TY - JOUR
T1 - Fast-tracking after immersion lithotripsy
T2 - General anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care
AU - Coloma, Margarita
AU - Chiu, Jen W.
AU - White, Paul F.
AU - Tongier, W. Kendall
AU - Duffy, Larry L.
AU - Armbruster, Steven C.
PY - 2000/7
Y1 - 2000/7
N2 - Both monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) offer advantages over epidural anesthesia for immersion lithotripsy. We compared propofol-based MAC and desflurane-based GA techniques for outpatient lithotripsy. After receiving midazolam 2 mg IV, 100 subjects were randomly assigned to one of two anesthetic treatment groups. In the MAC group, propofol 50-100 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 2-3 (5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep). Remifentanil 0.05 μg· kg-1 · min-1 IV supplemented with 0.125 μg/kg IV boluses, was administered for pain control. In the GA group, anesthesia was induced with propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV and remifentanil 0.125 μg/kg IV and maintained with desflurane (2%-4% inspired) and nitrous oxide (60%). Tachypnea (respiratory rate >20 breaths/min) was treated with remifentanil 0.125 μg/kg IV boluses. In the GA group, droperidol (0.625 mg IV) was administered as a prophylactic antiemetic. Recovery times and postoperative side effects were assessed up to 24 h after the procedure. Compared with MAC, the use of GA reduced the opioid requirement and decreased movements and episodes of desaturation (<90%) during the procedure. Although the GA group took longer to return to an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 5, discharge times were similar in both groups. We conclude that GA can provide better conditions for outpatient immersion lithotripsy than MAC sedation without delaying discharge.
AB - Both monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) offer advantages over epidural anesthesia for immersion lithotripsy. We compared propofol-based MAC and desflurane-based GA techniques for outpatient lithotripsy. After receiving midazolam 2 mg IV, 100 subjects were randomly assigned to one of two anesthetic treatment groups. In the MAC group, propofol 50-100 μg · kg-1 · min-1 IV was titrated to maintain an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 2-3 (5 = awake/alert to 1 = asleep). Remifentanil 0.05 μg· kg-1 · min-1 IV supplemented with 0.125 μg/kg IV boluses, was administered for pain control. In the GA group, anesthesia was induced with propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV and remifentanil 0.125 μg/kg IV and maintained with desflurane (2%-4% inspired) and nitrous oxide (60%). Tachypnea (respiratory rate >20 breaths/min) was treated with remifentanil 0.125 μg/kg IV boluses. In the GA group, droperidol (0.625 mg IV) was administered as a prophylactic antiemetic. Recovery times and postoperative side effects were assessed up to 24 h after the procedure. Compared with MAC, the use of GA reduced the opioid requirement and decreased movements and episodes of desaturation (<90%) during the procedure. Although the GA group took longer to return to an observer's assessment of alertness/sedation score of 5, discharge times were similar in both groups. We conclude that GA can provide better conditions for outpatient immersion lithotripsy than MAC sedation without delaying discharge.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033945499&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033945499&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1213/00000539-200007000-00018
DO - 10.1213/00000539-200007000-00018
M3 - Article
C2 - 10866893
AN - SCOPUS:0033945499
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 91
SP - 92
EP - 96
JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia
IS - 1
ER -