High levels of dental caries, challenging child behavior, and parent expectations support a need for sedation in pediatric dentistry. This paper reviews modern developments in pediatric sedation with a focus on implementing techniques to enhance success and patient safety. In recent years, sedation for dental procedures has been implicated in a disproportionate number of cases that resulted in death or permanent neurologic damage. The youngest children and those with more complicated medical backgrounds appear to be at greatest risk. To reduce complications, practitioners and regulatory bodies have supported a renewed focus on health care quality and safety. Implementation of high fidelity simulation training and improvements in patient monitoring, including end-tidal carbon dioxide, are becoming recognized as a new standard for sedated patients in dental offices and health care facilities. Safe and appropriate case selection and appropriate dosing for overweight children is also paramount. Oral sedation has been the mainstay of pediatric dental sedation; however, today practitioners are administering modern drugs in new ways with high levels of success. Employing contemporary transmucosal administration devices increases patient acceptance and sedation predictability. While recently there have been many positive developments in sedation technology, it is now thought that medications used in sedation and anesthesia may have adverse effects on the developing brain. The evidence for this is not definitive, but we suggest that practitioners recognize this developing area and counsel patients accordingly. Finally, there is a clear trend of increased use of ambulatory anesthesia services for pediatric dentistry. Today, parents and practitioners have become accustomed to children receiving general anesthesia in the outpatient setting. As a result of these changes, it is possible that dental providers will abandon the practice of personally administering large amounts of sedation to patients, and focus instead on careful case selection for lighter in-office sedation techniques.
conscious sedation; anesthesia; general; pediatrics
Genetically engineered mouse models of human cardiovascular disease provide an opportunity to understand critical pathophysiological mechanisms. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides precise reproducible assessment of cardiac structure and function, but, in contrast to echocardiography, requires that the animal be immobilized during image acquisition. General anesthetic regimens yield satisfactory images, but have the potential to significantly perturb cardiac function. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of general anesthesia and a new deep sedation regimen, respectively, on cardiac function in mice as determined by CMR, and to compare them to results obtained in mildly sedated conscious mice by echocardiography.
In 6 mildly sedated normal conscious mice assessed by echo, heart rate was 615 ± 25 min-1 (mean ± SE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 0.94 ± 0.01. In the CMR studies of normal mice, heart rate was slightly lower during deep sedation with morphine/midazolam (583 ± 30 min-1), but the difference was not statistically significant. General anesthesia with 1% inhaled isoflurane significantly depressed heart rate (468 ± 7 min-1, p < 0.05 vs. conscious sedation). In 6 additional mice with ischemic LV failure, trends in heart rate were similar, but not statistically significant. In normal mice, deep sedation depressed LVEF (0.79 ± 0.04, p < 0.05 compared to light sedation), but to a significantly lesser extent than general anesthesia (0.60 ± 0.04, p < 0.05 vs. deep sedation).
In mice with ischemic LV failure, ejection fraction measurements were comparable when performed during light sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia, respectively. Contrast-to-noise ratios were similar during deep sedation and during general anesthesia, indicating comparable image quality. Left ventricular mass measurements made by CMR during deep sedation were nearly identical to those made during general anesthesia (r2 = 0.99, mean absolute difference < 4%), indicating equivalent quantitative accuracy obtained with the two methods. The imaging procedures were well-tolerated in all mice.
In mice with normal cardiac function, CMR during deep sedation causes significantly less depression of heart rate and ejection fraction than imaging during general anesthesia with isoflurane. In mice with heart failure, the sedation/anesthesia regimen had no clear impact on cardiac function. Deep sedation and general anesthesia produced CMR with comparable image quality and quantitative accuracy.
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
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.
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
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 purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intraoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on patient's and surgeon's satisfaction during retinal surgery under sub-tenon's anesthesia.
Forty-four patients scheduled for elective retinal surgery under sub-tenon's anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. The patients were divided into Dexmedetomidine (n = 22) and Control (n = 22) groups. Intravenous dexmedetomidine or 0.9% saline via infusion pump were administered continuously to the dexmedetomidine or control group, respectively. Ramsay sedation scale with a target level of 3-4 was used to assess adequacy of sedation. Perioperative pain, hemodynamic and respiratory data were collected, while satisfaction from patients and surgeon were assessed post-surgery using a 5-point satisfaction scale.
Patient and surgeon satisfaction was higher in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). The pain associated with sub-tenon's anesthesia and peripheral vitrectomy was lesser in the dexmedetomidine group than in the control group (P = 0.020). There was significant reduction of heart rate in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.001), but only one patient needed treatment with atropine. There was no respiratory effect on both groups.
Dexmedetomidine sedation during retinal surgery improved satisfaction from both patient and surgeon without respiratory complication. It is a safe and preferable choice of sedation for retinal surgery.
Conscious sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Patient satisfaction; Vitreoretinal surgery
Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.
We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.
Patients and Methods:
This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).
Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.
Colonoscopy; Propofol; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trial
Moderate intravenous (IV) sedation combined with local anesthesia is common for outpatient oral surgery procedures. An ideal sedative agent must be safe and well tolerated by patients and practitioners. This study evaluated fospropofol, a relatively new sedative/hypnotic, in comparison to midazolam, a commonly used benzodiazepine, for IV moderate sedation during oral and maxillofacial surgery. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the fospropofol or the midazolam group. Each participant received 1 μg/kg of fentanyl prior to administration of the selected sedative. Those in the fospropofol group received an initial dose of 6.5 mg/kg, with 1.6 mg/kg supplemental doses as needed. Those in the midazolam group received initial doses of 0.05 mg/kg, followed by 0.02 mg/kg supplemental doses. The quality of sedation in each patient was evaluated with regard to (a) onset of sedation, maintenance, and recovery profile; (b) patient and surgeon satisfaction; and (c) hemodynamic stability and adverse effects. The fospropofol group demonstrated shorter physical recovery times than midazolam patients, taking a mean of 11.6 minutes versus 18.4 minutes for physical recovery (P = .007). Cognitive recovery comparison did not find any difference with a mean of 7.5 minutes versus 8.8 minutes between the 2 drug groups (P = .123). The fospropofol group had a higher rate of local anesthetic injection recall (90.5 vs 44.4%, P = .004). Other parameters of recall were comparable. Two adverse effects demonstrated significance, with more patients in the midazolam group experiencing tachycardia (48.2 vs 9.4%, P = .001), and more patients in the fospropofol group experiencing perineal discomfort (40.6 vs 0, P < .001). No significant difference was found in any other measures of sedation safety, maintenance, or satisfaction. Fospropofol, when administered intravenously by a dentist anesthesiologist at the indicated dose in this study, appears to be a safe, well-tolerated alternative to midazolam for intravenous moderate sedation during minor oral surgery procedures.
Fospropofol; Midazolam; Moderate sedation; Outpatient surgery; IV conscious sedation; Benzodiazepine; Propofol
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.
It has been postulated that Multiple sclerosis (MS) stems from a narrowing in the veins that drain blood from the brain, known medically as chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI. It has been proposed that balloon angioplasty should alleviate the symptoms of MS. This procedure is also known as The “Liberation Procedure”. Accordingly, a clinical study was undertaken to determine the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing the liberation procedure.
To assess the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine in providing adequate sedation and pain relief for patients undergoing the liberation procedure.
Settings and design:
A prospective, nonrandomized observational study of 60 consecutive adult patients undergoing the liberation procedure under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) who will receive dexmedetomidine as an anesthetic agent.
A total of 60 adult patients were enrolled in the study. Dexmedetomidine was administered to all patients in a loading dose of 1 mcg/kg, which was followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2–0.5 mcg/kg/h. The evaluation of quality of sedation was based on Ramsay Sedation and the quality of analgesia was assessed using the visual analog scale. The following parameters were measured continuously: heart rate, mean arterial pressure and hemoglobin oxygen saturation. Patients were asked to answer the question, “How would you rate your experience with the sedation you have received during surgery?” using a seven-point Likert-like verbal rating scale.
Repeated measurements were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA for HR and BP.
Most of our patients were satisfied with their sedation. In most of the patients, MAP and HR dropped after the bolus dose of dexmedetomidine, and the drop was statistically significant.
Dexmedetomidine can be used as a sole sedative agent in patients undergoing the liberation procedure.
Dexmedetomidine; monitored anesthesia care; multiple sclerosis liberation procedure
Anesthesiologists face increasing pressure to demonstrate the value of the care they provide, whether locally or nationally through public reporting and payor requirements. In this article, we describe the current state of performance measurement in anesthesia care at the national level and highlight gaps and opportunities in performance measurement for anesthesiologists.
We evaluated all endorsed performance measures in the National Quality Forum (NQF), the clearing house for all federal performance measures, and classified all measures as follows: 1) anesthesia-specific; 2) surgery-specific; 3) jointly attributable; or 4) other. We used NQF-provided descriptors to characterize measures in terms of (1) structure, process, outcome or efficiency; (2) patients; disease and events targeted; (3) procedural specialty; (4) reporting eligibility; (5) measures stewards; and (6) timing in the care stream.
National Quality Forum Measures
Of the 637 endorsed performance measures, few (6, 1.0%) were anesthesia-specific. An additional 39 measures (6.1%) were surgery-specific, and 67 others (10.5%) were jointly attributable. “Anesthesia-specific” measures addressed preoperative antibiotic timing (n=4), normothermia (n=1), and protocol use for placement of central venous catheter (n=1). Jointly attributable measures included outcome measures (n=49/67, 73.1%) which were weighted towards mortality alone (n=24) and cardiac surgery (n=14). Other jointly attributable measures addressed orthopedic surgery (n=4), general surgical oncologic resections (n=12) or nonspecified surgeries (n=15), but none specifically addressed anesthesia care outside the operating room such as for endoscopy. Only 4 measures were eligible for value-based purchasing. No named anesthesiology professional groups were among measure stewards, but surgical professional groups (n=33/67, 47%) were frequent measure stewards.
Summary and Ways Forward
Few NQF performance measures are specific to anesthesia practice, and none of these appears to demonstrate the value of anesthesia care or differentiate high-quality providers. To demonstrate their role in patient-centered, outcomes-driven care, anesthesiologists may consider actively partnering in jointly attributable or team-based reporting. Future measures may incorporate surgical procedures not proportionally represented as well as procedural and sedation care provided in non-operating room settings.
To assess the effectiveness of intrauterine local anesthesia in reducing pain associated with outpatient gynecologic procedures.
We searched online databases PubMed or MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov, and hand-searched reference lists from reviews evaluating pain control methods for gynecologic office procedures. We identified randomized controlled trials using intrauterine local anesthetic in gynecologic procedures.
Titles and abstracts were screened for 1,236 articles. We identified 45 potential articles for inclusion. We excluded 22 of these studies because: 1) they were not randomized controlled trials; 2) they did not describe a quantifiable dose of medication used in the study; 3) they did not investigate an intrauterine anesthetic; 4) they did not study a potentially awake, outpatient procedure; and 5) they did not clearly report results or represented duplicate publication. Twenty-three articles were ultimately included for review.
Tabulation, Integration, and Results
Two authors independently reviewed full search results and assessed eligibility for inclusion, and independently abstracted data from all articles that met criteria for inclusion. Disagreements regarding eligibility or abstraction data were adjudicated by a third independent person. Our primary endpoint was reported effect of intrauterine local anesthesia on patient-reported pain scores. Due to heterogeneity in study methods, outcome measures, and reporting of outcomes, results could not be combined in a meta-analysis. Good evidence supports use of intrauterine anesthesia in endometrial biopsy and curettage, as five good-quality studies reported reduced pain scores while only one good-quality study reported negative results. We found moderate evidence to support intrauterine anesthesia in hysteroscopy, as one good-quality study and two fair or poor quality studies reported reduced pain scores, while two good-quality studies had negative results. Good evidence suggests that intrauterine anesthesia is not effective in hysterosalpingography; three good-quality studies reported that pain scores were not reduced, and no good quality studies showed beneficial effect in that procedure.
Evidence was insufficient concerning first-trimester abortion, saline-infusion sonogram, tubal sterilization, and intrauterine device insertion.
Intrauterine local anesthesia can reduce pain in several gynecologic procedures including endometrial biopsy, curettage, and hysteroscopy, and may be effective in other procedures as well.
Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.
A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.
The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.
The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I2 = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I2 = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I2 = 0%). The SpO2 during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I2 = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO2 was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I2 = 0.0%).
According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.
This report examines the effects of regional versus general anesthesia for infrainguinal bypass procedures performed in the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI).
Nonemergent infrainguinal bypass procedures for CLI (defined as rest pain or tissue loss) were identified using the 2005 to 2008 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using International Classification of Disease, ninth edition, and Current Procedure Terminology codes. Patients were classified according to National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data as receiving either general anesthesia or regional anesthesia. The regional anesthesia group included those specified as having regional, spinal, or epidural anesthesia. Demographic, medical, risk factor, operative, and outcomes data were abstracted for the study sample. Individual outcomes were evaluated according to the following morbidity categories: wound, pulmonary, venous thromboembolic, genitourinary, cardiovascular, and operative. Length of stay, total morbidity, and mortality were also evaluated. Associations between anesthesia types and outcomes were evaluated using linear or logistic regression.
A total of 5,462 inpatient hospital visits involving infrainguinal bypasses for CLI were identified. Mean patient age was 69 ± 12 years; 69% were Caucasian; and 39% were female. In all, 4,768 procedures were performed using general anesthesia and 694 with regional anesthesia. Patients receiving general anesthesia were younger and significantly more likely to have a history of smoking, previous lower-extremity bypass, previous amputation, previous stroke, and a history of a bleeding diathesis including the use of warfarin. Patients receiving regional anesthesia had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Tibial-level bypasses were performed in 51% of procedures, whereas 49% of procedures were popliteal-level bypasses. Cases performed using general anesthesia demonstrated a higher rate of resident involvement, need for blood transfusion, and operative time. There was no difference in the rate of popliteal-level and infrapopliteal-level bypasses between groups. Infrapopliteal bypass procedures performed using general anesthesia were more likely to involve prosthetic grafts and composite vein. Mortality occurred in 157 patients (3%). The overall morbidity rate was 37%. Mean and median lengths of stay were 7.5 days (±8.1) and 6.0 days (Q1: 4.0, Q3: 8.0), respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated no significant differences by anesthesia type in the incidence of morbidity, mortality, or length of stay.
These results provide no evidence to support the systematic avoidance of general anesthesia for lower-extremity bypass procedures. These data suggest that anesthetic choice should be governed by local expertise and practice patterns.
Intravenous propofol can provide a superior quality of sedation compared to standard sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the utility of propofol sedation for the endoscopic early detection of superficial pharyngeal and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has not been investigated. In a multicenter, prospective trial, 255 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) were assigned to receive propofol sedation or no sedation according to their own willingness. The primary aim was to compare the detection rates of superficial cancer in the pharyngeal region and the esophagus between two groups. The secondary aim was to evaluate factors associated with technical adequacy. The detection rate was higher in the propofol sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (6.06% vs. 2.40%), but not significantly (P=0.22). However, the small lesion (less than 10 mm in diameter) detection rate was higher in sedation vs. no sedation group for H&N region (88.89% vs. 33.33%; P=0.048). The median time for pharyngeal observation in the sedation group was faster than in the no sedation group (20.6 s vs. 44.3 s; P<0.001). Ninety-five percent of H&N region evaluations were totally complete in sedation compared with sixty percent in the no sedation group (P<0.001). The overall p value indicated that only smoking habit was associated with incomplete pharyngeal observation (P<0.05), and it was more difficult to accomplish a complete pharyngeal observation in patients who smoked more than 10 packs per day. Intravenous propofol sedation compared to no intravenous sedation during conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can facilitate a more complete pharyngeal examination and increase the detection rate of superficial H&N squamous cell carcinoma in high risk patients.
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; head and neck cancer; superficial cancer; high-risk patients; propofol sedation
Purpose of review
The elderly are the fastest growing segment of the population and undergo 25–30% of all surgical procedures. Postoperative cognitive problems are common in older patients following major surgery. The socioeconomic implications of these cognitive disorders are profound; cognitive decline is associated with a loss of independence, a reduction in the quality of life, and death. This review will focus on the two most common cognitive problems following surgery: postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD).
For years, preoperative geriatric consultation/screening was the only intervention proven to decrease postoperative delirium. There are, however, several recent publications indicating that preoperative and postoperative pharmacological and medical (hydration, oxygenation) management can reduce postoperative delirium. Spinal anesthesia with minimal propofol sedation has been shown to decrease the incidence of postoperative delirium in hip-fracture patients. Likewise, dexmedetomidine sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU is associated with less postoperative delirium and shorter ventilator times. Preoperative levels of education and brain function (cognitive reserve) may predict patients at risk for postoperative cognitive problems. Reduced white matter integrity is reported to place patients at a higher risk for both postoperative delirium and POCD.
The etiology of postoperative cognitive problems is unknown, but there is emerging evidence that decreased preoperative cognitive function contributes to the development of postoperative delirium and POCD. There is growing concern that inhalation anesthetics may be neurotoxic to the aging brain, but there are no human data evaluating this hypothesis to date. Randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to improve long-term cognitive outcomes in elderly patients are urgently needed.
anesthesia; delirium; postoperative cognitive dysfunction; surgery
In some medical circumstances, pediatric patients may need premedication for transferring to the operating room. In these situations, using intravenous premedication is preferred. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous midazolam, intravenous ketamine, and combination of both to reduce the anxiety and improve behavior in children undergoing general anesthesia.
In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 90 pediatric patients aged 6 months to 6 years with American Society of Anesthesiologist grade I or II were enrolled. Before anesthesia, children were randomly divided into three groups to receive intravenous midazolam 0.1 mg/kg, or intravenous ketamine 1 mg/kg, or combination of half doses of both. Behavior types and sedation scores were recorded before premedication, after premedication, before anesthesia, and after anesthesia in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesthesia time, recovery duration, blood pressure, and heart rate were also recorded. For comparing distribution of behavior types and sedation scores among three groups, we used Kruskal–Wallis test, and for comparing mean and standard deviation of blood pressure and heart rates, we used analysis of variance.
After premedication, children's behavior was significantly better in the combination group (P < 0.001). After anesthesia, behavior type was same among three groups (P = 0.421). Sedation scores among three groups were also different after premedication and the combination group was significantly more sedated than the other two groups (P < 0.001).
Combination of 0.05 mg/kg of intravenous midazolam and 0.5 mg/kg of intravenous ketamine as premedication produced more deep sedation and more desirable behavior in children compared with each midazolam 0.1 mg/kg or ketamine 1 mg/kg.
Ketamine; Midazolam; pediatric; premedication
Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are generally sedated for prolonged periods. Over-sedation and under-sedation both have negative effects on patient safety and resource use. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to establish the incidence of sub-optimal sedation (both over- and under-sedation) in ICUs.
We searched Medline, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) online literature databases from 1988 to 15 May 2008 and hand-searched conferences. English-language studies set in the ICU, in sedated adult humans on mechanical ventilation, which reported the incidence of sub-optimal sedation, were included. All abstracts were reviewed twice by two independent reviewers, with all conflicts resolved by a third reviewer, to check that they met the review inclusion criteria. Full papers of all included studies were retrieved and were again reviewed twice against inclusion criteria. Data were doubly extracted. Study aims, design, population, comparisons made, and data on the incidence of sub-optimal, optimal, over-sedation or under-sedation were extracted.
There was considerable variation between included studies in the definition of optimal sedation and in the scale or method used to assess sedation. Across all included studies, a substantial incidence of sub-optimal sedation was reported, with a greater tendency toward over-sedation.
Our review suggests that improvements in the consistent definition and measurement of sedation may improve the quality of care of patients within the ICU.
The α2-adrenoreceptor agonist, dexmedetomidine, provides excellent sedation with minimal cardiovascular instability or respiratory depression and may be a useful adjunct to facilitate smooth tracheal extubation.
Materials and Methods:
Fifty American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I-II patients, aged 20-45 years, scheduled for elective general surgical, urological and gynecological surgeries were studied after randomization into two groups. Group A and B, received an intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine 0.75 mcg/kg or placebo respectively, over 15 minutes before anticipated time of end of surgery, in a double blind manner. Anesthesia techniques were standardized. Heart rate, systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressures were recorded while starting injection, at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 minutes after starting injection, during extubation, at 1, 3, 5 minutes after extubation, and thereafter every 5 minutes for 30 minutes. Quality of extubation was evaluated on a 5 point scale and postoperative sedation on a 6 point scale. Any event of laryngospasm, bronchospasm, desaturation, respiratory depression, vomiting, hypotension, undue sedation was noted.
Heart rate, systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressures were significantly higher in group B (P < 0.05). Extubation quality score of majority of patients was 2 in group A and 3 in group B. Sedation score of most patients was 3 in group A and 2 in group B. Bradycardia and hypotension incidences were higher in group A. One patient in group A, two patients in group B had vomiting. No patient had any other side effects.
Dexmedetomidine 0.75 mcg/kg administered 15 minutes before extubation, stabilizes hemodynamics and facilitates smooth extubation.
α2-adrenoreceptor agonist; dexmedetomidine; extubation; hemodynamics
Gastrointestinal endoscopies are invasive and unpleasant procedures that are increasingly being used worldwide. The importance of high quality procedures (especially in colorectal cancer screening), the increasing patient awareness and the expectation of painless examination, increase the need for procedural sedation. The best single sedation agent for endoscopy is propofol which, due to its’ pharmacokinetic/dynamic profile allows for a higher patient satisfaction and procedural quality and lower induction and recovery times, while maintaining the safety of traditional sedation. Propofol is an anesthetic agent when used in higher doses than those needed for endoscopy. Because of this important feature it may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory depression and, ultimately, to cardiac arrest and death. Fueled by this argument, concern over the safety of its administration by personnel without general anesthesia training has arisen. Propofol usage seems to be increasing but it’s still underused. It is a safe alternative for simple endoscopic procedures in low risk patients even if administered by non-anesthesiologists. Evidence on propofol safety in complex procedures and high risk patients is less robust and in these cases, the presence of an anesthetist should be considered. We review the existing evidence on the topic and evaluate the regional differences on sedation practices.
Hypnotics and sedatives; Propofol; Conscious sedation; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal
Although male circumcision is a surgical intervention that is frequently performed in children, there is no consensus about the age at which it should be performed.
The purpose of this study was to determine the best age range for routine male circumcision with respect to a child’s health and the cost.
Patients and Methods:
This clinical trial was conducted in the affiliated hospital of the Erzincan University of Medical Sciences, Turkey, in 2014. The circumcised children were evaluated in 3 groups: < 1 year old (Group 1), 1-7 years old (Group 2), and > 7 years old (Group 3). To obtain a satisfactory Wilton sedation score, midazolam 0.1 mg/kg IV was administered first. If adequate sedation was not achieved, ketamine 2 mg/kg IV was also administered. If adequate sedation was still not achieved, general anesthesia was administered via a laryngeal mask. At the end of the surgery, the groups were compared in terms of post-anesthesia recovery duration, complications, discharging duration, and cost.
A total of 603 children were circumcised, 374 in Group 1, 94 in Group 2, and 135 in Group 3. Midazolam was sufficient for sedation in 364 Group 1 patients (97.3%), 6 Group 2 patients (6.3%), and 38 Group 3 patients (28.1%). The shortest post-anesthesia recovery duration after surgical intervention and time until discharge, the lowest cost, and the fewest anesthesia complications were observed in Group 1 (P < 0.05 for all).
Although almost all of the < 1 year-old children could be sedated with midazolam alone, most of the > 1 year-old children required ketamine or general anesthesia. Performing circumcision when children are less than 1 year old decreases the risk of complications due to anesthesia and lowers the costs compared with performing the procedure on older children.
Circumcision; Age Groups; Anesthesia
Over 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation yet there is limited understanding of drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures.
To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS).
Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses and anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort.
GI endoscopy unit.
A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse and recovery nurse.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Survey characteristics of the PROSAS.
Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. 91.6% of patients reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours postprocedure (p<0.001 for all), suggesting high external validity.
Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain on analgesics
The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.
Endoscopy; Sedation; Quality; Safety; Patient Satisfaction; Patient Reported Outcome
The present study evaluates the effect of anesthesiologist's experience in providing deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on cost and safety. Methodology. Perioperative records of 1167 patients who underwent ERCP were divided on the basis of anesthesiologist assisting these procedures either on regular basis (Group R) or on ad hoc basis (Group N). Comparisons were made for anesthesia times, complication rates, and airway interventions. Results. Across all American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classes, regular anesthesiologists were more efficient (overall mean anesthesia time in Group R was 24.82 ± 12.96 versus 48.63 ± 21.53 minutes in Group N). Within Group R, anesthesia times across all ASA classes were comparable. In Group N, anesthesia times for higher ASA status patients were significantly longer (ASA IV, 64.62 ± 35.78 versus ASA I, 45.88 ± 11.19 minutes). Intubation rates (0.76% versus 12.8%) and median minimal oxygen saturation (100% versus 97.01%) were significantly higher in Group R. Had Group R anesthesiologists performed all procedures, the hospital could have saved US $ 758536 (based upon operating room time costs). Conclusion. Experience in providing deep sedation improved patient safety and decreased the operating room turnaround time, thereby lowering operating room costs associated with these procedures.
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text
The anesthesia-related cardiac arrest (CA) rate is a quality indicator to improve patient safety in the perioperative period. A systematic review with meta-analysis of the worldwide literature related to anesthesia-related CA rate has not yet been performed.
This study aimed to analyze global data on anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates according to country's Human Development Index (HDI) and by time. In addition, we compared the anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates in low- and high-income countries in 2 time periods.
A systematic review was performed using electronic databases to identify studies in which patients underwent anesthesia with anesthesia-related and/or perioperative CA rates. Meta-regression and proportional meta-analysis were performed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate global data on anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates according to country's HDI and by time, and to compare the anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates by country's HDI status (low HDI vs high HDI) and by time period (pre-1990s vs 1990s–2010s), respectively.
Fifty-three studies from 21 countries assessing 11.9 million anesthetic administrations were included. Meta-regression showed that anesthesia-related (slope: −3.5729; 95% CI: −6.6306 to −0.5152; P = 0.024) and perioperative (slope: −2.4071; 95% CI: −4.0482 to −0.7659; P = 0.005) CA rates decreased with increasing HDI, but not with time. Meta-analysis showed per 10,000 anesthetics that anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates declined in high HDI (2.3 [95% CI: 1.2–3.7] before the 1990s to 0.7 [95% CI: 0.5–1.0] in the 1990s–2010s, P < 0.001; and 8.1 [95% CI: 5.1–11.9] before the 1990s to 6.2 [95% CI: 5.1–7.4] in the 1990s–2010s, P < 0.001, respectively). In low-HDI countries, anesthesia-related CA rates did not alter significantly (9.2 [95% CI: 2.0–21.7] before the 1990s to 4.5 [95% CI: 2.4–7.2] in the 1990s–2010s, P = 0.14), whereas perioperative CA rates increased significantly (16.4 [95% CI: 1.5–47.1] before the 1990s to 19.9 [95% CI: 10.9–31.7] in the 1990s–2010s, P = 0.03).
Both anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates decrease with increasing HDI but not with time. There is a clear and consistent reduction in anesthesia-related and perioperative CA rates in high-HDI countries, but an increase in perioperative CA rates without significant alteration in the anesthesia-related CA rates in low-HDI countries comparing the 2 time periods.