The Comparison of Two Different Techniques of Remifentanil Administration During Implantable Vascular Access Device Procedures

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridsagiroglu, gonul/0000-0002-1189-4973
dc.authoridYANIK, FAZLI/0000-0002-8931-5329
dc.authoridBaysal, Ayse/0000-0002-1487-7407
dc.contributor.authorSagiroglu, Gonul
dc.contributor.authorBaysal, Ayse
dc.contributor.authorYanik, Fazli
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T11:13:30Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T11:13:30Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim was to compare analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of two different techniques of intravenous remifentanil administration in patients undergoing vascular; access device procedures with monitored anesthesia care. Design: A randomized, single-blinded controlled study. Methods: The patients (N = 92) were 30-80 years old and of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III. The first group was the continuous infusion group (group CI). Intravenous continuous remifentanil was infused after starting at a dosage of 0.1 mcg/kg/min, and the dose was raised incre-mentally up to 1 mcg/kg/min if required. The second group was intravenous bolus patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) with remifentanil infusion at a dose of 0.05 mcg/kg per minute and bolus of 0.1 mcg/kg with lock-out time of 3 minutes. In both groups, a bolus dose of 0.1 mcg/kg remifentanil was administered. The data evaluated include level of pain and sedation, total amount of remifentanil con-sumption, bolus doses of remifentanil, patient and surgeon satisfaction, hemodynamic data, and adverse events. Findings: In comparison between techniques, pain and sedation scores during procedure, duration of procedure, patient and surgeon satisfaction, additional rescue medication, and bolus doses were not statistically different (P > .05). The total amount of remifentanil administered was significantly lower in the infusion group than that in the bolus group (P = .031). Conclusions: For central venous access device procedures under monitored anesthesia care, remifentanil use in both infusion and bolus techniques could provide sufficient sedation and analgesia without serious adverse effects. Total remifentanil consumption amount in infusion group is lower than that in the bolus group. (c) 2021 American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jopan.2021.02.007
dc.identifier.endpage671en_US
dc.identifier.issn1089-9472
dc.identifier.issn1532-8473
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid34535330en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85116547255en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage664en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2021.02.007
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/23580
dc.identifier.volume36en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000730075700012en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Science Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Perianesthesia Nursingen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectRemifentanilen_US
dc.subjectContinuous Infusionen_US
dc.subjectPatient -Controlled Sedoanalgesiaen_US
dc.subjectPatienten_US
dc.subjectSatisfactionen_US
dc.subjectVascular Access Devicesen_US
dc.subjectPatient-Controlled Analgesiaen_US
dc.subjectAnesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectSatisfactionen_US
dc.subjectMeperidineen_US
dc.subjectSedationen_US
dc.subjectSurgeryen_US
dc.subjectSafetyen_US
dc.subjectTrialen_US
dc.subjectBolusen_US
dc.titleThe Comparison of Two Different Techniques of Remifentanil Administration During Implantable Vascular Access Device Proceduresen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu