Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy.
Can J Anaesth. 2006 May; 53(5):449-55.CJ

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50-150 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 microg.kg(-1), lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 microg.kg(-1) iv and fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 microg.kg(-1) .hr(-1) throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1-7).

RESULTS

In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score >/=9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, P.O. Box 31648, Jeddah 21418, Saudi Arabia. jalhashemi@kau.edu.saNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16636028

Citation

Alhashemi, Jamal A., and Abdullah M. Kaki. "Anesthesiologist-controlled Versus Patient-controlled Propofol Sedation for Shockwave Lithotripsy." Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia = Journal Canadien D'anesthesie, vol. 53, no. 5, 2006, pp. 449-55.
Alhashemi JA, Kaki AM. Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy. Can J Anaesth. 2006;53(5):449-55.
Alhashemi, J. A., & Kaki, A. M. (2006). Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia = Journal Canadien D'anesthesie, 53(5), 449-55.
Alhashemi JA, Kaki AM. Anesthesiologist-controlled Versus Patient-controlled Propofol Sedation for Shockwave Lithotripsy. Can J Anaesth. 2006;53(5):449-55. PubMed PMID: 16636028.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy. AU - Alhashemi,Jamal A, AU - Kaki,Abdullah M, PY - 2006/4/26/pubmed PY - 2006/10/21/medline PY - 2006/4/26/entrez SP - 449 EP - 55 JF - Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie JO - Can J Anaesth VL - 53 IS - 5 N2 - PURPOSE: To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50-150 microg.kg(-1) .min(-1) titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 microg.kg(-1), lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 microg.kg(-1) iv and fentanyl 1 microg.kg(-1) iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 microg.kg(-1) .hr(-1) throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1-7). RESULTS: In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 +/- 162 mg vs 199 +/- 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 +/- 16 vs 73 +/- 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 +/- 0 vs 3 +/- 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score >/=9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS. CONCLUSION: In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS. SN - 0832-610X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16636028/Anesthesiologist_controlled_versus_patient_controlled_propofol_sedation_for_shockwave_lithotripsy_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022616 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -