ABSTRACT
Abstract: In the literature Informed consent (IC) assumptions is well established. However, the different stages and the conditions under which the IC for anesthetic practices is obtained, is scarce. The aim of the present study is to explore the phases and conditions of IC in anesthesiology. Anonymized clinical records of 325 patients submitted to anesthetic procedures at the Institute of Oncology of Porto were analyzed. A total agreement between the anesthetic techniques established in the IC and those performed, was reach with 270 patients. The importance of IC in clinical practice is discussed and an ideal process for IC is argued.
Resumen: El consentimiento informado (CI) está bien establecido en la literatura. Sin embargo, la información sobre las diferentes fases y condiciones en las que se obtiene el CI para las prácticas anestésicas es escasa. El objetivo del presente estudio es explorar las fases y condiciones de obtención de la CI en anestesiología. Se analizaron las historias clínicas anónimas de 325 pacientes sometidos a procedimientos anestésicos en el Instituto de Oncología de Oporto. Se alcanzó una concordancia total entre las técnicas de anestesia establecidas en el CI y las realizadas con 270 pacientes. Se defiende la importancia del CI en la práctica clínica y se discute un proceso ideal para obtenerlo.
Resumo: Na literatura o Consentimento Informado (CI) é bem estabelecido. Contudo, a informação sobre as diferentes fases e as condições em que o CI para práticas anestésicas é obtido, é escassa. O objetivo do presente estudo é explorar as fases e condições da obtenção do CI em anestesiologia. Foram analisados os registos clínicos anónimos de 325 pacientes submetidos a procedimentos anestésicos no Instituto de Oncologia do Porto. Foi alcançado um acordo total entre as técnicas anestésicas estabelecidas no CI e as realizadas, com 270 pacientes. A importância do CI na prática clínica é defendida e discute-se um processo ideal para a obtenção do CI.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Young Adult , Informed Consent/ethics , Anesthesia/methods , Anesthesia/ethics , Anesthesiology/ethicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tourniquet is associated with tourniquet induced hypertension (T-HTN) and with occasional circulatory collapse. These changes can be well tolerated by young healthy patients; however, in elderly patients with reduced physiologic cardiovascular reserve and blunted baroreflex, these alterations could be significantly detrimental. So we studied that whether there was any difference in hemodynamic changes in elderly patients receiving general or epidural anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients underwent total knee arthroplasty were classified into four groups; general anesthesia in control ( or = 65 years, group II, n=30), epidural anesthesia in control (group III, n=30), epidural anesthesia in elderly (group IV, n=30). Mean blood pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and PETCO2 were recorded throughout the experiments. RESULTS: MAP in the general anesthesia was higher than that in the epidural anesthesia after tourniquet inflation and there was pronounced occurrence of T-HTN in the group II (43.3%). After tourniquet deflation, MAP was more reduction in the group II than that in the group IV (23.3+/-10.9% vs 17.4+/-9.4%, p<0.05), and heart rate was increased in all groups except group II. Tourniquet time did not correlate with the magnitude of the changes in MAP and HR associated with tourniquet application. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients associated with general anesthesia, occurrence of "tourniquet hypertension" is more frequent and reduction in MAP after deflation is more marked without compensatory increasing of HR than epidural.
Subject(s)
Aged , Humans , Anesthesia, Epidural , Anesthesia, General , Arthroplasty , Baroreflex , Blood Pressure , Heart Rate , Hemodynamics , Hypertension , Inflation, Economic , Knee , Shock , Tourniquets , Vital SignsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study examined the efficacy of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor and compared the suitability of fentanyl and butorphanol mixed with bupivacaine. METHODS: After establishing effective epidural analgesia with 10 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine mixed with fentanyl 5 microgram/ml or butorphanol 1 mg/ml, 60 parturients in active labor were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PCEA using 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microgram/ml (fentanyl group); PCEA using 0.0625% bupivacaine with butorphanol 20 microgram/ml (butorphanol group). PCEA pumps were programmed to deliver a 4 ml/hr basal infusion, 4 ml on-demand bolus, 10-min lockout intervals between doses, and a 20 ml hourly limit. Visual analogue pain scores, side effects, parturients' satisfaction scores, duration of labor and Apgar scores were recorded during and after labor. RESULTS: The quality of analgesia, side effects, duration of labor, overall satisfaction and Apgar scores didn't differ between the two groups. Average hourly infusion rates were 11.8 0.3 ml/hr (fentanyl group) and 13.9 0.4 ml/hr (butorphanol group). CONCLUSIONS: PCEA is a safe and effective method for labor analgesia and both solutions, the 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 microgram/ml and the 0.0625% bupivacaine plus butorphanol 20 microgram/ml, appear suitable for PCEA use for labor pain. There is no difference in effectiveness between fentanyl and butorphanol.
Subject(s)
Female , Pregnancy , Analgesia , Analgesia, Epidural , Bupivacaine , Butorphanol , Fentanyl , Labor PainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study examined the efficacy of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) during labor and compared the suitability of fentanyl and butorphanol mixed with bupivacaine. METHODS: After establishing effective epidural analgesia with 10 ml of 0.125% bupivacaine mixed with fentanyl 5 microgram/ml or butorphanol 1 mg/ml, 60 parturients in active labor were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PCEA using 0.0625% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2 microgram/ml (fentanyl group); PCEA using 0.0625% bupivacaine with butorphanol 20 microgram/ml (butorphanol group). PCEA pumps were programmed to deliver a 4 ml/hr basal infusion, 4 ml on-demand bolus, 10-min lockout intervals between doses, and a 20 ml hourly limit. Visual analogue pain scores, side effects, parturients' satisfaction scores, duration of labor and Apgar scores were recorded during and after labor. RESULTS: The quality of analgesia, side effects, duration of labor, overall satisfaction and Apgar scores didn't differ between the two groups. Average hourly infusion rates were 11.8 0.3 ml/hr (fentanyl group) and 13.9 0.4 ml/hr (butorphanol group). CONCLUSIONS: PCEA is a safe and effective method for labor analgesia and both solutions, the 0.0625% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 2 microgram/ml and the 0.0625% bupivacaine plus butorphanol 20 microgram/ml, appear suitable for PCEA use for labor pain. There is no difference in effectiveness between fentanyl and butorphanol.