This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alhashemi, J. A. Articles by Kaki, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alhashemi, J. A. Articles by Kaki, A. M.

Anesthesiologist-controlled versus patient-controlled propofol sedation for shockwave lithotripsy

[La sédation au propofol contrôlée par l’anesthésiologiste ou le patient pour la lithotripsie par ondes de choc]

From the Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, King Abdulaziz University, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Jamal A. Alhashemi, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, P.O. Box 31648, Jeddah 21418, Saudi Arabia. Fax: +966 2 6408015; E-mail: jalhashemi{at}kau.edu.sa

Purpose: To compare anesthesiologist-controlled sedation (ACS) with patient-controlled sedation (PCS), with respect to propofol requirements, sedation, and recovery, in patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary calculi.

Methods: Sixty-four patients were randomized, in this double-blind study, to receive propofol sedation according to one of two regimens: infusion of 200 µg·kg^–1 ·min^–1 for ten minutes reduced thereafter to 50–150 µg·kg^–1 ·min^–1 titrated by an anesthesiologist, according to patient response (group ACS), or propofol administered by patient-controlled analgesia (bolus dose 300 µg·kg^–1, lockout interval three minutes, no basal infusion), (group PCS). All patients received midazolam 10 µg·kg^–1 iv and fentanyl 1 µg·kg^–1 iv preoperatively, followed by fentanyl infused at a rate of 0.5 µg·kg^–1 ·hr^–1 throughout the procedure. Sedation and analgesia were assessed using the A-line ARX index and visual analogue scale, respectively. Psychomotor recovery and readiness for recovery room discharge were assessed using the Trieger dot test and postanesthesia discharge score, respectively. Patient satisfaction was assessed on a seven-point scale (1–7).

Results: In comparison to group PCS, patients in group ACS received more propofol (398 ± 162 mg vs 199 ± 68 mg, P < 0.001), were more sedated (A-line ARX index: 35 ± 16 vs 73 ± 16, P < 0.001), experienced less pain (visual analogue scale: 0 ± 0 vs 3 ± 1, P < 0.001), and were more satisfied (median [Q1, Q3]: 7 [7, 7] vs 6 [6, 7], P < 0.001). In contrast, patients in group PCS had faster psychomotor recovery (Trieger dot test median [Q1, Q3]: 8 [4, 16] vs 16 [12, 26] dots missed, P = 0.002) and achieved postanesthesia discharge score 9 earlier (median [Q1, Q3]: 40 [35, 60] vs 88 [75, 100] min, P < 0.001) compared with group ACS.

Conclusion: In comparison to PCS for patients undergoing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, propofol/fentanyl ACS is associated with increased propofol administration, deeper sedation levels, and greater patient comfort. However, ACS is associated with slower recovery and a longer time to meet discharge criteria, when compared to PCS.