ライフサイエンスコーパス: sedation

1 iety, depression, suicidality and somnolence/sedation.

2 mentation of an individual-based approach to sedation.

3 non-rapid-eye-movement-like sleep resembling sedation.

4 vs 16.9%; p = 0.001), when compared to light sedation.

5 sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation.

6 es for patients requiring urgent unscheduled sedation.

7 splay reduced sensitivity to ethanol-induced sedation.

8 dexmedetomidine) in pediatric critical care sedation.

9 roup) were nausea, akathisia, dizziness, and sedation.

10 er urgent situations that demand unscheduled sedation.

11 esia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation.

12 nal factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation.

13 ly influenced alcohol-induced stimulation or sedation.

14 and isoflurane, and 322 received standard IV sedation.

15 ant synergistic antipruritic effect, with no sedation.

16 izziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation.

17 re initial akathisia and, unexpectedly, more sedation.

18 oxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation.

19 uce complications related to over- and under sedation.

20 ain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation.

21 GABAA receptor subtype is thought to mediate sedation.

22 and to evaluate atmospheric pollution during sedation.

23 insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), akathisia, and sedation.

24 monitoring the levels of consciousness under sedation.

25 pressure support ventilation (PSV) and under sedation.

26 received topical anesthesia with or without sedation.

27 ted to excessive or inadequate monitoring of sedation.

28 The groups did not differ significantly in sedation.

29 EEG during patient-titrated propofol-induced sedation.

30 g ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and sedation.

31 tric multicenter cluster randomized trial of sedation.

32 l as two distinct levels of propofol-induced sedation.

33 ays (5 +/- 2 d) after complete withdrawal of sedation.

34 nsumption and sensitivity to alcohol-induced sedation.

35 aterials, by amount of treatment and type of sedation.

36 ocyte calcium activation to increase ethanol sedation.

37 general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.

38 ween the use of alpha2 agonists and enhanced sedation.

39 induced sustained group activity followed by sedation.

40 mm Hg vs 10 +/- 3.5 mm Hg; P = .015) or deep sedation (12 +/- 4 mm Hg vs 10.5 +/- 4 mm Hg; P <.001).

41 hixol) to 1.15 (0.36 to 1.47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0.92 (0.17 to 2.03;

42 re somnolence (10.0%), akathisia (7.7%), and sedation (7.7%) in the open-label period and mania (11.9

43 Affect lability (11%) and sedation (9%) were the most common adverse events.

44 uced sedation and developed tolerance to the sedation after repeated alcohol administrations.

45 mond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Sedation-Agitation Scale of 2 or 1.

46 edated with isoflurane when compared with IV sedation although no differences in neurologic outcome (

47 To characterize sedation, analgesia, delirium, and mobilization practice

48 Use of daily sedation interruption and a sedation/analgesia protocol was reported by 51% and 39%,

49 lure Assessment score), interventions (e.g., sedation/analgesia), and ICU characteristics (e.g., size

50 In addition to sedation and akathisia, the most common adverse events w

51 lementation of anti-arrhythmic treatment and sedation and controlling the triggering event, rare pati

52 ause it displays fewer side effects, such as sedation and depression-like symptoms, than other dopami

53 led increased sensitivity to alcohol-induced sedation and developed tolerance to the sedation after r

54 that TLR4 may play a role in ethanol-induced sedation and GABAA receptor function, but does not regul

55 yses, intraprocedural success with conscious sedation and general anesthesia was similar (98.2% versu

56 cal stimulation or a tap, as a surrogate for sedation and general anesthesia, respectively.

57 acute anxiolytic medications typically cause sedation and impair cortical function.

58 adult brain and this might result in reduced sedation and increased ethanol consumption.

59 a6 mutants were sensitive to ethanol-induced sedation and lacked rapid tolerance upon re-exposure to

60 ional states when awake than when under deep sedation and light anesthesia.

61 erability was assessed based on a measure of sedation and on the proportions of participants achievin

62 tify ligands, targets, and neurons affecting sedation and paradoxical excitation in vivo in zebrafish

63 h abnormal liver function tests, somnolence, sedation and pneumonia were limited to childhood epileps

64 ifts ICU culture from the harmful inertia of sedation and restraints to an animated ICU filled with p

65 also able to discriminate between levels of sedation and serum concentrations of propofol, supportin

66 entilation during induction of bronchoscopic sedation and starting bronchoscopy following hypoventila

67 antly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation

68 Sedation and unconsciousness under GA are associated wit

69 Sedation and/or anaesthesia is a way to achieve this.

70 Patient tolerance, wakefulness during sedation, and cooperation were similar in both groups.

71 tion effects on alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, and craving during the alcohol administration

72 h that medications that reduced stimulation, sedation, and craving during the alcohol administration

73 gy endpoints of alcohol-induced stimulation, sedation, and craving track medication effects from the

74 mplex cases had longer operative times, more sedation, and higher pain scores.

75 ed after adjustment for age, sex, diagnoses, sedation, and ventilation.

76 The 5 topical with sedation anesthesia-related claims were due to inadequat

77 pha-2 agonist widely used for premedication, sedation, anxiolysis and analgesia.

78 pain without central adverse effects such as sedation, apnoea, or addiction.

79 adiology (IR), patient reactions to moderate sedation are difficult to predict.

80 Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and a

81 on of patients undergoing longer duration of sedation are needed to confirm these observations.

82 Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has

83 avioral level, LZP, but not OXT, caused mild sedation, as evidenced by a 19% increase in reaction tim

84 inimize muscle contraction, or biphasic with sedation because there was minimal muscular stimulation.

85 -induced stimulation (beta = 1.18 p < 0.05), sedation (beta = 2.38, p < 0.05), and craving (beta = 3.

86 Anesthetics are generally associated with sedation, but some anesthetics can also increase brain a

87 was noted in 102 of 1737 (5.9%) of conscious sedation cases.

88 rimary inpatient IR procedures with moderate sedation conducted from October 1, 2012, to September 30

89 ventional radiology procedures with moderate sedation contributes to worse clinical outcomes and high

90 al practice, local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) is performed in roughly 50% of patients un

91 Guidelines to triage patients to conscious sedation (CS) or monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for co

92 ate whether the sedation mode (ie, conscious sedation [CS] vs general anesthesia [GA]) affects the an

93 hing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage;

94 ar results according to emergency department sedation depth existed for ICU-free days (mean differenc

95 reparation, ideal time allocation, training, sedation, detection and characterisation of lesions, the

96 oup (7.0%) received supplemental intravenous sedation (difference, 12.1%; 95% CI, -2.0% to 26.2%; P =

97 thdrawal from the study, due to cessation of sedation, discharge from the ICU, or death.

98 Organ Failure Assessment score, and type of sedation-discontinuous electroencephalography and absent

99 anzapine plus placebo group were somnolence, sedation, dizziness, and constipation.

100 s include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea.

101 received greater than or equal to 5 days of sedation during mechanical ventilation for acute respira

102 After recovery from sedation during which low frequency activity dominated,

103 nto hemodynamically stable patients, without sedation (early PPG); and again 1 month after TIPS place

104 Until 2019, guidelines for procedural sedation emphasized a detailed process most applicable f

105 pondents reported targeting moderate to deep sedation following cannulation, with the use of sedative

106 Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure we

107 nferiority of oral compared with intravenous sedation for cataract surgery in a diverse patient popul

108 Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is s

109 equire mechanical ventilation and continuous sedation for greater than or equal to 4 days.

110 ontextual stimulus presented 10 min prior to sedation for imaging.

111 Sedation for MRI was required in 13 of 402 patients (3.2

112 .001), use of benzodiazepines for continuous sedation (from 36% to 17%; p < 0.001), light sedation of

113 e deep sedation group and 55.6% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 12.8%; odds ra

114 e deep sedation group and 17.0% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 4.1%; odds rat

115 ation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95%

116 p vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cO

117 on group compared to 20.0 (9.8) in the light sedation group (mean difference, 1.9; 95% CI, -0.40 to 4

118 Mortality was 21.1% in the deep sedation group and 17.0% in the light sedation group (be

119 was 5.34+/-0.63 (range, 3.75-6) in the oral sedation group and 5.40+/-0.52 (range, 4-6) in the intra

120 on (delirium and coma) was 68.4% in the deep sedation group and 55.6% in the light sedation group (be

121 18.1 (10.8) in the emergency department deep sedation group compared to 20.0 (9.8) in the light sedat

122 free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or

123 The conscious sedation group was less likely to experience in-hospital

124 e from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption.

125 m -1.3 on day 1 to -0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from -2.3 on day 1 to -1.8 on day 7.

126 higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospit

127 the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group.

128 those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that

129 y ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilatio

130 o sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking.

131 The effects of sedation, hypoxia, hypoventilation, and changes in intra

132 on (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arou

133 i) the rates of complications and additional sedation; (ii) the mean time required for duodenal exami

134 des-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are

135 evoke positive affect and anxiolysis without sedation in a patient with epilepsy undergoing research

136 SSOCT was obtained without sedation in a six-month-old girl with bilateral multilay

137 Arf6 is required for normal ethanol-induced sedation in adult Drosophila.

138 The use of oral sedation in cataract surgery has been suggested as a cos

139 out oral route is the drug of choice for MRI sedation in children in our institution with a success r

140 herence tomography (HH-OCT) can be used with sedation in children who are not amenable to traditional

141 ing literature suggests that dexmedetomidine sedation in critical care units is associated with reduc

142 edetomidine, increasingly used for long-term sedation in intensive care units [17], induces a non-rap

143 Background Despite increased use of moderate sedation in interventional radiology (IR), patient react

144 Early deep sedation in the emergency department is common, carries

145 s associated with a higher frequency of deep sedation in the ICU on day 1 (53.8% vs 20.3%; p < 0.001)

146 ents who undergo IR procedures with moderate sedation in the United States are poorly understood.

147 hese results suggest the safety of conscious sedation in this population, although comparative effect

148 irthful) effect and reduced anxiety, without sedation, in three patients with epilepsy undergoing int

149 to treat parkinsonian symptoms, weight gain, sedation, increase in prolactin release, overall functio

150 sychological stress suggested that, although sedation induced acute stress, experimental housing cond

151 Previously, we found that sedation induced with alpha2-adrenergic agonists (e.g.,

152 icient SOE), inappropriate continuation, and sedation (insufficient SOE).

153 Use of daily sedation interruption and a sedation/analgesia protocol

154 usion of cisatracurium with concomitant deep sedation (intervention group) or to a usual-care approac

155 In US practice, conscious sedation is associated with briefer length of stay and l

156 Although the use of sedation is commonly practiced to keep infants still whi

157 Volatile sedation is feasible in cardiac arrest survivors.

158 Conscious sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve repla

159 gorithm to calculate the probability of each sedation level from heart rate variability measures deri

160 I = 73.1, N = 184), while achieving the same sedation level.

161 onalizable algorithm to discriminate between sedation levels in ICU patients based on heart rate vari

162 echnology may help clinical staff to monitor sedation levels more effectively and to reduce complicat

163 oposed system discriminated between the four sedation levels with an overall accuracy of 59%.

164 ects with any two events of hypoxemia during sedation, maintenance or recovery were less than the con

165 Sedation managed per usual care or Randomized Evaluation

166 ite or Hispanic race, cancer, and inadequate sedation management (OR = 3.15; 95% CI = 1.74-5.72).Conc

167 To describe sedation management in children supported on extracorpor

168 ure to critical care therapies, and pain and sedation management.

169 Propofol-based sedation may increase hemodynamic instability by decreas

170 n outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication.

171 The primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication.

172 tcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication.

173 All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded.

174 most pain imaginable), nausea and vomiting, sedation, minimal alveolar concentration of volatile ane

175 Purpose To investigate whether the sedation mode (ie, conscious sedation [CS] vs general an

176 ead to a fully automated system for depth of sedation monitoring.

177 MT performed under conscious sedation non-GA had significantly shorter onset-to-recan

178 under general anaesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation non-GA through a systematic review and meta-ana

179 ally ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedat

180 sedation (from 36% to 17%; p < 0.001), light sedation of ventilated patients (from 55% to 61%; p < 0.

181 with patients undergoing TAVR with conscious sedation on an intention-to-treat basis for the primary

182 ta from SIESTA, the influence of the mode of sedation on angiographic workflow during treatment for e

183 Here, we delineate the impact of propofol sedation on MRSA bloodstream infections in mice in the p

184 alfurafine caused no aversion, anhedonia, or sedation or and a low level of motor incoordination at t

185 to 24 months of age who did not receive any sedation or anesthesia during magnetic resonance imaging

186 ll-term children <=5 years of age undergoing sedation or anesthesia were enrolled.

187 rat paws without major side effects such as sedation or constipation.

188 somnolence (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.07-4.64) and sedation (OR 4.21, 95% CI: 1.18-15.01).

189 elimination, alcohol-induced stimulation or sedation, or mood during alcohol administration.

190 The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of

191 The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of seda

192 was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received

193 e retrospectively reviewed 69 paediatric MRI sedations performed over a 5-year period using records o

194 (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes.

195 Sedation practice in the emergency department and its as

196 Sedation proportions did not change significantly over t

197 s can be effectively used in ICUs to improve sedation protocol compliance and may mitigate potential

198 A standardized, goal-directed, nurse-driven sedation protocol may help mitigate these effects.

199 ted the effect of a nurse-led, goal-directed sedation protocol on clinical outcomes.

200 data from a multicenter randomized trial of sedation (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration fo

201 g mean daily opioid dose, longer duration of sedation, receipt of three or more preweaning sedative c

202 received an alpha2 agonist as part of their sedation regimen, and an unexposed group.

203 usually exposed to opioids as part of their sedation regimen.

204 r vasopressors, randomized to two usual care sedation regimens.

205 e incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs.

206 leep homeostasis and dexmedetomidine-induced sedation require PO galanin neurons and likely share com

207 so found that light-dependent, Prok2-induced sedation requires prokineticin receptor 2 (prokr2) and i

208 with intravitreal bevacizumab using bedside sedation returned to their preprocedure respiratory base

209 hen the Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale (OAAS) was less than 4 (Control group, n

210 ary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to

211 e, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores.

212 edation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] t

213 re of -2 to -3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from -5 [un

214 Assessment Method-ICU and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale daily during hospitalization.

215 IRUS system targeted to a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale from -3 to -5 by adaptation of minimum al

216 p sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Sedation-Agitation Scale o

217 A Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score between -3 and -4 was maintained du

218 rium in patients with Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale Score greater than -3.

219 hod-ICU and corresponding Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score greater than 0.

220 hod-ICU and corresponding Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score less than or equal to 0 and a day w

221 oping our method, we used Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores grouped into four levels denoted "

222 ssessment Method-ICU with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to assess sedation was the most common me

223 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale was -4 (-4 to -3) before, -4 (-4 to -3) d

224 Median Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was -4.5 (interquartile range, -5 to -3.6

225 sment Method for the ICU, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 ass

226 Data collected included Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, minimum alveolar concentration, inspired

227 free days assessed by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.

228 nt Method for the ICU and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.

229 ree days assessed through Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale/Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU,

230 were noted in IV fluid requirements, nausea/sedation scores, days to open bowels, length of HDU, and

231 The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation S

232 flurane fraction, wake-up times, duration of sedation, sevoflurane consumption, respiratory and hemod

233 We evaluated all paediatric MRI sedations since installation of an MRI device in our hos

234 system discriminated between light- and deep-sedation states with an average accuracy of 75%.

235 pitalized adults, there was no difference in sedation status (low and moderate SOE), delirium duratio

236 ing to use of ketamine, which included pain, sedation, status asthmaticus, alcohol withdrawal syndrom

237 subjective ratings including alcohol-induced sedation, stimulation, or pleasure (i.e., feeling, likin

238 akening was calculated starting from initial sedation stop following targeted temperature management

239 ts (57%) awoke: late awakening (> 48 hr from sedation stop; median time to awakening 5 days [range, 3

240 oxygenation support is associated with deep sedation, substantial sedative exposure, and increased f

241 For a comparable level of sedation, switching from propofol to dexmedetomidine res

242 nister sedative/analgesic infusions, and the sedation target was "sedated" or "very sedated" for 59%,

243 tine neuromuscular blockade and with lighter sedation targets (control group).

244 ated with a usual-care approach with lighter sedation targets.

245 ctive data from the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure clinical tria

246 is of data from the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure clinical tria

247 ion readiness test (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure extubation re

248 Sixty-one Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure patients (5%)

249 atients managed per Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure protocol, usu

250 ding 29 managed per Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure protocol.

251 d per usual care or Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure protocol.

252 The Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure study tested

253 ure in the RESTORE (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure) trial.

254 trial of sedation (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure).

255 The veteran population requires more sedation to allay anxiety and perceptions of discomfort,

256 Conversion from conscious sedation to general anesthesia was noted in 102 of 1737

257 l zebrafish model of anesthetic action, from sedation to general anesthesia.

258 anagement after cardiac arrest requires deep sedation to prevent shivering and discomfort.

259 No consensus regarding the ideal sedation treatment for stroke endovascular therapy has b

260 All patients underwent MRI under sedation upon diagnosis and MRI findings were collected

261 nt; of those, 110 were treated with volatile sedation using an anesthetic conserving device and isofl

262 ed with intravitreal bevacizumab under local sedation using multivariate logistic regression analysis

263 sis of a recent randomized controlled trial, Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treat

264 s thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), st

265 lose monitoring of PaCO2 is necessary during sedation via anesthetic conserving device.

266 Sedation was alleged to be a factor in 5 cases resulting

267 hted adjustment for 51 covariates, conscious sedation was associated with lower procedural success (9

268 Conscious sedation was associated with reductions in procedural in

269 Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scal

270 Emergency department deep sedation was observed in 171 patients (52.8%), and was a

271 Sedation was planned in 66 (95.7%) patients and was succ

272 s (27 of 37, 73%), abnormal wakefulness when sedation was stopped (15 of 37, 41%), confusion (12 of 3

273 Sedation was switched back to propofol, and a final set

274 Sedation was the most common adverse effect.

275 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to assess sedation was the most common measure used to ascertain d

276 Conscious sedation was used in 1737/10 997 (15.8%) cases with a si

277 Conscious sedation was used in 59.9% of transfemoral procedures, a

278 general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disabil

279 dynamics, norepinephrine doses, and depth of sedation were obtained during sedation with propofol.

280 No adverse events with sedation were recorded.

281 oscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups.

282 Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and

283 age during thoracoscopy while under moderate sedation, while patients randomized to the control group

284 nsedation with sufficient analgesia or light sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ven

285 s to assess the effect of nonsedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ven

286 r results demonstrate noninferiority of oral sedation with a P value of 0.0004.

287 There was a shift toward lighter sedation with alpha2 agonist use.

288 dation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption.

289 every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at ch

290 e authors speculate based on these data that sedation with inhalational anesthetics outside of the op

291 f anesthesia assistance (AA) to achieve deep sedation with propofol during colonoscopy has significan

292 together, our data indicate that short-term sedation with propofol significantly increases the sever

293 s to test the hypothesis that switching from sedation with propofol to the alpha-2 agonist dexmedetom

294 , and depth of sedation were obtained during sedation with propofol.

295 ernational, Sarl, Fribourg, Switzerland) for sedation with sevoflurane for postsurgical ICU patients

296 romising and safe alternative for short-term sedation with sevoflurane of ICU patients.

297 rom individuals undergoing various levels of sedation with the anaesthetic agent propofol, replicatin

298 e sevoflurane delivery (baseline) and during sedation with the probe 15 cm up to the MIRUS system (S1

299 ently able to discriminate between levels of sedation, with temporal measures showing higher sensitiv

300 Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anes