Retrospective observational study on safety of sedation for colonoscopies in ASA I and II patients performed by a nurse and under the supervision of anesthesiology.

INTRODUCTION: Out of operating room sedation with propofol by non-anaesthesiologists (Non Anaesthesiologist Administration of Propofol: NAAP) is a growing practice. This is due to the increase in minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring sedation, and the difficulty of anaesthesiology services to respond adequately to this demand. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study is to assess the safety of a programme of nurse sedationist-administered target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol in colonoscopies supervised by anaesthesiologists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a period of 6 months, all ASA I and II patients who required colonoscopy and met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 381 colonoscopies were performed. Episodes of desaturation, hypo- or hypertension, bradycardia or tachyarrhythmia and the need for anaesthesiology assistance during sedation were analysed. After the procedure, patient satisfaction was assessed on a scale of 1-5, and pain was assessed on a numerical verbal scale of 1-5. RESULTS: A small percentage (5%) of patients presented oxygen saturation of less than 90%, without requiring mask ventilation; 7.35% presented hypotension, 3.94% presented bradycardia, and the supervising anaesthesiologist was called in 22% of cases. Patient satisfaction at the end of the procedure was 4.27 out of 5. CONCLUSION: Sedation during colonoscopy in ASA I and II patients following an agreed protocol can be safely administered by nurse sedationists under the supervision of an anaesthesiologist.

Estudio observacional retrospectivo sobre la seguridad de la sedación para colonoscopias en pacientes ASA I y II realizada por enfermería y tutelada por anestesiología / Retrospective observational study on safety of sedation for colonoscopies in ASA I and II patients performed by a nurse and under the supervision of anesthesiology

Introducción: La sedación con propofol por no anestesiólogos es una práctica creciente en áreas fuera de quirófano resultado del incremento de procedimientos diagnóstico-terapéuticos mínimamente invasivos que precisan sedación y de la dificultad de los servicios de anestesiología para responder adecuadamente a esta demanda. Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este estudio es valorar la seguridad de un programa de sedación para colonoscopias administrada por enfermería formada y tutelada por anestesiólogos, aplicando un protocolo de sedación con sistemas Target Controlled Infusion. Material y métodos: Durante un periodo de 6 meses se incluyeron en el estudio todos los pacientes ASA I y II que precisaron la realización de una colonoscopia programada y cumplían los criterios de inclusión. Se realizaron 381 colonoscopias. En el procedimiento se analizaron los episodios de desaturación, hipo- o hipertensión, bradicardia o taquiarritmia y la necesidad de asistencia por anestesiología. Tras el procedimiento se evaluó en una escala de 1 a 5 el nivel de satisfacción y el dolor mediante escala verbal numérica de 0 a 10. Resultados: El 5% de los pacientes presentó una saturación de oxígeno menor del 90% sin requerir ventilación con máscara; el 7,35% presentó hipotensión, el 3,94% bradicardia y fue necesario consultar al anestesiólogo responsable en el 22% de los casos. El grado de satisfacción alcanzado por los pacientes al final del proceso fue de 4,27 sobre 5. Conclusión: La sedación durante colonoscopias, en pacientes ASA I y II, siguiendo un protocolo consensuado puede ser administrada de forma segura por personal de enfermería tutelado por anestesiología.(AU)

Introduction: Out of operating room sedation with propofol by non-anaesthesiologists (Non Anaesthesiologist Administration of Propofol) is a growing practice. This is due to the increase in minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring sedation, and the difficulty of anaesthesiology services to respond adequately to this demand. Objective: The main objective of this study is to assess the safety of a programme of nurse sedationist-administered target controlled infusion of propofol in colonoscopies supervised by anaesthesiologists. Material and methods: Over a period of 6 months, all ASA I and II patients who required colonoscopy and met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 381 colonoscopies were performed. Episodes of desaturation, hypo- or hypertension, bradycardia or tachyarrhythmia and the need for anaesthesiology assistance during sedation were analysed. After the procedure, patient satisfaction was assessed on a scale of 1 to 5, and pain was assessed on a numerical verbal scale of 1 to 5. Results: A small percentage (5%) of patients presented oxygen saturation of less than 90%, without requiring mask ventilation; 7.35% presented hypotension, 3.94% presented bradycardia, and the supervising anaesthesiologist was called in 22% of cases. Patient satisfaction at the end of the procedure was 4.27 out of 5. Conclusion: Sedation during colonoscopy in ASA I and II patients following an agreed protocol can be safely administered by nurse sedationists under the supervision of an anaesthesiologist.(AU)

Déficit motor en el puerperio. ¿Es la analgesia neuroaxial la causa más frecuente? / Motor deficit in the puerperium. Is neuroaxial analgesia the most frequent cause?

Los déficits motores de miembros inferiores durante el embarazo y el puerperio son relativamente frecuentes. Se atribuyen habitualmente a complicaciones asociadas a las técnicas neuroaxiales que son realizadas por el anestesiólogo. Pero existen otras posibles causas, como la osteoporosis transitoria de caderas. La osteoporosis transitoria del embarazo es una patología infrecuente y autolimitada de origen desconocido. La complicación más severa que puede presentar son las fracturas patológicas, fundamentalmente en las articulaciones de carga. Esta patología suele presentarse en el tercer trimestre del embarazo y cursa con dolor e impotencia funcional del miembro inferior afecto. Presentamos el caso de una mujer de 35 años, gestante de 40+3 semanas que inicia trabajo de parto. Se coloca catéter epidural normofuncionante y finalmente se decide cesárea por parto estacionado; 48h después comienza con impotencia funcional en miembro inferior izquierdo y dolor. Se realiza RM donde se descarta hematoma epidural y se objetiva osteopenia de caderas, siendo diagnosticada de osteoporosis transitoria el embarazo

Motor deficits of lower limbs during pregnancy and the puerperium are relatively frequent. They are usually attributed to complications which are associated with neuroaxial techniques performed by the anesthesiologist. But there are other possible causes, such as transient osteoporosis of the hips. Transient osteoporosis of pregnancy is a rare and self-limited pathology of unknown etiology. The most severe complication that can occur are pathological fractures, mainly in the load joints. This pathology usually occurs in the third trimester of pregnancy and is showed up with pain and functional impotence of the lower limb affected. We present the case of a 35-year-old woman, 40+3 weeks of pregnancy who starts labour. Normally functioning epidural catheter is placed and finally cesarean section is decided because failure to progress; 48h later the patient begins with functional impotence and pain in the lower left limb. MRI is performed, epidural hematoma is ruled out and osteopenia of the hips is proved. The patient is diagnosed with transient osteoporosis of pregnancy

Motor deficit in the puerperium. Is neuroaxial analgesia the most frequent cause? / Déficit motor en el puerperio. ¿Es la analgesia neuroaxial la causa más frecuente?

Motor deficits of lower limbs during pregnancy and the puerperium are relatively frequent. They are usually attributed to complications which are associated with neuroaxial techniques performed by the anesthesiologist. But there are other possible causes, such as transient osteoporosis of the hips. Transient osteoporosis of pregnancy is a rare and self-limited pathology of unknown etiology. The most severe complication that can occur are pathological fractures, mainly in the load joints. This pathology usually occurs in the third trimester of pregnancy and is showed up with pain and functional impotence of the lower limb affected. We present the case of a 35-year-old woman, 40+3 weeks of pregnancy who starts labour. Normally functioning epidural catheter is placed and finally cesarean section is decided because failure to progress; 48h later the patient begins with functional impotence and pain in the lower left limb. MRI is performed, epidural hematoma is ruled out and osteopenia of the hips is proved. The patient is diagnosed with transient osteoporosis of pregnancy.

Analgesia postoperatoria en cirugía mayor: ¿es hora de cambiar nuestros protocolos? / Postoperative analgesia after surgery: should we change our protocols?

La analgesia postoperatoria es uno de los componentes básicos en la recuperación funcional tras una intervención quirúrgica. No obstante, es difícil aislar los efectos de la analgesia postoperatoria de otros aspectos relacionados con la técnica quirúrgica, la práctica clínica, el tipo de seguimiento analgésico o los factores organizativos del equipo quirúrgico. La introducción de la laparoscopia, la toracoscopia y las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas está modificando los protocolos analgésicos clásicos en la cirugía compleja .La analgesia intravenosa controlada por el paciente e incluso los opioides por vía oral están desplazando a la analgesia epidural en este tipo de técnicas. La evaluación del riesgo/beneficio para la selección de cada tipo de analgesia postoperatoria dependerá de la severidad del dolor dinámico y de los potenciales efectos secundarios de las técnicas y los fármacos analgésicos. Es difícil demostrar el impacto de la analgesia postoperatoria en grandes resultados quirúrgicos como la mortalidad, la morbilidad o la estancia media, que dependen de factores múltiples y heterogéneos. El efecto del tipo de analgesia en el proceso quirúrgico debería investigarse sobre otros resultados orientados al paciente, como la calidad analgésica, los efectos adversos o el bienestar postoperatorio. Otras áreas en las que se plantea el posible impacto de la analgesia postoperatoria son la recurrencia oncológica y el dolor crónico postoperatorio (AU)

Postoperative analgesia is one of the basic components of functional recovery after surgery. However, separating the effects of postoperative analgesia from other factors such as the surgical technique, clinical practice, the type of analgesic follow-up and the organizational factors of the surgical team can be difficult. The introduction of laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and minimally-invasive surgical techniques are modifying the traditional protocols used in complex surgery. Intravenous patient controlled analgesia and even oral opioids are replacing epidural analgesia in this type of technique. Evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio for the selection of the proper postoperative analgesia technique depends on the severity of dynamic pain and the potential adverse effects of analgesic drugs and techniques. Demonstrating the impact of postoperative analgesia on major outcomes such as surgical mortality, morbidity, or length of stay, can be difficult as these outcomes depend on multiple and heterogeneous factors. The effect of a specific type of analgesia on the entire surgical process should be investigated on the basis of patient-oriented outcomes, such as the quality of analgesia, adverse effects and postoperative comfort. Other areas in which postoperative analgesia could have a postoperative impact are those related to oncological recurrence and chronic postoperative pain (AU)

[Safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in a series of 3670 patients]. / Seguridad y efectividad del tratamiento del dolor agudo postoperatorio: seguimiento de 3.670 pacientes.

OBJECTIVES: To improve the safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in patients under the care of our acute pain clinic, we set 3 objectives: to establish a computerized registry updated daily for all patients treated in the unit, to define categories of quality indicators for assessing the results of acute postoperative pain treatment, and to compare our results with those reported in the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective study of all patients treated by our pain clinic from May 2004 through June 2007. We analyzed 19 previously defined indicators in 4 categories: case characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction. We then compared the results to those in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 3670 patients were included. Results for the most important indicators were as follows: mean follow-up time, 3.1 days (range 1-12 days); effectiveness, 92%; severe pain (>7 on a numerical scale) at rest, 1%; moderate pain (4-6 on the scale) on movement, 31%; accidental catheter removal, 6%; and medication error, 0.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Daily follow-up and recording of data for patients treated by the acute pain unit facilitates the evaluation of our clinical practice and contributes with improving safety and effectiveness. Comparison with reports in the literature reveals the great heterogeneity of quality assurance indicators that have been defined.

Seguridad y efectividad del tratamiento del dolor agudopostoperatorio: seguimiento de 3.670 pacientes / Safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in a series of 3670 patients

OBJETIVOS: Con el fin de mejorar la seguridad y la efectividaddel tratamiento del dolor postoperatorio en lospacientes controlados por la Unidad de Dolor Agudo(UDA), nos propusimos tres objetivos: implantar un sistemade seguimiento y registro informatizado diario de lospacientes tratados en la UDA, definir categorías de indicadoresde resultado del tratamiento del dolor agudo postoperatorio(DAP) y evaluar nuestros resultados y compararloscon los datos extraídos de la revisión bibliográfica.PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo de todos lospacientes atendidos en la UDA desde mayo de 2004 hastajunio de 2007. Analizamos 19 indicadores definidos previamenteen la unidad y agrupados en cuatro categorías,(casuística, efectividad, seguridad y satisfacción delpaciente). Se compararon nuestros resultados con loshallados en la revisión bibliográfica.RESULTADOS: Incluimos 3.670 pacientes. Los indicadoresmás relevantes fueron: tiempo medio de seguimiento3,1 días (rango 1-12 días), efectividad 92%, dolor grave(escala numérica EN > 7) en reposo 1%, dolor moderado(EN: 4-6) en movimiento 31%, salida accidental de catéterepidural 6% y errores de medicación 0,4%.CONCLUSIONES: El seguimiento y registro diario de lospacientes tratados en la UDA posibilita la evaluación delos resultados de nuestra práctica clínica y contribuye a lamejora de la seguridad y efectividad de los tratamientos.La comparación con los datos de la bibliografía revelauna gran heterogeneidad en las definiciones de los indicadores (AU)

OBJECTIVES: To improve the safety and effectivenessof acute postoperative pain treatment in patients underthe care of our acute pain clinic, we set 3 objectives: toestablish a computerized registry updated daily for allpatients treated in the unit, to define categories ofquality indicators for assessing the results of acutepostoperative pain treatment, and to compare ourresults with those reported in the literature.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective study of allpatients treated by our pain clinic from May 2004through June 2007. We analyzed 19 previously definedindicators in 4 categories: case characteristics,effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction. We thencompared the results to those in the literature.RESULTS: A total of 3670 patients were included.Results for the most important indicators were asfollows: mean follow-up time, 3.1 days (range 1-12days); effectiveness, 92%; severe pain (>7 on anumerical scale) at rest, 1%; moderate pain (4-6 on thescale) on movement, 31%; accidental catheter removal,6%; and medication error, 0.4%.CONCLUSIONS: Daily follow-up and recording of datafor patients treated by the acute pain unit facilitates theevaluation of our clinical practice and contributes withimproving safety and effectiveness. Comparison withreports in the literature reveals the great heterogeneityof quality assurance indicators that have been defined (AU)