4.6 Article

Patient well-being after general anaesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre trial comparing intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 631-637

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeg243

关键词

anaesthetics i.v.; anaesthetics volatile; vomiting, nausea, postoperative; patient, satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The aim of this study was to assess postoperative patient well-being after total i.v. anaesthesia compared with inhalation anaesthesia by means of validated psychometric tests. Methods. With ethics committee approval, 305 patients undergoing minor elective gynaecologic or orthopaedic interventions were assigned randomly to total i.v. anaesthesia using propofol or inhalation anaesthesia using sevoflurane. The primary outcome measurement was the actual mental state 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia assessed by a blinded observer using the Adjective Mood Scale (AMS) and the State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postoperative pain level were determined by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia (secondary outcome measurements). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a VAS 24 h after anaesthesia. Results. The AMS and STAI scores were significantly better 90 min after total i.v. anaesthesia compared with inhalation anaesthesia (P=0.02, P=0.05, respectively), but equal 24 h after both anaesthetic techniques (P=0.90, P=0.78, respectively); patient satisfaction was comparable (P=0.26). Postoperative pain was comparable in both groups 90 min and 24 h after anaesthesia (P=0.11, P=0.12, respectively). The incidence of postoperative nausea was reduced after total i.v. compared with inhalation anaesthesia at 90 min (7 vs 35%, P<0.001), and 24 h (33 vs 52%, P=0.001). Conclusion. Total i.v. anaesthesia improves early postoperative patient well-being and reduces the incidence of PONV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据