RESUMO
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore parental preferences for the procedural sedation of children in dentistry through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to inform clinical decisions and oral health management. Methods: Based on literature reviews, interviews with parents of pediatric dental patients, and expert consultation, six attributes, including fasting time, recovery time, sedative administration routes, adverse reactions, sedation depth and procedure cost, were incorporated into the DCE questionnaire. The DCE questionnaire collected data on parental preferences for pediatric dental sedation treatment from June to August 2022. A conditional logit model was used to analyze preference and willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute and its level. Subgroup analyses assessing the impact of parents' dental anxiety on procedural sedation preferences were also conducted using conditional logit models. Results: A total of 186 valid questionnaires were gathered. Parents' preferences for fewer adverse reactions, a milder sedation depth, lower out-of-pocket cost, shorter fasting and recovery times and administration by inhalation were significantly associated with their choice of sedation model. The conditional logit model showed that parents were most interested in treatments with no adverse reactions (0% vs. 15%) (Coef, 1.033; 95% CI, 0.833-1.233), followed by those providing minimal sedation (vs. deep sedation) (Coef, 0.609; 95% CI, 0.448-0.769). Moreover, the relative importance of adverse reactions and fasting time was higher among anxious than nonanxious parents. The study found a WTP threshold of ¥1,538 for reducing adverse reactions (15% to 0%). The WTP threshold for the best sedation procedure scenario (no fasting requirement, 10â min recovery time, administration by inhalation, 0% adverse reaction incidence and minimal sedation) was ¥3,830. Conclusion: Reducing the adverse reactions and depth of sedation are predominant considerations for parents regarding procedural sedation in pediatric dentistry, followed by lower cost, shorter fasting and recovery times and inhalation sedation. Parents with dental anxiety had a stronger preference for options with a lower incidence of adverse reactions and shorter fasting time than parents without dental anxiety. This discovery is helpful for doctors and can promote collaborative decision-making among parents and doctors.
RESUMO
Adjuvant sufentanil could achieve effective spinal anesthesia with low dose of hyperbaric ropivacaine for cesarean delivery. Two previous studies had calculated the 50% effective dose (ED50) of intrathecal ropivacaine coadministered with sufentanil for cesarean delivery. However, the 95% effective dose (ED95) of intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine coadministered with sufentanil for cesarean delivery remains uncertain. This study determined the ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine coadministered with sufentanil for cesarean delivery. 80 ASA physical status I or II parturients undergoing elective cesarean delivery were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation. A combined spinal and epidural anesthesia was performed at the L3-L4 interspace. Patients received a dose of spinal ropivacaine coadministered with sufentanil 5 µg diluted to 3.0 ml with normal saline and 0.5 ml of 10% dextrose: 7.5 mg (n = 20), 9.0 mg (n = 20), 10.5 mg (n = 20), or 12 mg (n = 20). An effective dose was defined as a dose that provided bilateral sensory block to T7 within 10 min after intrathecal drug administration and required no epidural top-up for surgery to be completed. The ED50 and ED95 values for successful anesthesia were determined using a logistic regression model. The ED50 (95% confidence interval [CI]) for successful anesthesia was 8.4 (4.0-9.8) mg and the ED95 (95% CI) was 11.4 (9.7-13.9) mg. The results show that the ED95 of intrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine coadministered with sufentanil 5 µg for cesarean delivery was 11.4 mg. The addition of sufentanil could significantly reduce the dosage of ropivacaine.
