Jody H Haddock1, Donald E Mercante2, Rose Paccione1, Jacob L Breaux3, Sarah E Jolley1, Jessica L Johnson1,4, Sean E Connolly3, Bennett P deBoisblanc1. 1. Section of Pulmonary/Critical Care and Allergy/Immunology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA. 4. Xavier University of Louisiana College of Pharmacy, New Orleans, LA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital pupillometry (DP) accurately and precisely measures pupillary responses. Little is known about using DP to measure the sedative effect of isolated propofol administration. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 19 adults undergoing moderate sedation with propofol during which we measured pupillary changes using DP. RESULTS: Maximum and minimum pupillary diameters decreased significantly with propofol (mean change from baseline to procedural termination -1.24 mm, standard error [SE] 0.25 and -0.79 mm, SE 0.13, respectively; P≤0.001 for both). Mean constriction velocity decreased by 0.84 mm/s between baseline and procedural termination (P=0.001). Pupillary latency increased significantly between baseline and induction (mean change 0.016 seconds, SE 0.007; P=0.04) but was not significantly different at other time points. CONCLUSION: We speculate that DP may be a useful tool to monitor propofol sedation.
BACKGROUND: Digital pupillometry (DP) accurately and precisely measures pupillary responses. Little is known about using DP to measure the sedative effect of isolated propofol administration. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 19 adults undergoing moderate sedation with propofol during which we measured pupillary changes using DP. RESULTS: Maximum and minimum pupillary diameters decreased significantly with propofol (mean change from baseline to procedural termination -1.24 mm, standard error [SE] 0.25 and -0.79 mm, SE 0.13, respectively; P≤0.001 for both). Mean constriction velocity decreased by 0.84 mm/s between baseline and procedural termination (P=0.001). Pupillary latency increased significantly between baseline and induction (mean change 0.016 seconds, SE 0.007; P=0.04) but was not significantly different at other time points. CONCLUSION: We speculate that DP may be a useful tool to monitor propofol sedation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conscious sedation; hypnotics and sedatives; propofol; reflex–pupillary
Authors: Michele Meeker; Rose Du; Peter Bacchetti; Claudio M Privitera; Merlin D Larson; Martin C Holland; Geoffrey Manley Journal: J Neurosci Nurs Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 1.230
Authors: Vimala Ramoo; Khatijah Lim Abdullah; Patrick Sk Tan; Li Ping Wong; Yan Piaw Chua; Li Yoong Tang Journal: Nurs Crit Care Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.325
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Brenda Truman; Ayumi Shintani; Jason W W Thomason; Arthur P Wheeler; Sharon Gordon; Joseph Francis; Theodore Speroff; Shiva Gautam; Richard Margolin; Curtis N Sessler; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272