jueves, 10 de noviembre de 2016

Cirugía ambulatoria / Ambulatory surgery

Noviembre 10, 2016. No. 2506

Modelo de predicción clínica para identificar pacientes vulnerables en cirugía ambulatoria
Clinical prediction model to identify vulnerable patients in ambulatory surgery: towards optimal medical decision-making.
Can J Anaesth. 2016 Sep;63(9):1022-32. doi: 10.1007/s12630-016-0673-3. Epub 2016 Jun 9.
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery patients are at risk of adverse psychological outcomes such as anxiety, aggression, fatigue, and depression. We developed and validated a clinical prediction model to identify patients who were vulnerable to these psychological outcome parameters. METHODS: We prospectively assessed 383 mixed ambulatory surgery patients for psychological vulnerability, defined as the presence of anxiety (state/trait), aggression (state/trait), fatigue, and depression seven days after surgery. Three psychological vulnerability categories were considered-i.e., none, one, or multiple poor scores, defined as a score exceeding one standard deviation above the mean for each single outcome according to normative data. The following determinants were assessed preoperatively: sociodemographic (age, sex, level of education, employment status, marital status, having children, religion, nationality), medical (heart rate and body mass index), and psychological variables (self-esteem and self-efficacy), in addition to anxiety, aggression, fatigue, and depression. A prediction model was constructed using ordinal polytomous logistic regression analysis, and bootstrapping was applied for internal validation. The ordinal c-index (ORC) quantified the discriminative ability of the model, in addition to measures for overall model performance (Nagelkerke's R (2) ). RESULTS: In this population, 137 (36%) patients were identified as being psychologically vulnerable after surgery for at least one of the psychological outcomes. The most parsimonious and optimal prediction model combined sociodemographic variables (level of education, having children, and nationality) with psychological variables (trait anxiety, state/trait aggression, fatigue, and depression). Model performance was promising: R (2)  = 30% and ORC = 0.76 after correction for optimism. CONCLUSION:This study identified a substantial group of vulnerable patients in ambulatory surgery. The proposed clinical predictionmodel could allow healthcare professionals the opportunity to identify vulnerable patients in ambulatory surgery, although additional modification and validation are needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01441843).
¿Es dexmedetomidina mejor que propofol y fentanilo combinados en procedimientos menores ambulatorios?
Is dexmedetomidine better than propofol and fentanyl combination in minor day care procedures? A prospective randomised double-blind study.
Indian J Anaesth. 2015 Jun;59(6):359-64. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.158740.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The growing popularity and trend of day care (ambulatory) anaesthesia has led to the development of newer and efficient drug regimen. We decided to evaluate the efficacy of two drug regimens namely dexmedetomidine and propofol with midazolam and fentanyl for moderate sedation characteristics in minor surgical procedures in terms of analgesia, intra-operative sedation, haemodynamic stability and side effects related. METHODS: Totally, 60 adult American Society of Anaesthesiologists class I-II patients posted for day care surgeries of duration <45 min divided into two groups; Group D, where dexmedetomidine loading dose at 1 μg/kg was administered over 10 min followed by maintenance infusion initiated at 0.6 μg/kg/h and titrated to achieve desired clinical effect with dose ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 μg/kg, Group P, where midazolam at 0.02 mg/kg and fentanyl at 2 μg/kg IV boluses were given followed by propofol infusion. Statistical analysis was done using student t-test, analysis of variance and Chi-square analysis. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: Degree of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Activity and Sedation Scale ≤3) was comparable in both groups (P > 0.05). Rescue analgesia with fentanyl was needed in 30% patients of Group D compared to 17.63% patients of Group P (P < 0.05). The level of arousal was faster and better in Group D at 5 min after the procedure (P < 0.05). Haemodynamics were stable in Group D as with Group P patients (P < 0.005). Dry mouth reported by 16.67% patients. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine can be a useful adjuvant rather than the sole sedative-analgesic agent during minor surgeries and be a valuable alternative to propofol in terms of moderate sedation, haemodynamic stability with minimal transient side effects.
KEYWORDS: Day care; dexmedetomidine; fentanyl; moderate sedation; propofol

XIII Congreso Virtual Mexicano de Anestesiología
Inscripciones Abiertas
Octubre a Diciembre 2016

Información / Information
California Society of Anesthesiologists
Annual Meeting April 27-30, 2017
San Francisco California
Like us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter   Find us on Google+   View our videos on YouTube 
Anestesiología y Medicina del Dolor

52 664 6848905

Copyright © 2015
Publicar un comentario