liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 8 of 8
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Grossmann, Benjamin
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and Oncology. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping (ANOPIVA).
    Nilsson, Andreas
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Nursing Science. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping (ANOPIVA).
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Surgery, Orthopedics and Oncology. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery.
    Nilsson, Lena
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping (ANOPIVA).
    Rectal ketamine during paediatric burn wound dressing procedures: a randomised dose-finding study2019In: Burns, ISSN 0305-4179, E-ISSN 1879-1409, Vol. 45, no 5, p. 1081-1088Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background

    Worldwide, 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.

    Methods

    We 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.

    Results

    In 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.

    Conclusions

    A 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.

  • 2.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Patient-controlled sedation in procedural care2014Doctoral 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.

    List of papers
    1. Patient controlled sedation using a standard protocol for dressing changes in burns: Patients' preference, procedural details and a preliminary safety evaluation
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Patient controlled sedation using a standard protocol for dressing changes in burns: Patients' preference, procedural details and a preliminary safety evaluation
    2008 (English)In: Burns, ISSN 0305-4179, E-ISSN 1879-1409, Vol. 34, no 7, p. 929-934Article 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.

    National Category
    Medical and Health Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-43402 (URN)10.1016/j.burns.2008.04.002 (DOI)73753 (Local ID)73753 (Archive number)73753 (OAI)
    Available from: 2009-10-10 Created: 2009-10-10 Last updated: 2017-12-13
    2. Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation – facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation – facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events
    2012 (English)In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-5172, E-ISSN 1399-6576, Vol. 56, no 9, p. 1123-1129Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Background

    Widespread 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.

    Methods

    In 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.

    Results

    One 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.

    Conclusions

    PCS 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.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Wiley-Blackwell, 2012
    National Category
    Medical and Health Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-84741 (URN)10.1111/j.1399-6576.2012.02749.x (DOI)000308635200007 ()
    Note

    Funding Agencies|Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Linkoping University Hospital, Linkoping, Sweden|581 85|

    Available from: 2012-10-19 Created: 2012-10-19 Last updated: 2017-12-07
    3. Should Propofol and Alfentanil Be Combined in Patient-Controlled Sedation? A Randomised Controlled Trial Using Pharmacokinetic Simulation
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Should Propofol and Alfentanil Be Combined in Patient-Controlled Sedation? A Randomised Controlled Trial Using Pharmacokinetic Simulation
    Show others...
    2015 (English)In: Open Journal of Anesthesiology, ISSN 2164-5558, Vol. 5, no 6, p. 122-129Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is increasingly used for moderate sedation. Detailed understanding is essential for maintaining safety and giving the most benefit. We wanted to explore the associations between patients’ characteristics, perioperative pain and anxiety, the procedure, and the calculated concentrations at the effect site (Ce) of propofol. We also wanted to analyse the pharmacokinetic profiles of propofol and alfentanil during PCS, and their association with respiratory complications.

    Methods: 155 patients were double-blinded and randomised to have propofol or propofol and alfentanil for PCS during gynaecological surgery. Pharmacokinetic simulation of Ce and multiple regressions aided the search for correlations between explanatory variables and concentrations of drugs.

    Results: In group propofol, treatment for incontinence, anterior repair, and the patient’s weight correlated the best (B-coef = 0.20, 0.20 and 0.01; r = 0.69; r² = 0.48). When alfentanil was added, alfentanil and the patient’s weight were associated with Ce of propofol (B-coef = -0.40 and 0.01; r = 0.70; r² = 0.43). Logistic regression indicated that age and Ce of drugs were related to ten cases of respiratory complications.

    Conclusions: Patients’ weights and the type of surgery performed were associated with the Ce of propofol; this knowledge could be used for refinement of the doses given during PCS. Because the pharmacokinetic profiles of propofol and alfentanil are different, the alfentanil effect becomes predominant during the time course of sedation. In order to reduce the risk of early and late respiratory depression, alfentanil should not be added to propofol in the same syringe.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Scientific Research Publishing, 2015
    Keywords
    Anaesthetics, Intravenous, Propofol, Analgesics, Opioids, Alfentanil, Sedation
    National Category
    Surgery
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-126606 (URN)10.4236/ojanes.2015.56023 (DOI)
    Note

    At the time for thesis presentation publication was in status: Manuscript

    Available from: 2016-03-31 Created: 2016-03-31 Last updated: 2016-12-16Bibliographically approved
    4. Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomised controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anaesthetist
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomised controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anaesthetist
    Show others...
    2015 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, ISSN 0036-5521, E-ISSN 1502-7708, Vol. 50, no 10, p. 1285-1292Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    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.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Taylor & Francis, 2015
    Keywords
    Conscious sedation, propofol, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
    National Category
    Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-112371 (URN)10.3109/00365521.2015.1038848 (DOI)000361324600013 ()
    Available from: 2014-11-24 Created: 2014-11-24 Last updated: 2019-05-13Bibliographically approved
  • 3.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Grossmann, Benjamin
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Kullman, Eric
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Center for Surgery, Orthopaedics and Cancer Treatment, Department of Surgery in Linköping.
    Uustal, Eva
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Center of Paediatrics and Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Linköping. Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Nilsson, Lena
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomised controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anaesthetist2015In: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, ISSN 0036-5521, E-ISSN 1502-7708, Vol. 50, no 10, p. 1285-1292Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    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.

  • 4.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Sinnescentrum, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery UHL. Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences.
    Kalman, Sigga
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Sinnescentrum, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care VHN.
    Arvidsson, Anders
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Center. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Sinnescentrum, Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHL.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Center. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Sinnescentrum, Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHL. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Sinnescentrum, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery UHL.
    Difficulties in Controlling Mobilization Pain Using a Standardized Patient-Controlled Analgesia Protocol in Burns2011In: JOURNAL OF BURN CARE and RESEARCH, ISSN 1559-047X, Vol. 32, no 1, p. 166-171Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this study was to evaluate pain relief for patients with burns during rest and mobilization with morphine according to a standard protocol for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Eighteen patients with a mean (SD) burned TBSA% of 26 (20) were studied for 10 days. Using a numeric rating scale (NRS, 0 = no pain and 10 = unbearable pain), patients were asked to estimate their acceptable and worst experienced pain by specifying a number on a scale and at what point they would like additional analgesics. Patients were allowed free access to morphine with a PCA pump device. Bolus doses were set according to age, (100 - age)/24 = bolus dose (mg), and 6 minutes lockout time. Degrees of pain, morphine requirements, doses delivered and demanded, oral intake of food, and antiemetics given were used as endpoints. Acceptable pain (mean [SD]) was estimated to be 3.8 (1.3) on the NRS, and additional treatment was considered necessary at scores of 4.3 (1.6) or more. NRS at rest was 2.7 (2.2) and during mobilization 4.7 (2.6). Required mean morphine per day was 81 (15) mg, and the number of doses requested increased during the first 6 days after the burn. The authors found no correlation between dose of morphine required and any other variables. Background pain can be controlled adequately with a standard PCA protocol. During mobilization, the pain experienced was too intense, despite having the already high doses of morphine increased. The present protocol must be refined further to provide analgesia adequate to cover mobilization as well.

  • 5.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping. Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research.
    Nilsson, Lena
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Drug Research. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Schnider, Thomas
    Institute of Anaesthesiology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
    Uustal, Eva
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Center of Paediatrics and Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Linköping.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Division of Clinical Sciences. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Region Östergötland, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery.
    Should Propofol and Alfentanil Be Combined in Patient-Controlled Sedation? A Randomised Controlled Trial Using Pharmacokinetic Simulation2015In: Open Journal of Anesthesiology, ISSN 2164-5558, Vol. 5, no 6, p. 122-129Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is increasingly used for moderate sedation. Detailed understanding is essential for maintaining safety and giving the most benefit. We wanted to explore the associations between patients’ characteristics, perioperative pain and anxiety, the procedure, and the calculated concentrations at the effect site (Ce) of propofol. We also wanted to analyse the pharmacokinetic profiles of propofol and alfentanil during PCS, and their association with respiratory complications.

    Methods: 155 patients were double-blinded and randomised to have propofol or propofol and alfentanil for PCS during gynaecological surgery. Pharmacokinetic simulation of Ce and multiple regressions aided the search for correlations between explanatory variables and concentrations of drugs.

    Results: In group propofol, treatment for incontinence, anterior repair, and the patient’s weight correlated the best (B-coef = 0.20, 0.20 and 0.01; r = 0.69; r² = 0.48). When alfentanil was added, alfentanil and the patient’s weight were associated with Ce of propofol (B-coef = -0.40 and 0.01; r = 0.70; r² = 0.43). Logistic regression indicated that age and Ce of drugs were related to ten cases of respiratory complications.

    Conclusions: Patients’ weights and the type of surgery performed were associated with the Ce of propofol; this knowledge could be used for refinement of the doses given during PCS. Because the pharmacokinetic profiles of propofol and alfentanil are different, the alfentanil effect becomes predominant during the time course of sedation. In order to reduce the risk of early and late respiratory depression, alfentanil should not be added to propofol in the same syringe.

  • 6.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Nilsson, Lena
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery.
    Uustal, Eva
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Center of Paediatrics and Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Linköping.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Center. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery.
    Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation – facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events2012In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-5172, E-ISSN 1399-6576, Vol. 56, no 9, p. 1123-1129Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background

    Widespread 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.

    Methods

    In 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.

    Results

    One 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.

    Conclusions

    PCS 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.

  • 7.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Center. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery.
    Öster, Susanne
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Bek-Jensen, Hanne
    Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Center for Surgery, Orthopaedics and Cancer Treatment, Department of Urology in Östergötland.
    Lennmarken, Claes
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Patient-Controlled Sedation and Analgesia with Propofol and Alfentanil: A Preliminary Safety Evaluation Prior to Use of Non-Anaesthesiology Doctors2012In: Open Journal of Anesthesiology, ISSN 2164-5558, Vol. 2, no 2, p. 47-52Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background: The aim was to evaluate safety aspects of patient-controlled sedation and analgesia (PCS) for extracor-poreal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and PCS to be handled by non-anaesthesiology doctors. Methods: Thirty-four ASA I-III patients used PCS with propofol and alfentanil for ESWL in this interventional study. Strict safety limits were defined regarding respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation from pulse oximetry (SpO2), and transcutaneous partial pressures of oxygen (PtcO2) and carbon dioxide (PtcCO2). The pa-tients’ levels of consciousness was graded on a five-point scale and monitored with Bispectral Index (BIS). A nurse anaesthetist was supervising the procedure but was instructed to intervene only if safety limits were breached. No sup-plementary oxygen was given. Results: All patients responded to verbal stimuli during treatment. Cardiovascular sta-bility was maintained, but respiratory variables were affected. Two patients with SpO2 < 90% and two cases of RR ≤ 8 were diagnosed, and seven patients became hypercarbic (PtcCO2 ≥ 6.5 kPa). In 18 patients hypoxaemia was indicated as PtcO2 ≤ 8.0 kPa. All these 18 patients were given supplementary oxygen. There was no correlation between dose of drugs, age, weight or any vital variable. The 34 patients would use PCS again in the case of future treatment. Conclu-sions: During ESWL treatment PCS can be used with good patients’ satisfaction, and maintained cardiovascular stabil-ity, but PCS had an indisputable effect on pulmonary function with hypoxemia (resulting in need for supplementary oxygen) or hypercarbia. The person in charge of PCS must therefore be trained to perform according to the guidelines for sedation and/or analgesia by non-anaesthesiology doctors.

  • 8.
    Nilsson, Andreas
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping.
    Steinvall, Ingrid
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Reconstruction Centre, Department of Plastic Surgery, Hand surgery UHL.
    Bak, Zoltan
    Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Anesthesiology. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Center for Surgery, Orthopaedics and Cancer Treatment, Department of Surgery in Linköping. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery.
    Sjöberg, Folke
    Linköping University, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Burn Center. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Hand and Plastic Surgery. Östergötlands Läns Landsting, Anaesthetics, Operations and Specialty Surgery Center, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgery.
    Letter: Patient controlled sedation using a standard protocol for dressing changes in burns: Patients preference, procedural details and a preliminary safety evaluation. Are studies always adequately powered and analyzed? Response2010In: Burns, ISSN 0305-4179, E-ISSN 1879-1409, Vol. 36, no 6, p. 948-950Article in journal (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

1 - 8 of 8
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf