liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Patient controlled sedation using a standard protocol for dressing changes in burns: Patients' preference, procedural details and a preliminary safety evaluation
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Liköping University hospital.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Reconstruction Centre, Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHL.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology . Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Heart Centre, Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery.
Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Unit . Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Reconstruction Centre, Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHL.
2008 (English)In: Burns, ISSN 0305-4179, Vol. 34, no 7, 929-934 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Patient controlled sedation (PCS) enables patients to titrate doses of drugs by themselves during different procedures involving pain or discomfort. Methods: We studied it in a prospective crossover design using a fixed protocol without lockout time to examine it as an alternative method of sedation for changing dressings in burned patients. Eleven patients with >10% total burn surface area (TBSA) had their dressings changed, starting with sedation by an anaesthetist (ACS). The second dressing change was done with PCS (propofol/alfentanil) and the third time the patients had to choose ACS or PCS. During the procedures, data on cardiopulmonary variables, sedation (bispectral index), pain intensity (VAS), procedural details, doses of drugs, and patients' preferences were collected to compare the two sedation techniques. Results: The study data indicated that wound care in burned patients is feasible with a standardized PCS protocol. The patients preferred PCS to ACS on the basis of self-control, and because they had less discomfort during the recovery period. Wound care was also considered adequate by the staff during PCS. No respiratory (respiratory rate/transcutaneous PCO2) or cardiovascular (heart rate/blood pressure) adverse events were recorded at any time during any of the PCS procedures. The doses of propofol and alfentanil and BIS index decrease were less during PCS than ACS. Procedural pain was higher during PCS but lower after the procedure. Conclusion: We suggest that PCS using a standard protocol is an interesting alternative to anaesthetist-provided sedation during dressing changes. It seems effective, saves resources, is safe, and at same time is preferred by the patients. The strength of these conclusions is, however, hampered by the small size of this investigation and therefore further studies are warranted. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 34, no 7, 929-934 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-43402DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.04.002Local ID: 73753OAI: diva2:264261
Available from: 2009-10-10 Created: 2009-10-10 Last updated: 2014-11-24
In thesis
1. Patient-controlled sedation in procedural care
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Patient-controlled sedation in procedural care
2014 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2014. 86 p.
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 1423
National Category
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-112372 (URN)10.3384/diss.diva-112372 (DOI)978-91-7519-221-5 (print) (ISBN)
Public defence
2015-01-23, Berzeliussalen, Campus US, Linköpings universitet, Linköping, 13:00 (Swedish)
Available from: 2014-11-24 Created: 2014-11-24 Last updated: 2014-11-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Steinvall, IngridBak, ZoltanSjöberg, Folke
By organisation
Faculty of Health SciencesDepartment of Clinical and Experimental MedicineDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHLAnesthesiology Department of Thoracic and Vascular SurgeryBurn Unit
In the same journal
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 112 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link