BACKGROUND Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings.A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation,requiring the use of reversa...BACKGROUND Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings.A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation,requiring the use of reversal agents.More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings.Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center(APC)for their procedure.Here,we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an inhospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center(AEC-DHC)following risk stratification with a triage tool.AIM To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes,primarily sedation reversal events.METHODS We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019.Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool.We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded.Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age,gender,body mass index(BMI),American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA)classification,procedure type,and reason for sedation reversal.RESULTS There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period.Of these,17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals(0.017%vs 0.04%;P=0.06).Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age(53.5±21 vs 60.4±17.42 years;P=0.23),ASA class(1.66±0.48 vs 2.22±0.83;P=0.20),BMI(27.7±6.7 kg/m^(2) vs 23.7±4.03 kg/m^(2);P=0.06),and female gender(64.7%vs 22%;P=0.04).The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam(5.9±1.7 mg vs 8.9±3.5 mg;P=0.01),fentanyl(147.1±49.9μg vs 188.9±74.1μg;P=0.10),flumazenil(0.3±0.18μg vs 0.17±0.17μg;P=0.13)and naloxone(0.32±0.10 mg vs 0.28±0.12 m展开更多
目的 探讨疼痛综合管理策略在儿童日间全麻下口腔治疗中的应用效果。方法 2020年1月至8月某院接受日间全身麻醉下口腔治疗儿童,年龄3~7周岁,按美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级为Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,治疗牙齿数≥1...目的 探讨疼痛综合管理策略在儿童日间全麻下口腔治疗中的应用效果。方法 2020年1月至8月某院接受日间全身麻醉下口腔治疗儿童,年龄3~7周岁,按美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级为Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,治疗牙齿数≥10颗。120名儿童被随机分配到2组,综合策略组(H组,n=60)采用疼痛综合管理策略,包括超前镇痛、疼痛管理指导、微信评估(在术后4、6、24 h通过扫描二维码进行疼痛评估)三项内容;对照组(C组,n=60)无超前镇痛及疼痛管理指导,仅进行微信评估疼痛。术后2 h采用表情、下肢、活动、哭闹、可安慰性(face,legs,activity,cry and consolability,FLACC)量表对2组进行疼痛评估。术后4、6、24 h采用父母疼痛测量量表(parents postoperative pain measure,PPPM)对2组进行疼痛评估。结果 与C组相比,H组术后2 h FLACC得分显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。H组在术后4、6、24 h三个时间点显著疼痛(PPPM≥6分)发生率均低于C组(P <0.05),且PPPM得分较C组显著降低(P <0.05)。H组91.7%的家长及时进行疼痛评估,而C组71.6%的家长及时评估疼痛,H组父母依从性更高(P <0.05)。结论 疼痛综合管理策略可降低儿童日间全麻下口腔治疗后疼痛的发生率,是安全有效的日间口腔治疗后疼痛管理方法。展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings.A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation,requiring the use of reversal agents.More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings.Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center(APC)for their procedure.Here,we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an inhospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center(AEC-DHC)following risk stratification with a triage tool.AIM To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes,primarily sedation reversal events.METHODS We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019.Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool.We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded.Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age,gender,body mass index(BMI),American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA)classification,procedure type,and reason for sedation reversal.RESULTS There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period.Of these,17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals(0.017%vs 0.04%;P=0.06).Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age(53.5±21 vs 60.4±17.42 years;P=0.23),ASA class(1.66±0.48 vs 2.22±0.83;P=0.20),BMI(27.7±6.7 kg/m^(2) vs 23.7±4.03 kg/m^(2);P=0.06),and female gender(64.7%vs 22%;P=0.04).The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam(5.9±1.7 mg vs 8.9±3.5 mg;P=0.01),fentanyl(147.1±49.9μg vs 188.9±74.1μg;P=0.10),flumazenil(0.3±0.18μg vs 0.17±0.17μg;P=0.13)and naloxone(0.32±0.10 mg vs 0.28±0.12 m
