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:BackgroundRegional anesthesia improves short-term blood flow through arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). We previously demonstrated that, compared with local anesthesia, regional anesthesia improves primary AVF patency at 3 months.MethodsTo study the effects of regional versus local anesthesia on longer-term AVF patency, we performed an observer-blinded randomized controlled trial at three university hospitals in Glasgow, United Kingdom. We randomly assigned 126 patients undergoing primary radiocephalic or brachiocephalic AVF creation to receive regional anesthesia (brachial plexus block; 0.5% L-bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine with epinephrine) or local anesthesia (0.5% L-bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine). This report includes findings on primary, functional, and secondary patency at 12 months; reinterventions; and additional access procedures (primary outcome measures were previously reported). We analyzed data by intention to treat, and also performed cost-effectiveness analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, we found higher primary patency among patients receiving regional versus local anesthesia (50 of 63 [79%] versus 37 of 63 [59%] patients; odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.6 to 3.8; P=0.02) as well as higher functional patency (43 of 63 [68%] versus 31 of 63 [49%] patients; OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7; P=0.008). In 12 months, 21 revisional procedures, 53 new AVFs, and 50 temporary dialysis catheters were required. Regional anesthesia resulted in net savings of £195.10 (US$237.36) per patient at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £12,900 (US$15,694.20) per quality-adjusted life years over a 5-year time horizon. Results were robust after extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses.ConclusionsCompared with local anesthesia, regional anesthesia significantly improved both primary and functional AVF patency at 1 year and is cost-effective.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberLocal Anaesthesia versus Regional Block for Arteriovenous Fistulae, NCT01706354.

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.

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