Literature DB >> 8279247

Nausea: the most important factor determining length of stay after ambulatory anaesthesia. A comparative study of isoflurane and/or propofol techniques.

G Green1, L Jonsson.   

Abstract

Speed of recovery and length of stay in hospital were studied in 95 ambulatory patients undergoing laparoscopy or arthroscopy. The patients were divided into three groups regarding maintenance of anaesthesia. Group A (n = 32) received isoflurane 0.7% end-tidally, group B (n = 31) propofol infusion for 25 min and thereafter isoflurane, and group C (n = 32) received an infusion of propofol throughout the procedure. Recovery was assessed by a combination of the Maddox-Wing, the Choice Reaction Time test and p-deletion. The awakening period was somewhat shorter in group A, but psychomotor recovery was somewhat slower compared to groups B and C. The length of stay in hospital depended on whether the patient was nauseated or not. In group A, 44% suffered from nausea requiring medical intervention compared to 13% and 19% in groups B and C, respectively. The stay in hospital was 235 +/- 90 min (mean +/- standard deviation) in group A compared to 184 +/- 56 min and 197 +/- 55 min in groups B and C, respectively. The non-nauseated patients in group A had a stay in hospital of 188 +/- 55 min compared to 184 +/- 52 and 184 +/- 37 in the non-nauseated patients in groups B and C, respectively. In total, the nauseated patients (n = 24) stayed 267 +/- 95 min compared to 185 +/- 47 min for the non-nauseated patients (n = 71), P < 0.001. We found nausea to be the most important factor determining length of stay after ambulatory anaesthesia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8279247     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1993.tb03801.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand        ISSN: 0001-5172            Impact factor:   2.105


  6 in total

Review 1.  Cost considerations in the use of anaesthetic drugs.

Authors:  I Smith
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparative cost analysis of three different anesthesia methods in gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Xiaohui Chi; Yeling Chen; Mingfeng Liao; Fei Cao; Yuke Tian; Xueren Wang
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Characterization of the electrophysiological and pharmacological effects of 4-iodo-2,6-diisopropylphenol, a propofol analogue devoid of sedative-anaesthetic properties.

Authors:  E Sanna; C Motzo; M Usala; M Serra; L Dazzi; E Maciocco; G Trapani; A Latrofa; G Liso; G Biggio
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 4.  Propofol. A pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in day case surgery.

Authors:  B Fulton; K L Goa
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Propofol. An update of its use in anaesthesia and conscious sedation.

Authors:  H M Bryson; B R Fulton; D Faulds
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Adverse respiratory events with sevoflurane compared with desflurane in ambulatory surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei-Shan Chen; Min-Hsien Chiang; Kuo-Chuan Hung; Kai-Lieh Lin; Chih-Hsien Wang; Yan-Yuen Poon; Sheng-Dean Luo; Shao-Chun Wu
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 4.183

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.