Incremental bolus versus a continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation/general anesthesia during dentoalveolar surgery

Bennett, Jeffrey; Shafer, David; Efaw, David; Goupil, Michael T.

doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(98)90253-1

Cited by 33 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are well comparable with data from Bennett et al comparing incremental bolus versus a continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation/ general anesthesia during dentoalveolar surgery using an induction with a bolus of midazolam/fentanyl [16], showing no significant difference regarding efficiency, safety, and recovery. In concordance with our data, in the continuous infusion group for dentoalveolar surgery, a statistically higher maintenance dose of propofol (7.3 mg/kg/hr vs. 6.03 mg/kg/hr, p < 0.05) was needed to maintain anesthesia.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This may be associated with a need for less user interventions, may provide a more consistent level of sedation depth, and may shorten the recovery time. However, in contrast to these assumptions, some studies, performed outside the field of GI endoscopy, showed that a significant higher total dose of propofol was required when continuous administration of propofol was compared with the repeated bolus technique [16][17][18]. Therefore, as the primary study outcome, the mean propofol dose within each group was assessed.…”

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Riphaus

Geist

Schrader

et al. 2012

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Study Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Riphaus

Geist

Schrader

et al. 2012

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maintenance of anesthesia in all the cases of our study was done, administering a step-down continuous infusion technique to maintain hemodynamic stability. This was also suggested by Bennet et al .,[14] comparing the use of traditional bolus technique with continuous infusion technique for administration of propofol. Five patients (25%) needed supplements of anesthetic, due to lack of coordination of anesthesia time, and surgical time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…There was no fall in SPO 2 in any of the patient at any time, similar to the findings of Bennett et al . [14]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on total intravenous anesthesia in orthognathic surgical procedures

Vasundhar

Sadhasivam

Bhushan

et al. 2016

Natl J Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and Objective:To assess the use of propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia among patients undergoing various combinations of orthognathic surgical procedures.Materials and Methods:Following Preoperative evaluation, patients were given Fentanyl (2 micrograms/kg) intravenously. Induction (2 mg/kg) and maintenance (10 mg/kg/hr) of anaesthesia was achieved by Propofol infusion. Blood Pressure and heart rate were maintained at >70 or 80 mm Hg and >50 respectively and were monitored continuously. Infusion was stopped approximately 30 to 40 minutes before the end of surgery. Immediate recovery recorded and was assessed.Results:The average duration of anaesthesia and surgery were found to be 4 hrs 28 min (SD= 1 hr. 35 min) and 4 hrs 3 min (SD=1 hr 38 min). None of the patients experienced pain on injection of induction agent. No significant change was observed in the mean heart rate and mean BP at different time intervals from baseline value to 30 minutes after the recovery. The average time taken to obey simple commands after stopping Propofol infusion was 42.60 ± 9.09 min. Time taken for spontaneous eye opening, full orientation and to count backwards was 43.45 ± 9.11, 47.85 ± 8.18 and 50.9 ± 9.14 respectively. Face-Hand test performed at 15 min after extubation was positive in all the patients. The mean Aldrete score at 15 min after extubation was 11.65 ± 0.75. The mean value of unaided sitting time for at least 2 min was after 119.00 ± 20.56 min. The average score of picture card test, time taken in “picking up matches” test, Ball bearing test, time taken to walk and to void urine were 5.80 ± 1.47, 67.95 ± 5.72, 9.80 ± 2.57, 172.75 ± 39.25 and 163.75 ± 55.96 respectively. Ninety percent of the patients were amenable for a repeat of this anaesthetic using the same regime but 10% of them did not answer anything. Seven patients (35%) had chills post-operatively.Conclusion:Propofol is an excellent anaesthetic for day care procedures.

show abstract

“…Neither the total dose of propofol required nor the sedation efficacy or the frequency of side effects are improved by infusion versus bolus administration. Bennett et al37 compared incremental bolus with continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during dentoalveolar surgery after induction with a bolus of midazolam/fentanyl, and found no significant differences in efficiency, safety, and recovery. However, in the continuous infusion group, a statistically higher maintenance dose of propofol (7.3 mg/kg/hr vs. 6.03 mg/kg/hr, p <0.05) was needed to maintain anesthesia 37.…”

Section: Intermittent Bolus Injection Versus Continuous Infusion Of Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopist-Directed Propofol: Pros and Cons

Kim

Lee

2014

Clin Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

show abstract

Incremental bolus versus a continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation/general anesthesia during dentoalveolar surgery

Cited by 33 publications

References 11 publications

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

Intermittent manually controlled versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation during interventional endoscopy: A prospective randomized trial

A study on total intravenous anesthesia in orthognathic surgical procedures

Endoscopist-Directed Propofol: Pros and Cons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About