4.7 Article

Sedation and anaesthesia for transvaginal oocyte collection: an evaluation of practice in the UK

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 19, Issue 12, Pages 2942-2945

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh526

Keywords

anaesthesia; conscious sedation; oocyte retrieval

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The objective of the survey was to evaluate sedation and anaesthetic practice employed for oocyte collection in the different assisted conception units in the UK and whether the guidelines of safe sedation were adhered to. Methods: A survey was carried out by means of a postal questionnaire sent out to the 100 reproductive medicine units of the UK, and 67 of the units responded. Results: A response rate of 67% was achieved. Seventy-seven percent of responding units were part of hospitals with resuscitation facilities; 23% were free-standing without an in-house resuscitation team. Intravenous sedation was the preferred method of sedation for oocyte collection, being used in 62.4% of units. General anaesthesia was the primary method in 24.6% of units. A total of 47.4% of units used a medical member of the reproductive medicine team for administering sedation; 69% of cases were performed in a facility within the unit. One-hundred percent of respondents had oxygen, suction and tilting trolleys. It was reported that 23% of units were free standing, without cover from a resuscitation team. Sedation was performed by non-anaesthetic doctors in 46% and by nurses in 8.2%. In 69%, collections were performed outside of a general operating theatre environment. Also, 4.8% of units had no resuscitation trolley and 21.4% no defibrillator. conclusion: Though most units complied with the guidelines of safe sedation and anaesthesia, gaps have been observed in the safe provision of sedation services for women undergoing oocyte retrieval in some units.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available