CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herrick, I. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kirkby, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herrick, I. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kirkby, J.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 43, 1014-1018, Copyright © 1996 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Patient-controlled propofol sedation for elderly patients: safety and patient attitude toward control

IA Herrick, AW Gelb, B Nichols and J Kirkby
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre, University Campus, Canada. iherrick@julian.uwo.ca

PURPOSE: Little information is available regarding the use of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) among elderly patients undergoing operative procedures under local or regional anaesthesia. This prospective, randomized study evaluated the safety of propofol PCS, and the attitude among elderly patients toward self-administration of sedation during cataract surgery. METHODS: Prospective, randomized study conducted in a University affiliated, tertiary-care hospital. Fifty-five elderly patients (aged 65-79 yr) were randomized to receive propofol patient-controlled sedation (PCS) (n = 28) or no intraoperative sedation (n = 27) during cataract surgery performed under peribulbar block. The PCS parameters consisted of a lockout interval of three minutes and a PCS dose of 0.3 mg.kg-1. Study groups were compared with respect to sedation, anxiety and discomfort visual analogue scores (VAS), cognitive functioning, patient satisfaction and the incidence of intraoperative complications. RESULTS: Patients in the PCS group administered a mean propofol dose of 65 +/- 49 mg during procedures with a mean duration of 46 min. The incidence of intraoperative complications and sedation, anxiety and discomfort VAS were similar between groups. Patient satisfaction with PCS was high. In the PCS group, 10 (35%) of the 28 patients did not use the device because they were comfortable and did not feel they needed sedation. Satisfaction was higher in the PCS group (P = 0.02), whether or not they used the PCS device, compared with patients who did not receive a PCS device. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol PCS represents a safe sedation technique among elderly patients in a monitored care setting. Elderly patients appear to prefer the option of receiving some form of intraoperative sedation and respond favourably to the opportunity to control administration.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
D. Fung, M. Cohen, S. Stewart, and A. Davies
Can the Iowa Satisfaction with Anesthesia Scale Be Used to Measure Patient Satisfaction with Cataract Care Under Topical Local Anesthesia and Monitored Sedation at a Community Hospital?
Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2005; 100(6): 1637 - 1643.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.