scholarly journals Sa1143 Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus Conscious Sedation for Common Endoscopic Procedures. A Prospective Patient Satisfaction and Procedure Outcome Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. S-213
Author(s):  
Muhammad Asif A. Virk ◽  
Ghulam Mujtaba ◽  
Kinesh Changela ◽  
Raveendra B. Chigurupati ◽  
Elena N. Zamora ◽  
...  
2004 ◽  
Vol 100 (5) ◽  
pp. 1072-1075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dajun Song ◽  
Mohamed A. Hamza ◽  
Paul F. White ◽  
Stephanie I. Byerly ◽  
Stephanie B. Jones ◽  
...  

Background The currently used emulsion formulations of 1% propofol contain 10% soybean oil. However, a new emulsion of 1% propofol (Ampofol) containing 50% less lipid has recently become available for clinical investigation. This study was designed to compare the pharmacodynamic properties of Ampofol with those of a standard formulation (Diprivan) when administered for intraoperative sedation. Methods Sixty healthy outpatients undergoing minor operations with local anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either Ampofol (n = 31) or Diprivan (n = 29) for intravenous sedation. The sedation was initiated with an intravenous loading dose of propofol, 0.75 mg/kg, followed by an initial infusion rate of 50 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) to achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of 3. The targeted level of sedation was maintained with a variable-rate propofol infusion during the operation. The onset times to achieving a sedation score of 3, the severity of pain on injection of the loading dose, intraoperative hemodynamic variables, and electroencephalographic Bispectral Index values were recorded. In addition, recovery times, postoperative pain and nausea, and patient satisfaction with the sedative medication were assessed. Results There were no significant differences between Ampofol and Diprivan with respect to onset times, dosage requirements, Bispectral Index values, hemodynamic variables, recovery times, or patient satisfaction scores. The incidence of moderate pain on injection was higher in the Ampofol group (26%vs. 7% with Diprivan; P < 0.05). Conclusions Ampofol was equipotent to Diprivan with respect to its sedative properties during monitored anesthesia care. Although both groups received pretreatment with intravenous lidocaine, Ampofol was associated with more pain on injection.


2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. AB357
Author(s):  
Saurabh Sethi ◽  
Ram Chuttani ◽  
Douglas K. Pleskow ◽  
Sheila R. Barnett ◽  
Daniel a. Leffler ◽  
...  

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Aasbo ◽  
J Dinerman ◽  
G Mark ◽  
M C Burke ◽  
M El-Chami ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements This study was financially supported by Boston Scientific The influence of anesthesia technique on the outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD) implantation has not been prospectively evaluated. The aim of the present analysis was to characterize the effect of anesthesia choice acutely and over a year follow-up in the large "real-world" cohort of the SICD Post Approval Study (SICD-PAS). Patients received either general anesthesia (GA), conscious sedation (CS), or monitored anesthesia care (MAC) at the implanting physicians" discretion.  Acute results and complications over one year were compared between GA, CS and MAC. 1,631 patients were studied.  64.3% received GA , 29.2% received CS and 6.6% received MAC.  Procedure times were shortest for MAC versus GA and CS (Table 1).  Cross-over from CS and MAC to GA occurred in 2.9% and 1.9% of procedures, respectively.  The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in the MAC cohort compared with GA and CS.  GA patients were less often discharged the same day than CS and MAC.  Patients who had GA were more likely to have had intra-operative DFT testing, while successful DFT testing at implant did not differ among groups (Table 1).  At one year, freedom from total complications did not differ between groups (93.3% for GA, 92.9% for CS and 87.8% for MAC, p = 0.095) nor did freedom from inappropriate shocks (94% for GA, 94.2% for CS, 88.9% for MAC, p = 0.138) nor appropriate shocks (95.8% for GA, 95% for CS, 95% for MAC, p = 0.747). All three anesthesia techniques had similar acute and one year outcomes but, despite having worse LVEF, patients who received MAC had shorter procedure times and infrequently required conversion to GA.  GA was associated with higher rates of next day patient discharge.  These results suggest that MAC may be preferred for the majority of patients. This observation should be confirmed with prospective trials. Table 1:Characteristics and Outcomes Parameter Conscious Sedation General Anesthesia Monitored Anesthesia Care P value Gender[%(N/Total)] Male 68.1 (324/476) 69.3 (726/1048) 66.4 (71/107) 0.77 Age (years) mean ± SD 54 ± 15 53 ± 15 54 ± 13 0.61 Body Mass Index mean ± SD 30 ± 7 30 ± 8 29 ± 6 0.41 Creatinine (mg/dL) mean ± SD 2 ± 2 2 ± 4 2 ± 2 0.43 LVEF (%) mean ± SD 33 ± 15 32 ± 15 26 ± 9 <0.001 Procedure Time (min) mean ± SD 85 ± 42 75 ± 33 65 ± 30 <0.001 Same Day Discharge % 70.3% 64.3% 72.6% 0.03 DFT Attempted % 84% 89.1% 81.3% 0.004 Successful DFT % 98.7% 98.6% 98.8% 0.97


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew T Weber ◽  
Nimah Ather ◽  
Vivy Tran ◽  
Jenny Sauk ◽  
Christina Ha

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require colonoscopy for diagnosis, disease activity assessment, and dysplasia surveillance. Few studies have evaluated anesthesia needs of IBD patients during procedures. This study aimed to examine sedation requirements of IBD patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods A retrospective cohort study of IBD and non-IBD patients presenting for colonoscopy between August 2015 and December 2016 was undertaken. Data collected included patient and procedure focused variables. Sedation was categorized as intravenous conscious sedation (IVCS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Results: A total of 522 consecutive colonoscopies (212 IBD, 310 non-IBD) between August 2015 and December 2016 met criteria for inclusion. In total, 323 cases utilized IVCS (56 IBD, 267 non-IBD) and 196 used MAC (155 IBD, 41 non-IBD). Compared with non-IBD patients (13.2%), more IBD patients (73.1%) required MAC (P < 0.01). For IVCS cases, IBD patients required more midazolam (5.73 mg versus non-IBD 4.31 mg; P <0.01) and opioid (IBD 157.59 µg fentanyl equivalents versus non-IBD 119.41 µg; P < 0.01). Diphenhydramine was more frequently added to IVCS for IBD cases (IBD 25.0% versus non-IBD 1.9%; P < 0.01). For MAC cases, propofol dosage was not significantly different between groups (IBD 355.64 mg versus non-IBD 317.104 mg; P = 0.29). IBD colonoscopies took longer (IBD 22.7 versus non-IBD 17.2 min; P < 0.01) and more patients had recent narcotic use (IBD 21.2% versus non-IBD 9.0%; P < 0.01). Conclusions IBD patients required more IVCS, including greater diphenhydramine use with longer procedure times compared with non-IBD patients. These findings suggest MAC should be considered for IBD procedural sedation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document