Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Sedation Practice (sedation + practice)
Selected AbstractsOptimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: Review and recommendationsJOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 3 2010Andrew Thomson Abstract Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized. [source] Procedural sedation in children in the emergency department: A PREDICT studyEMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, Issue 1 2009Meredith Borland Abstract Objective: To investigate current procedural sedation practice and compare clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for procedural sedation at Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) sites. This will determine areas for improvement and provide baseline data for future multicentre studies. Methods: A questionnaire of specialist emergency physicians regarding demographics, general procedural sedation practice and specific sedation agents given to children. CPG for general sedation and sedation agents were obtained for each site. Results: Seventy-five (71%) useable surveys returned from 105 potential respondents. Most commonly used agents were nitrous oxide (N2O) (75, 100%), ketamine (total 72, 96%; i.v. 59, 83% and i.m. 22, 31%) and midazolam (total 68, 91%; i.v. 52, 81%, oral 47, 73%, intranasal 26, 41% and i.m. 6, 9%). Sedation was used for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures. Forty-three (57%) used formal sedation records and sedation checklists and thirty-one (41%) respondents reported auditing sedations. Four sites ran staff education and competency programmes. Nine sites had general sedation CPG, eight for ketamine, nine for N2O, eight for midazolam (four parenteral, five oral and six intranasal) and three for fentanyl. No site had a guideline for propofol administration. Conclusion: Procedural sedation in this research network commonly uses N2O, ketamine and midazolam for a wide range of procedures. Areas of improvement are the lack of guidelines for certain agents, documentation, staff competency training and auditing processes. Multicentre research could close gaps in terms of age cut-offs, fasting times and optimal indications for various agents. [source] Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care: efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfactionJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 11 2008Liou Huey-Ling MSN Aim., The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background., Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method., A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results., The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3,4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2% and 66·9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion., Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice., This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period. [source] Current United Kingdom sedation practice in pediatric intensive carePEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, Issue 7 2007IAN A. JENKINS FRCPE FRCA Summary Background:, The aim of this study was to investigate the current practice of sedation, analgesia, and neuromuscular blockade in critically ill children on pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in the UK and identify areas that merit further study. Methods:, Data were gathered in a prospective observational study of 338 critically ill children in 20 UK PICUs. Results:, There is considerable variation in clinical practice. A total of 24 different sedative and analgesic agents were used during the study. The most commonly used sedative and analgesic agents were midazolam and morphine. Four different neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) were used, most commonly vecuronium. There were differences in treatment between cardiac and noncardiac children, but there were a greater number of infants and neonates in the cardiac group. NMBs were used in 30% of mechanically ventilated patients. Withdrawal symptoms were reported in 13% of ventilated patients, relatively early in their stay; weaning sedative agents (,tapering') was apparently of no benefit. The use of clonidine in this setting was noted. Physical restraints were used in 7.4%. Propofol was used but in only 2.6% of patients, all over the age of 4 years, and not exceeding 2 mg·kg,1·h,1. No side effects attributable to ,propofol syndrome' were noted. Conclusions:, There is considerable heterogeneity of sedation techniques. NMBs are used in a large portion of this population. Withdrawal symptoms were associated with higher doses of sedation and greater lengths of stay and were not ameliorated by withdrawing sedation gradually (,tapering'). [source] | ||||||||||