Dataset Information

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is limited data on the use of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) versus intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam for conscious sedation in patients with chronic renal failure. Unexpected adverse events can occur in chronic renal failure patients undergoing short procedures.

Objective

Investigate and compare the sedoanalgesic and adverse effects of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) use of midazolam with intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam while using intravenous remifentanil as a rescue medication, and assess patient and surgeon satisfaction.

Design

Prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled study.

Settings

Two tertiary care hospitals.

Patients and methods

Study included patients aged 43-81 years with a diagnosis of chronic renal failure who were referred for an arteriovenous fistula procedure with modified anesthesia care between August 2012 and April 2016. The patients were randomized to intravenous CI or IB doses of midazolam. IB doses of remifentanil were used as a rescue medication.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were amounts of midazolam and remifentanil medications during the operation, the amount of remifentanil as a rescue medication, and the satisfaction of patient and surgeon.

Sample size

116 assessed for eligibility; 99 randomized to CI (n=50) or IB doses (n=49 of midazolam).

Results

The total dose of midazolam by CI was greater than with midazolam by IB (P=.002). The total dose of remifentanil was higher with IB doses of midazolam in comparison to CI of midazolam (P=.001). The groups were similar in sedation and pain control, duration of procedure, recovery time, patient satisfaction and adverse events; surgeon satisfaction was greater with CI versus IB (P=.035).

Conclusion

Intravenous CI midazolam during MAC provides better surgeon satisfaction then IB midazolam and can be used safely for arteriovenous fistula procedures.

Limitations

Two different surgeon groups.

Conflict of interest

None.

SUBMITTER: Sagiroglu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7270617 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Sagiroglu Gonul G Baysal Ayse A

Annals of Saudi medicine 20200501 3

<h4>Background</h4>There is limited data on the use of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) versus intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam for conscious sedation in patients with chronic renal failure. Unexpected adverse events can occur in chronic renal failure patients undergoing short procedures.<h4>Objective</h4>Investigate and compare the sedoanalgesic and adverse effects of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) use of midazolam with intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses o ...[more]

PMID: 32493052

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe current clinical guidelines for vascular access do not have specific recommendations for older hemodialysis patients. Our study aimed to determine the association of age with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) placement, maturation, and primary and secondary patency loss among older hemodialysis recipients.Study designRetrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsA US national cohort of incident hemodialysis patients 67 years or older (N = 43,851) assembled from the US Renal Data System.ExposureAge at dialysis initiation.OutcomesAVF placement, maturation, primary patency loss, and abandonment.Analytical approachCause-specific and subdistribution proportional hazards models were used to examine the association of age and AVF outcomes, with kidney transplantation, peritoneal dialysis, and death treated as competing events. Age cutoff was identified by restricted cubic splines. We compared crude and inverse probability-weighted cumulative incidence functions using Gray's test.ResultsAs compared with those aged 67-<77 years, patients 77 years or older had significantly lower probabilities of AVF placement (adjusted cause-specific HR [cHR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]; adjusted subdistribution HR [sHR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.89-0.95]; Gray's test P < 0.001) and maturation (adjusted cHR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99]; adjusted sHR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.97]; P < 0.001). However, age was not associated with AVF primary (adjusted cHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.11]; adjusted sHR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.99-1.09]; P = 0.09) or secondary (adjusted cHR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.94-1.20]; adjusted sHR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.93-1.18]; P = 0.4) patency loss.LimitationsReliance on administrative claims to ascertain AVF outcomes.ConclusionsThe likelihood of AVF maturation is an important consideration for vascular access planning. Age alone should not be the basis for excluding older dialysis patients from AVF creation because maintenance of fistula patency was not reduced with older age despite a modest reduction in fistula maturation.

Project description:Dexmedetomidine as a sole agent showed limited use for painful procedures due to its insufficient sedative/analgesic effect, pronounced hemodynamic instability and prolonged recovery. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dexmedetomidine-ketamine (DK) versus dexmedetomidine-midazolam-fentanyl (DMF) combination on the quality of sedation/analgesia and recovery profiles for monitored anesthesia care (MAC).Fifty six patients undergoing chemoport insertion were randomly assigned to group DK or DMF. All patients received 1 μg.kg(-1) dexmedetomidine over 10 min followed by 0.2-1.0 μg.kg(-1)h(-1) in order to maintain 3 or 4 of modified Observer's Assessment of Analgesia and Sedation score checked every 3 min. At the start of dexmedetomidine infusion, patients in group DK or DMF received 0.5 mg.kg(-1) ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg(-1) midazolam + 0.5 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl intravenously, respectively. When required, rescue sedatives (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.05 mg.kg-1 of midazolam) and analgesics (0.5 mg.kg-1 of ketamine or 0.5 μg.kg-1 of fentanyl) were given to the patients in DK or DMF group, respectively. The primary outcome of this study was the recovery parameters (time to spontaneous eye opening and the length of the recovery room stay). The secondary outcomes were parameters indicating quality of sedation/analgesia, cardiorespiratory variables, and satisfaction scores.There were no significant differences in the onset time, time to spontaneous eye opening, recovery room stay, the incidences of inadequate analgesia, hypotension and bradycardia between the two groups. Despite lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, more patients in the DMF group had bispectral index (BIS) < 60 than in the DK group and vice versa for need of rescue sedatives. The satisfaction scores of patients, surgeon, and anesthesiologist in the DMF group were significantly better than the DK group.The DK and DMF groups showed comparable recovery time, onset time, cardiorespiratory variables, and analgesia. However, the DMF group showed a better sedation quality and satisfaction scores despite the lower infusion rate of dexmedetomidine, and a higher incidence of BIS < 60 than the DK group.Clinical Trial Registry of Korea KCT0000951 , registered 12/12/2013.

Project description:ObjectiveGiven the lack of global consensus on anesthesia selection for peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement via open surgery, this study investigates the safety and efficacy of combining local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).MethodsThis retrospective analysis of ESRD patients who underwent open surgical placement of PDC in the Department of Nephrology, the First Affiliated Hospital of the Army Medical University from 1 August 2020 to 31 May 2022. Patients were categorized into two groups based on anesthesia method: LIA group and LIA + MA group. MA was defined as preoperative sedation (0.2-0.7 µg/kg/h) with dexmedetomidine injection (Huidrican trade name, DEX), and intraoperative analgesia with dexrazoxane injection (Garonin trade name, DEZ) as appropriate according to the patients' pain scores. We compared the general clinical data of the two groups of patients, the changes in blood pressure and heart rate during the whole operation, the intraoperative and postoperative pain, the total duration of the operation and the immediate postoperative complications.ResultsThe study included 123 patients (59 in the LIA + MAC group and 64 in the LIA group). The LIA + MA group exhibited lower pain scores measured by Visual Analogue Scale(VAS) during surgery (skin incision, subcutaneous adipose tissue dissection, anterior fascia, muscle traction, posterior fascia, peritoneum, and catheterization) compared to the LIA group(p<0.05). In terms of surgical incisions, to intraoperative pain scores (VRS), the LIA + MA group showed higher score level I and lower score level II compared to the LIA group (p = 0.002, 0.004, respectively). The LIA + MA group experienced lower postoperative resting pain (NRS) and VAS than the LIA group (p = 0.001,0.003, respectively). The surgical duration for the LIA + MA group was shorter than that of the LIA group (p<0.001). Preoperative systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were higher in the LIA + MA group compared to the LIA group (p<0.001,<0.001, respectively). Postoperative heart rate and DBP were lower in the LIA + MA group (p<0.001, 0.004, respectively). The LIA + MA group exhibited greater changes in heart rate, SBP, and DBP during and after surgery compared to the LIA group (p = 0.009, <0.001,<0.001, respectively). In terms of immediate postoperative complications, the proportion of patients requiring analgesics within 24 h post-surgery was significantly lower in the LIA + MA group (p = 0.031).ConclusionOpen surgery for PDC placement under LIA + MAC is both safe and effective.

Dataset Information

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objective

Design

Settings

Patients and methods

Main outcome measures

Sample size

Results

Conclusion

Limitations

Conflict of interest

Publications

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets