Comparison of patient controlled sedation versus continuous infusion of propofol for sedation during spinal and epidural anaesthesia

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid7801362855
dc.authorscopusid7003369853
dc.authorscopusid6701467427
dc.contributor.authorGüreler C.
dc.contributor.authorMemiş D.
dc.contributor.authorPamukçu Z.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:28:20Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:28:20Z
dc.date.issued2000
dc.description.abstractIn our study we aimed to compare continuous infusion and patient controlled sedation (PCS) as an adjunct to spinal and epidural anaesthesia. Totally 50 patients in ASA I-II groups; aged between 19-76 years were divided in two groups; Group I (n=25) with continuous infusion and patients who applied PCS were Group II (n=25). 15 patients were performed epidural block and 35 patients spinal block. Group I received 3 mg/kg/hour propofol; group II received bolus doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg and lock out time 5 minute with PCS. We measured mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), peripheric oxygen saturation (SpO2) and sedation levels; anxiety scores before sedation, on the 15th minute of sedation, at the and of operation and on the 15th and 30th minute after operation. In our results, when sedation started there were statistically significant decreases in MAP and HR on both groups. When we compared hemodynamic parameters before sedation at the end of operation and at the post-operative period, there was no significant difference. During sedation there were statistically significant decreases in SpO2 values only in Group I. Peroperatif sedation levels of Group I were greater than Group II. At the end of operation the sedation levels of Group I were significantly high. Mean duration of the procedures were similar in Group I and Group II. Total doses of propofol was significantly higher in Group I when compared with Group II. Recovery times were significantly shorter in Group II than Group I. Preoperative anxiety scores of both groups were high. At the end of operation and on the 30th minute postoperative anxiety scores of both groups were low. There were no difference between Group I and Group II. In Group I we observed hypotension at one patient, bradycardia at 3 patients and desaturation at 8 patients. As a result; POCS provided sufficient sedation and hemodynamic parameters were more stable. Lesser drug usage, rapid recovery and patients preference were other advantages.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage467en_US
dc.identifier.issn1016-5150
dc.identifier.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-0034486803en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage462en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/17176
dc.identifier.volume28en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurk Anesteziyoloji ve Reanimasyonen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectPatient Controlled Sedation; Propofol; Regional Anaesthesia; Sedation Of Continuous Infusionen_US
dc.subjectAnesthetic Agent; Propofol; Adult; Aged; Anesthesiological Techniques; Anxiety; Article; Bolus Injection; Bradycardia; Clinical Article; Continuous Infusion; Epidural Anesthesia; Heart Rate; Human; Hypotension; Intermethod Comparison; Mean Arterial Pressure; Oxygen Saturation; Regional Anesthesia; Scoring System; Sedation; Spinal Anesthesiaen_US
dc.titleComparison of patient controlled sedation versus continuous infusion of propofol for sedation during spinal and epidural anaesthesiaen_US
dc.title.alternativeSpinal ve epidural anestezi sirasinda sedasyon amaci ile devamli i?nfüzyon ve hasta kontrollü sedasyon yöntemlerinin karşilaştirilmasien_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu