A randomized, controlled trial of the use of music during laceration repair

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether music significantly reduces the pain and anxiety associated with laceration repair in the emergency department. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Adult patients presenting to the ED at an urban teaching hospital for laceration repair. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years old, having received analgesics, with suspected alcohol or substance intoxication, and in whom laceration repair was complicated by treatment of a more serious medical condition. DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: This was a randomized, controlled trial. After giving informed consent, patients were randomly assigned to receive standard laceration repair without music (control) or standard laceration repair with music. Patients assigned to the music group chose an audio tape from 50 available styles and artists. Patients received the music through a headset, and they controlled the volume. Intradermal lidocaine was used in all patients. Data were collected on heart rate, blood pressure, and respirations just before and immediately after wound repair. Psychological variables included the state subscale of the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), a visual analog pain scale rating, and a brief questionnaire. STAI and pain scale ratings were analyzed with Wilcoxon's rank-sum test with an alpha error of .05. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (19 per group) completed the protocol. Pain scores were significantly (P less than .05) lower in the music group (mean, 2.09) than in controls (mean, 3.31). Anxiety after the procedure was reduced in both groups, but STAI reduction scores were not significantly different between groups (music, 17.7; control, 18.5). Seventeen of 19 patients (89%) rated music "very beneficial," and 100% said they would use music again. CONCLUSION: Music provides a safe, inexpensive, and effective adjunct for the management of pain in the ED but does not significantly affect anxiety.     

The effect of oral midazolam on anxiety of preschool children during laceration repair

Preschool age children often experience marked anxiety and physical pain during laceration repair. Locally infiltrated anesthetics or topical tetracaine, adrenaline, and cocaine (TAC) usually control the physical pain but have little or no effect on anxiety. Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine with anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antegrade amnestic effects. In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the efficacy of midazolam in alleviating anxiety during laceration repair in children less than 6 years old. On admission to the emergency department, anxiety level was determined on a scale of 1 to 4 based on a predetermined behavior criteria. Patients with high anxiety level (3 or 4) received a single oral dose of either midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) or placebo. The anxiolytic effect of midazolam was considered adequate if the anxiety level decreased two or more points (from 4 to less than or equal to 2 or from 3 to 1) during laceration repair. In the midazolam group (30), 70% of the children had a two-point or more decrease in anxiety level compared with 12% in the placebo group (25) (P less than .0001). No respiratory depression or other complications were noted in the midazolam group. We conclude that a single oral dose of midazolam (0.2 mg/kg) is a safe and effective treatment for alleviating anxiety in children less than 6 years old during laceration repair in the ED.     

Propofol vs midazolam for ICU sedation : a Canadian multicenter randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether sedation with propofol would lead to shorter times to tracheal extubation and ICU length of stay than sedation with midazolam. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, open label. SETTING: Four academic tertiary-care ICUs in Canada. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients requiring continuous sedation while receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation by predicted requirement for mechanical ventilation (short sedation stratum, < 24 h; medium sedation stratum, > or = 24 and < 72 h; and long sedation stratum, > or = 72 h) to sedation regimens utilizing propofol or midazolam. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to receive propofol in the short sedation stratum (propofol, 21 patients; midazolam, 26 patients) and the long sedation stratum (propofol, 4 patients; midazolam, 10 patients) were extubated earlier (short sedation stratum: propofol, 5.6 h; midazolam, 11.9 h; long sedation stratum: propofol, 8.4 h; midazolam, 46.8 h; p < 0.05). Pooled results showed that patients treated with propofol (n = 46) were extubated earlier than those treated with midazolam (n = 53) (6.7 vs 24.7 h, respectively; p < 0.05) following discontinuation of the sedation but were not discharged from ICU earlier (94.0 vs 63.7 h, respectively; p = 0.26). Propofol-treated patients spent a larger percentage of time at the target Ramsay sedation level than midazolam-treated patients (60.2% vs 44.0%, respectively; p < 0.05). Using a treatment-received analysis, propofol sedation either did not differ from midazolam sedation in time to tracheal extubation or ICU discharge (sedation duration, < 24 h) or was associated with earlier tracheal extubation but longer time to ICU discharge (sedation duration, > or = 24 h, < 72 h, or > or = 72 h). CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol sedation allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than when midazolam sedation was employed. This did not result in earlier ICU discharge.     

A randomized controlled trial comparing water exchange and air insufflation during colonoscopy without sedation

Objectives

Previous studies have shown that water exchange is superior to air insufflation in attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with head-to-head comparison of these methods to assess their effectiveness in colonoscopy without sedation.

Methods

A total of 447 outpatients were randomized to either water exchange (WE) or the standard air (CO₂) insufflation (AI). The primary outcome was the improvement of patient intraprocedural pain (pain score), evaluated using a questionnaire (scores 1 to 5).

Results

After exclusion of 44 patients from further analysis, 403 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in clinical background between the WE and AI groups. Patients in the WE group reported less intraprocedural pain than those in the AI group (2.17?±?1.06 vs. 2.42?±?1.03; unpaired t test, p?=?0.021). We divided the cases into two groups, more or less painful colonoscopy, based on age, body mass index, use of anti-peristaltic drugs or not, and physician’s experience. In less painful colonoscopy, the WE method could reduce pain effectively but its effect was limited in the more painful group.

Conclusion

WE is superior to AI for attenuating insertion pain during colonoscopy without sedation, but its efficacy is limited in more painful endoscopy.

     

Patient-controlled versus nurse-administered sedation with propofol during colonoscopy. A prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVES: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, is well tolerated and reduces recovery time and staff required during endoscopic interventions. "Who" administers the drug proves economically crucial. With the aim of maintaining safety, medical quality, and patient satisfaction, this study investigates PCS versus nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) in a cohort of consecutive patients. METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients, aged 22-90 yr, undergoing only colonoscopy participated in this prospective randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned to either PCS or NAPS. If patients declined randomization for different reasons of reluctance to PCS they were assigned to a standard nurse-sedated control group. All patients received pethidine presedation for analgesia. Visual analogue scales followed patient anxiety level, tolerability, pain, and satisfaction, and endoscopist's assessment of the procedure. RESULTS: Given the choice, 35% of the patients who were rather younger and more anxious declined randomization to PCS. The mean total dose of propofol needed in this group was higher, but the patients had a tendency to rate the global tolerance and the pain of the examination as less comfortable compared to the two randomized groups. Self-administration of propofol created a significantly different drug profile and higher medication costs. With regard to the safety parameters there was no difference between PCS and NAPS. In their global assessments, the patients and endoscopists tended to prefer NAPS. CONCLUSIONS: Individual patient characteristics and attitudes toward self-control are crucial for PCS. While being a viable option for patients who are able and willing to handle, this technique is not applicable in a considerable portion of everyday patients.     

笑气清醒镇静镇痛与丙泊酚静脉麻醉用于胃镜检查的临床价值比较研究

目的研究笑气化状态的诱导过程并比较笑气清醒镇静镇痛与丙泊酚静脉麻醉用于胃镜检查的安全性及有效性。方法选择2013年4月至2013年10月行胃镜检查患者400例,随机分为笑气组200例和丙泊酚组200例,记录笑气组达到笑气化状态的时间及浓度,2组患者检查前、中、后的收缩压、舒张压、心率、血氧饱和度,及药物起效时间、胃镜操作时间、镇静效果、恢复时间、留院时间、不良反应。检查结束后医生与患者填写调查问卷。结果笑气组达到笑气化状态的平均时间为（3．16±0．65）min,男性与女性无明显差异[（3．16±0．71）比（3．16±0．58）min,t=0．006,P〉0．05）;达到笑气化状态的平均笑气浓度为（43．68±5．05）％,男性明显高于女性[（45．30±4．99）％比（41．46±4．30）％,t=3．042,P〈0．05]。与检查前比较,丙泊酚组检查中的收缩压、舒张压、心率、血氧饱和度均明显降低（P〈0．05）,而笑气组检查中的收缩压、舒张压、心率均明显升高（P〈0．05）。丙泊酚组的起效时间及操作时间比笑气组短（P〈0．05）,镇静效果比笑气组更深（P〈0．05）,但笑气组的恢复时间、留院时间均比丙泊酚组明显减少（P〈0．05）。检查中丙泊酚组部分患者出现低氧血症、低血压、心率过缓等不良反应,而笑气组主要不良反应为恶心、干呕等咽部刺激反应。调查问卷结果显示：笑气组的医师满意度、患者满意度、患者愿意再次接受检查的比例均低于丙泊酚组（86±3．7比96±2．6,87±2．8比98±1．2,87％比99％,P〈0．05）。结论笑气清醒镇静镇痛及丙泊酚静脉麻醉用于胃镜检查均是有效的,但前者对心肺功能影响更小更安全。准确识别笑气化状态是笑气清醒镇静镇痛成功实施的关键。重视影响笑气清醒镇静镇痛技术安全性及有效性的9个因素,对于优?     

The comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam used for sedation of patients during upper endoscopy: A prospective, randomized study.

The aim of the present prospective, randomized study was to investigate and compare the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in providing sedation for gastroscopy. A total of 50 adult patients (25 patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 25 patients receiving midazolam), 18 to 60 years of age, and rated I and II on the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system were included. A brief questionnaire was used to collect demographic data; patients were asked to rate anxiety, satisfaction with care to date and expected discomfort on a visual analogue scale. The following parameters were measured continuously and recorded every minute: heart rate, mean arterial pressure, hemoglobin oxygen saturation and respiratory rate. The two groups were similar with regard to age, body mass index, sex, education, duration of endoscopy, and ethanol or tobacco use. After the procedure, full recovery time, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and hemoglobin oxygen saturation levels were similar in both groups. Both groups also had low levels of perceived procedural gagging, discomfort and anxiety scores (P > 0.05), and high satisfaction levels (90.1+/-3.0 for dexmedetomidine versus 84.9+/-4.5 for midazolam; P > 0.05). Retching and endoscopist satisfaction were significantly different in patients receiving dexmedetomidine versus those receiving midazolam (88.8+/-6.5 versus 73.5+/-16.4, P < 0.05; and 20.6+/-4.4 versus 45.2+/-6.0; P < 0.001). In the midazolam group, the number of patients who had adverse effects was higher than the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.05). As a result, dexmedetomidine performed as effectively and safely as midazolam when used as a sedative in upper gastroscopy; it was superior to midazolam with regard to retching, rate of side effects and endoscopist satisfaction. It was concluded that dexmedetomidine may be a good alternative to midazolam to sedate patients for upper endoscopy.     

Patient-oriented optimal depth of conscious sedation using midazolam during flexible bronchoscopy: A prospective open-labeled single-arm trial

Background

The British Thoracic Society guidelines for diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy (FB) in adults recommend that intravenous sedation should be offered to patients undergoing bronchoscopy. However, it is difficult to determine the adequate depth of sedation for each patient because of inter-individual variability.

Conscious sedation for EUS of the esophagus and stomach: a double-blind,randomized, controlled trial comparing midazolam with placebo

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing EUS usually receive intravenously administered sedative medication. A double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was conducted to compare midazolam with a placebo for EUS of the esophagus and stomach and to assess patient tolerance and endoscopic feasibility. METHODS: A total of 111 patients were randomized to receive midazolam or a placebo. Patients used a visual analogue scale to score pre-EUS anxiety and tolerance for the procedure. Endoscopists used a visual analogue scale to score ease of echoendoscope introduction and overall patient cooperation. Subsequent to EUS, patients were asked if they were willing to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. RESULTS: The patients' visual analogue scale scores indicated that tolerance for the introduction of the echoendoscope and the procedure overall were both significantly better in the midazolam group. Overall patient tolerance was predicted by sedation (p < 0.001) and pre-EUS anxiety (p = 0.024). Endoscopists' visual analogue scale scores showed that ease of echoendoscope introduction was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in overall patient cooperation during the procedure. There were no significant differences in introduction time, total procedure time, or patients' willingness to undergo the procedure under the same conditions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS of the esophagus and stomach without intravenous sedation is feasible for endoscopists and patients. Patients prefer intravenous administration of midazolam. Assessment of anxiety before EUS may indicate whether administration of midazolam can improve tolerance for the individual patient.     

Intranasal dexmedetomidine with and without buccal midazolam for procedural sedation in autistic children: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background

Children with autism are often difficult to manage in the hospital setting, and they often require sedation for diagnostic procedures. Intranasal dexmedetomidine has been used increasingly in children for procedural sedation. This study was designed to compare the successful sedation rate of intranasal dexmedetomidine with and without buccal midazolam on children with autism.