Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of the sedation and recovery profiles of Ro 48-6791, a new benzodiazepine, and midazolam in combination with meperidine for outpatient endoscopic procedures.
In this randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the onset and recovery characteristics of an investigational benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791 (when administered alone or combined with meperidine), a midazolam-meperidine combination for sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. Ninety consenting outpatients scheduled for upper or lower GI procedures were randomly assigned as follows: Group I received midazolam 1 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; Group II received Ro 48-6791 0.5 mg IV and meperidine 50 mg; or Group III received Ro 48-6791 1.0 mg IV alone. If the level of sedation did not achieve an Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) score of 4 (where 5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep) in < or = 2 min, a second bolus dose, equal to half of the original dose of midazolam or Ro 48-6791, was administered. The onset time was defined as the time to achieve an OAA/S score of 4. During the procedure, a bolus dose equal to half of the total induction dose was given to maintain an OAA/S score of 4. The induction and maintenance dosages, as well as recovery times to an OAA/S score of 5, were recorded. A heel-toe line walk (HTLW) test used to determine the time to "fitness for discharge." Although the onset times were similar in all three groups, the induction dosages were significantly reduced in Group II compared with Groups I and III. There were significantly more patients requiring supplemental sedative boluses and "rescue" analgesia with Ro 48-6791 than with midazolam. The Ro 48-6791 groups also experienced more dizziness after the procedures. Ro 48-6791 was associated with a higher incidence of inadequate sedation (18% vs 3%) without the opioid. The time for the HTLW test to return to baseline values after the procedure was similar among the three groups. However, the Ro 48-6791 groups had significantly reduced times to return to an OAA/S score of 5 and to achieve the baseline HTLW value after the last dose of the benzodiazepine. In conclusion, compared with midazolam, Ro 48-6791 is more potent and may be associated with a more rapid early recovery after endoscopic GI procedures. However, sedation with Ro 48-6791 required more supplemental bolus doses and "rescue" analgesic medication and was associated with a higher incidence of dizziness. ⋯ The investigational water-soluble benzodiazepine, Ro 48-6791, is a more potent sedative than midazolam, which appears to have a slightly shorter duration of action. Unfortunately, use of Ro 48-6791 increased the requirement for supplemental doses of the sedative medication and the need for "rescue" analgesics during the procedure and was associated with more dizziness after the procedure.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
ReviewDesign of appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics to minimize patient waiting times: a review of computer simulation and patient survey studies.
Anesthesiologists can use the science of clinic scheduling to design appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics. The principal reasons reported for inappropriately [or arguably unethically] long patient waiting times are provider tardiness, lack of patient punctuality, patient no-shows, and improperly designed appointment systems. However, the fundamental reason why anesthesia clinics have such long patient waiting times is because of their relatively long mean (and consequently standard deviation) of consultation times. ⋯ Substantial provider idle time should be expected. Appropriate values for breaks, appointment intervals, and percentage no-shows should be determined by computer simulation, using parameters appropriate for each provider and anesthesia clinic. Finally, traditional efforts at making waiting for a consultation tolerable should be made.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Review Comparative StudyAmbulatory anesthesia experience with remifentanil.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Comparative StudyPerioperative- and long-term mortality rates after major vascular surgery: the relationship to preoperative testing in the medicare population.
Debate continues regarding the value of cardiovascular testing and coronary revascularization before major vascular surgery. Whereas recent guidelines have advocated selective preoperative testing, several authors have suggested that it is no longer necessary in an era of low perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality. We used data from a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries to determine the mortality rate after vascular surgery, based on the use of preoperative cardiac testing. A 5% nationally random sample of the aged Medicare population for the final 6 mo of 1991 and first 11 mo of 1992 was used to identify a cohort of patients who underwent elective infrainguinal or abdominal aortic reconstructive surgery. Use within the first 6 mo of 1991 was reviewed to determine if preoperative noninvasive cardiovascular imaging or coronary revascularization was performed. Thirty-day (perioperative) and 1-yr mortalities were assessed. Perioperative mortality was significantly increased for aortic surgery (209 of 2865 or 7.3%), compared with infrainguinal surgery (232 of 4030 or 5.8%); however, 1-yr mortality was significantly increased for infrainguinal surgery (16.3% vs 11.3%, P < 0.05). Stress testing, with or without coronary revascularization, was associated with improved short-and long-term survival in aortic surgery. The use of stress testing with coronary revascularization was not associated with reduced perioperative mortality after infrainguinal surgery. Stress testing alone was associated with reduced long-term mortality in patients undergoing infrainguinal revascularization. ⋯ Analysis of the Medicare Claims database suggests that vascular surgery is associated with substantial perioperative and long-term mortality. The reduced long-term mortality in patients who had previously undergone preoperative testing and coronary revascularization reinforces the need for a prospective evaluation of these practices.