issues related to sedation that have recently been the focus of intense interest. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is currently the dominant method of endoscopic sedation for approximately one third of all US gastroenterologists. The benefits and cost-effectiveness of this approach remain unclear, as outlined in this article. An alternative to MAC is the administration of propofol by a specially trained nurse or endoscopy assistant, working under the direction of an endoscopist. The scientific merits of the arguments presented by both those in favor of, and those opposed to, this practice are evaluated. In addition, the clinical experience with endoscopist-directed propofol and the challenges associated with its implementation are presented. Other options for endoscopic sedation may soon be available. One approach is computer-assisted delivery of propofol, which is performed by a physician/nurse team. The clinical studies related to this device, along with several other novel methods of sedation, are described.
Colonoscopy; endoscopic sedation; fospropofol; propofol; procedural sedation
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic, respiratory effects, the recovery profile, surgeons, and patients satisfaction with dexmedetomidine sedation compared with those of propofol sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.
Sixty patients were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, randomized study. The patients were divided into two groups to receive either dexmedetomidine (group D) or propofol (group P). Sedation level was titrated to a Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) of 3. Hemodynamic and respiratory effects, postoperative recovery time, analgesic effects, surgeons and patients satisfaction were assessed.
Both groups provided a similar significant reduction in heart rate and mean arterial pressure compared with baseline values. The respiratory rate values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those in the propofol group. The oxygen saturation values of the dexmedetomidine group were significantly higher than those of the propofol group. The expired CO2 was similar in both groups. Postoperatively, the time to achieve an Aldrete score of 10 was similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients have significantly lower visual analog scale for pain than propofol patients. The surgeon satisfaction with patients’ sedation was similar for both groups. The patients’ satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group.
Dexmedetomidine at similar sedation levels with propofol was associated with equivalent hemodynamic effects, maintaining an adequate respiratory function, similar time of discharge from PACU, better analgesic properties, similar surgeon’s satisfaction, and higher patient’s satisfaction. Thus, dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable adjuvant for sedation in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery under sub-Tenon’s anesthesia.
Dexmedetomidine; propofol; sedation; vitreoretinal surgery
In this issue of Critical Care, Dr Haenggi and co-workers present a study evaluating bispectral index (BIS), state entropy (SE) and response entropy in 44 patients sedated in the intensive care unit (ICU). As in recent studies attempting to correlate frontal electroencephalogram (EEG) measurements with clinical evaluations of sedative efficacy, there is considerable overlap in numerical EEG values and different clinical levels of sedation. This precludes the use of these monitors for monitoring or titrating sedation in the critically ill. Despite many attempts, no study has yet presented data showing improved outcome with the use of EEG monitors in ICU sedation. Meanwhile, clinical sedation protocols have emerged, improving important endpoints in critically ill patients needing sedation. A major underlying problem in applying EEG monitors in the ICU is that they have been developed for measuring anesthetic depth and the related risk of recall, rather than the acknowledged endpoints of sedation, namely reduction of anxiety and discomfort. Until an 'objective' monitor is developed to measure the degree of such symptoms, physicians should continue treating patients and not numbers.
Sedatives and analgesics are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. Sedation guidelines have been shown to improve sedation management as well as various patient outcomes. The main objective was to evaluate adherence to a sedation guideline with both sedative prescribing and documentation of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores.
In a retrospective chart review, data was collected on 111 medical intensive care unit patients mechanically ventilated via endotracheal tube for 12 hours or greater at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Fifty-seven patients were evaluated pre-guideline implementation and 54 patients were evaluated post-guideline.
Significant increases were seen in the post-guideline group in goal-directed sedation with a patient-specific RASS goal in the sedation order: 21.3 vs 85.4% (P < 0.001), and mean number of sedation assessments per 24 hours using the RASS: 4.7 vs 11.4 (P < 0.001). Similarly, this group experienced a higher percentage of RASS scores at their sedation goal: 31.4 vs 44.1% (P < 0.001). No difference was seen in other clinical endpoints.
Implementation and routine application of a hospital pain and sedation guideline was associated with significantly improved sedation metrics, such as goal-directed sedation, as well as frequency of sedation level assessment and documentation. An increase was observed in the time that post-guideline patients spent at or near their RASS goal.
sedation; agitation; guideline; RASS; mechanically ventilated; intensive care unit