| 1. |
- Grossmann, Benjamin Achim, et al.
(författare)
-
Response Letter to the editor
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc.. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:2, s. 279-280
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
|
|
| 2. |
- Grossmann, Benjamin, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-controlled Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopy : A Randomized Controlled Trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 1944-6586 .- 1948-8270. ; 27:2, s. 77-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is a documented method for endoscopic procedures considered to facilitate early recovery. Limited data have been reported, however, on its use during flexible bronchoscopy (FB).Materials and Methods: This study hypothesized that PCS with propofol during FB would facilitate early recovery, with similar bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction compared with nurse-controlled sedation (NCS) with midazolam. A total of 150 patients were randomized 1:1:1 into a control group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and NCS with midazolam), PCS-MS group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and PCS with propofol), and PCS-G group (premedication with glycopyrronium and PCS with propofol).Results: The procedures included transbronchial biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, cryotherapy/biopsy, and/or multistation endobronchial ultrasound. FB duration values in median (range) were 40 (10 to 80), 39 (12 to 68), and 44 (10 to 82) minutes for the groups NCS, PCS-MS, and PCS-G, respectively. An overall 81% of the patients in the combined PCS groups were ready for discharge (modified Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System, score 10) 2 hours after bronchoscopy compared with 40% in the control group (P<0.0001). Between PCS groups, 96% of the PCS-G group patients were ready for discharge compared with 65% in the PCS-MS group (P=0.0002) at 2 hours. Bronchoscopists’ and patients’ satisfaction scores were high in all groups. Postdischarge quality scores showed no differences among the groups.Conclusion: PCS with propofol during FB is feasible, as it shortened recovery time without compromising procedure conditions for bronchoscopists or patients. A rapid postsedation stabilization of vital signs facilitates surveillance before the patient leaves the hospital.
|
|
| 3. |
- Grossmann, Benjamin, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for endoscopic procedures : A cost analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 64:1, s. 53-62
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundPatient‐controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol accompanied by a bedside nurse anaesthetist is an alternative sedation method for endoscopic procedures compared with midazolam administered by a nurse or endoscopist. Increasing costs in health care demands an economic perspective when introducing alternative methods. We applied a hospital perspective on a cost analysis comparing different methods of sedation and the resource use that were expected to affect cost differences related to the sedation.MethodsBased on two randomised previous studies, the direct costs were determined for different sedation methods during two advanced endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy including endobronchial ultrasound. ERCP comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team, PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist and propofol sedation administered by a nurse anaesthetist. Bronchoscopy comparisons were made between midazolam sedation by the endoscopic team and PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist, categorised by premedication morphine‐scopolamine or glycopyrronium.ResultsPropofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist resulted in lower costs per patient for sedation for both ERCP (233 USD) and bronchoscopy (premedication morphine‐scopolamine 267 USD, premedication glycopyrronium 269 USD) compared with midazolam (ERCP 425 USD, bronchoscopy 337 USD). Aborted procedures that needed to be repeated and prolonged hospital stays significantly increased the cost for the midazolam groups.ConclusionPropofol PCS with a bedside nurse anaesthetist reduces the direct sedation costs for ERCP and bronchoscopy procedures compared with midazolam sedation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Grossmann, Benjamin
(författare)
-
Procedural sedation : Aspects on methods, safety and effectiveness
- 2019
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Safety and effectiveness are fundamental principles within the healthcare sector to provide quality of care and health improvement for patients. By ensuring that care is provided based on evidence-based knowledge, risks and complications can be minimised and the use of scarce resources optimised. An increasing demand for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures challenges the traditional methods for sedation regarding safety and effectiveness. It is desirable that the fundamental principles are improved when refining existing or developing new sedation methods. In this doctoral thesis, safety and effectiveness were evaluated for adult patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol during two endoscopic procedures: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) and flexible bronchoscopy (FB); and different doses of rectal racemic ketamine for paediatric (< 4 years) burn wound care.Methods: Data on vital functions, sedation level, safety interventions, procedure feasibility, patient-reported outcome and experience measures, and recovery, from three clinical randomised controlled trials were collected. Costs of sedation for the endoscopic procedures were compiled in a cost-analysis study.Results: PCS with propofol and bedside anaesthetic personnel was shown to be a safe and effective alternative method of sedation during ERCP and FB compared with intravenous sedation with midazolam. The PCS method gives stable cardiorespiratory conditions with few adverse events and interventions, with a low risk of oversedation. PCS offers similar (FB) or better (ERCP) procedure feasibility and patient satisfaction during the procedures than midazolam. Recovery after PCS is quick, minimises the risk for prolonged hospitalisation and is thereby a potential cost-saving sedation method. The optimal dose of rectal racemic ketamine, 6 mg/kg with the addition of 0.5 mg/kg midazolam during severely painful procedures, gives minimal risk for outbreaks of pain, offers stable vital signs conditions and allows rapid recovery without affecting procedure feasibility.Conclusions: The sedation method can be adjusted to type of procedure and patient population. PCS with propofol offers an alternative and reliable method for adult sedation during endoscopic procedures, whereas rectal racemic ketamine combined with midazolam provides good conditions for burn care dressing procedures in young children.
|
|
| 5. |
- Grossmann, Benjamin, et al.
(författare)
-
Rectal ketamine during paediatric burn wound dressing procedures : a randomised dose-finding study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Burns. - : Pergamon Press. - 0305-4179 .- 1879-1409. ; 45:5, s. 1081-1088
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWorldwide, ketamine is used during paediatric procedures, but no recommendations are available regarding a suitable dose for rectal administration during procedures involving high levels of pain and/or anxiety such as burn wound dressing change.MethodsWe evaluated three different single doses of rectally administered racemic ketamine mixed with a fixed dose of 0.5 mg/kg of midazolam. In total, 90 children – aged 6 months to 4 years – were randomised 1:1:1 to receive 4 mg/kg (K-4 group), 6 mg/kg (K-6 group) or 8 mg/kg (K-8 group) of racemic ketamine for a maximum of three consecutive procedures. Primary outcome measure was procedural pain evaluated by Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) behavioural scale. Secondary outcome included feasibility and recovery time. Patient safety was evaluated using surrogate outcomes.ResultsIn total, 201 procedures in 90 children aged 19 ± 8 months were completed. The median maximum pain was FLACC 0 in all groups (p = 0.141). The feasibility was better for groups K-6 (p = 0.049) and K-8 (p = 0.027) compared with K-4, and the mean recovery time was the longest for group K-8 (36 ± 22 min) compared with groups K-4 (25 ± 15 min; p = 0.003) and K-6 (27 ± 20 min; p = 0.025). Median maximum sedation measured by the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS) was higher in group K-8 compared with group K-4 (p < 0.0001) and K-6 (p = 0.023). One child in group K-8 had a study drug-related serious adverse event — laryngospasm/airway obstruction. No rescue analgosedative medication was administered for group K-6.ConclusionsA rectally administered mixture of racemic ketamine (6 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) during paediatric burn dressing procedures with a duration of approximately 30 min provides optimal conditions regarding pain relief, feasibility, recovery time and patient safety, with no need for rescue analgosedative medication.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Henricson, Joakim, et al.
(författare)
-
Tissue viability imaging : Microvascular response to vasoactive drugs induced by iontophoresis
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Microvascular Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0026-2862. ; 78:2, s. 199-205
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When one is studying the physiology of the cutaneous microcirculation there is a need for relevant non-invasive and versatile techniques. In this study we used a new optical device, the tissue viability imager (TiVi), to map changes in cutaneous microvascular concentrations of red blood cells during iontophoresis of vasoactive substances (noradrenaline (NA) and phenylephrine (Phe) for vasoconstriction and acetylcholine (ACh) and sodium nitroprusside (SNP) for vasodilatation). We aimed to present data both individually and pooled, using a four-variable logistic dose response model that is commonly used in similar in vitro vascular studies. The accuracy of the TiVi was also investigated by calculating the coefficient of variation and comparing it with similar tests previously done using laser Doppler imaging. Tests were also performed using the TiVi and LDPI simultaneously to further compare the two methods. Results showed that the TiVi is capable of quantifying vascular responses to iontophorised noradrenaline and phenylephrine without the need to increase background flow first. Fitting the TiVi data to the dose response model resulted in ED50-values with narrow confidence intervals and acceptable r2 values. Mean ED50-values for the TiVi did not differ significantly from similar values obtained using laser Doppler. Results further seem to suggest that when the blood perfusion increases during vasodilatation in skin the initial phase relies mainly on an increase in red blood cell concentration whereas the further perfusion increase is due to an increase in red blood cell velocity.
|
|
| 8. |
- Nilsson, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation – facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 56:9, s. 1123-1129
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWidespread use of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) demands simplicity and a predictable outcome. We evaluated patients’ safety and ease of use of PCS for gynaecological outpatient procedures.MethodsIn a prospective double-blind study, 165 patients were randomized to use propofol or propofol with alfentanil as PCS combined with local anaesthetic for pain control. Data on cardiopulmonary function, consciousness, and need for interventions were collected at baseline and every fifth minute. The surgeons’ evaluation of the ease and the duration of the procedure were recorded.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-five patients used PCS for the entire procedure, 76 patients propofol, and 79 patients propofol/alfentanil. Fifteen procedures in the propofol group were limited or could not be done, compared with four in the propofol/alfentanil group (P = 0.02). The duration of surgery was not affected. The addition of alfentanil affected respiratory function compared with the propofol group: five patients compared with none were manually ventilated (P = 0.03), and two thirds, compared with a quarter, were given supplementary oxygen as their saturation decreased below 90% (P < 0.001). Overall cardiovascular stability was maintained. The propofol group had deeper conscious sedation as measured by the bispectral index (P = 0.03), but all patients could be roused. In the propofol/alfentanil group, five patients became apnoeic and could not be roused.ConclusionsPCS using propofol alone supports patients’ safety, as the addition of alfentanil increased the need for specific interventions to maintain respiratory stability. However, alfentanil increases the feasibility of the procedure, as complementary doses of propofol were not required.
|
|
| 9. |
- Nilsson, Andreas, 1974-
(författare)
-
Patient-controlled sedation in procedural care
- 2014
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The need for procedural sedation is extensive and on the increase in numbers of patients. Minor treatments or diagnostic procedures are being performed with inadequate sedation or even without any sedatives or analgesics. Also, sedation techniques that support advanced, high-quality, in-patient care procedures representing easy performance and rapid recovery are requested for increased effectiveness. In this doctoral thesis, patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol and alfentanil for surgical and diagnostic procedures was studied. The overall aim was to study aspects of safety, procedural feasibility and patients’ experiences. The main hypothesis was that PCS using only propofol is a safe and effective method for the induction and maintenance of moderate procedural sedation. The studies included were prospective, interventional, and in some cases, randomized and double-blinded.Data on cardiopulmonary changes, level of conscious sedation (bispectral index and Observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation [OAA/S]), pain, discomfort, anxiety, nausea (visual analogue scales), interventions performed by nurse anaesthetists, surgeons’ evaluation of feasibility, procedure characteristics, recovery (Aldrete score) and pharmacokinetic simulation of concentrations of drugs at the effect site supported the analysis and comparison between PCS and anaesthetist-controlled sedation and propofol PCS with or without alfentanil.PCS can be adjusted to cover a broad range of areas where sedation is needed, which, in this thesis, included burn care, gynaecological out-patient surgery and endoscopic procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases in the bile ducts (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]). PCS for burn wound treatment demands the addition of alfentanil, but still seems to be safe. PCS was preferred by the patients instead of anaesthetist-controlled sedation. The addition of alfentanil to PCS as an adjunct to gynaecological surgical procedures also using local anaesthesia increases the surgeon’s access to the patients, but impairs safety. Apnoea and other such conditions requiring interventions to restore respiratory function were seen in patients receiving both alfentanil and propofol for PCS. Patients’ experiencing perioperative pain and anxiety did not explain the effect-site concentrations of drugs. Different gynaecological procedures and patients’ weights seemed to best explain the concentrations. For discomfort and pain during the endoscopic procedure (ERCP), propofol PCS performs almost the same as anaesthetist-performed sedation. Overall, as part of the pre-operative procedures, PCS does not seem to be time-consuming. In respect to the perioperative perspective, PCS supports rapid recovery with a low incidence of tiredness, pain, and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV).The data suggest that PCS further needs to be adapted to the patient, the specific procedure and the circumstances of sedation for optimal benefit and enhanced safety.
|
|
| 10. |
- Nilsson, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography : A randomised controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anaesthetist
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0036-5521 .- 1502-7708. ; 50:10, s. 1285-1292
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Different regimens are used for sedation during ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Our objectives were to compare safety, ease of treatment, time to recovery and patients’ experiences using PCS (patient-controlled sedation) with propofol as well as sedation given by a nurse anaesthetist (ACS) with propofol or midazolam during ERCP.Material and methods: The study included 281 adults in 301 procedures. The PCS group (n=101) delivered bolus doses of 5 mg of propofol according to their need for sedation. The ACS group (n=100) had 2-8 mg/kg/hour of propofol infused, with the target for sedation being Level 3 of the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (OAA/S). The control group was given 2-3 mg of midazolam for induction and additional 1 mg if required.Results: PCS and ACS increased the ease of the procedure and reduced the numbers of sedation failures compared to midazolam sedation (ACS n=0; PCS n=4; midazolam n=20). The ACS group had more deeply sedated patients (OAA/S Level 2), desaturations and obstructed airways than the PCS and midazolam groups. Over 90% of all patients had recovered (Aldrete score≥9) by the time they returned to the ward. PCS resulted in the least fatigue and pain after the procedure. Patients’ preference for PCS and ACS were the same.Conclusion: PCS with propofol is superior to midazolam and comparable to ACS. PCS resulted in a rapid recovery, tended to be the safest and was almost as effective as ACS in ensuring a successful examination.
|
|
