ライフサイエンスコーパス: sedation

1 nal factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation.

2 The groups did not differ significantly in sedation.

3 EEG during patient-titrated propofol-induced sedation.

4 g ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and sedation.

5 tric multicenter cluster randomized trial of sedation.

6 infants and children without anaesthesia or sedation.

7 upport an advantage for the use of conscious sedation.

8 ar blockade, with the goal of achieving deep sedation.

9 or discriminating between the four levels of sedation.

10 ly reduced rewarding effects, tolerance, and sedation.

11 ; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation.

12 enerate sufficient ventilation, even in deep sedation.

13 and isoflurane, and 322 received standard IV sedation.

14 se changes in brain networks during propofol sedation.

15 ifaximin use, and benzodiazepine/barbiturate sedation.

16 ian section under spinal anaesthesia without sedation.

17 ant synergistic antipruritic effect, with no sedation.

18 evodopa was well tolerated and did not cause sedation.

19 Arf6/S6k signaling and results in behavioral sedation.

20 duction and HRV increase otherwise masked by sedation.

21 All scans were performed without sedation.

22 are silenced, as well as after acute ethanol sedation.

23 fish's natural habitat without the need for sedation.

24 re initial akathisia and, unexpectedly, more sedation.

25 uce complications related to over- and under sedation.

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

27 GABAA receptor subtype is thought to mediate sedation.

28 and to evaluate atmospheric pollution during sedation.

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

30 monitoring the levels of consciousness under sedation.

31 pressure support ventilation (PSV) and under sedation.

32 received topical anesthesia with or without sedation.

33 tment owing to adverse events (agitation, 4; sedation, 1).

34 uality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%

35 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).

36 r synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%.

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

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

39 l assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning.

40 study provides first evidence that propofol sedation after acute brain lesions can have a deleteriou

41 times in comparison with current intravenous sedation agents (propofol and benzodiazepines).

42 uced the hours per study day spent agitated (Sedation Agitation Scale >/= 5) (p = 0.008), but it did

43 CU shifts patients spent alive without coma (Sedation Agitation Scale </= 2) or delirium (p = 0.36),

44 edation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman rho = 0.75) and

45 ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation met

46 lgesia, defined as being free from excessive sedation, agitation, poor limb relaxation, and poor vent

47 Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and n

48 ultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs.

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

50 cal ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in ICUs with a high versus lo

51 complications as well as considerations for sedation, analgesia, anticoagulation, and prognosticatio

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

53 spiration, use of continuous or intermittent sedation, analgesia, or neuromuscular blockers, pain ass

54 nline education has the potential to improve sedation-analgesia quality and patient safety in mechani

55 The sedation-analgesia quality data feedback did not improve

56 ine education programme; regular feedback of sedation-analgesia quality data; and use of a novel seda

57 e education alone (two ICUs), education plus sedation-analgesia quality feedback (two ICUs), educatio

58 Providing sedation-analgesia quality feedback to ICUs did not appe

59 By contrast, sedation-analgesia quality feedback was poorly understoo

60 We assessed patients' sedation-analgesia quality for each 12 h period of nursi

61 The RI monitoring seemed to improve sedation-analgesia quality, but inconsistent adoption by

62 ours did not seem to alter other measures of sedation-analgesia quality.

63 During the baseline period, optimal sedation-analgesia was present for 5150 (56%) care perio

64 We found no improvement in overall optimal sedation-analgesia with education (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.86-

65 e found a significant improvement in optimal sedation-analgesia with RI monitoring (odds ratio [OR] 1

66 the proportion of care periods with optimal sedation-analgesia, defined as being free from excessive

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

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

69 tion, parental absence and use of continuous sedation/analgesia.

70 Importance: Optimal management of sedation and airway during thrombectomy for acute ischem

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

72 anaesthetic agents and analgesics; length of sedation and analgesia and total doses of sedatives and

73 rospective cohort study of the management of sedation and analgesia in patients in NICUs.

74 Wide variations in sedation and analgesia practices occur between NICUs and

75 ectiveness of three interventions to improve sedation and analgesia quality: an online education prog

76 , and to develop new and safe approaches for sedation and analgesia.

77 efore ethanol (1.5 g/kg i.p.) attenuated the sedation and ataxia induced by ethanol in the open-field

78 were performed during daily interruption of sedation and categorized into 3 groups based on their be

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

80 tective ventilation, today best applied with sedation and endotracheal intubation, might be considere

81 e have found benefits using both therapeutic sedation and explanatory demonstration of a positive Hoo

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

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

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

85 ator characteristic regression unveiled that sedation and mechanical ventilation had a significant ne

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

87 orylation (P-S6k), is a molecular marker for sedation and overall neuronal activity: P-S6k levels are

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

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

90 Sedation and unconsciousness under GA are associated wit

91 early diaphragmatic activation even in deep sedation and, 2) metabolic changes within the diaphragm

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

93 en pleasant feeling of euphoria, anxiolysis, sedation, and analgesia.

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

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

96 me or high preextubation leak pressure, poor sedation, and preexisting UAO (P < 0.04) for cuffed ETTs

97 neurotransmission, leading to motor effects, sedation, and respiratory depression.

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

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

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

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

102 ents) used a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness test

103 Propofol sedation at 24 hours after traumatic brain injury increa

104 Sedation became increasingly difficult, and in order to

105 Sleep was induced with propofol under light sedation (bispectral index 70-75), and low-dose 320-dete

106 nce of pain, agitation, and unnecessary deep sedation, but these outcomes are challenging to achieve.

107 Sedation by IV propofol bolus application delayed after

108 sedation can prolong ICU stay, whereas light sedation can increase pain and frightening memories, whi

109 Excessive sedation can prolong ICU stay, whereas light sedation ca

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

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

112 re more likely to become unresponsive during sedation, despite registering similar levels of drug in

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

114 e Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation A

115 ts were imaged using handheld SD OCT without sedation during a single scan session.

116 phalogram-derived parameters as a measure of sedation during continuous administration of neuromuscul

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

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

119 Inhaled volatile anesthesia and sedation facilitates faster extubation times in comparis

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

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

122 Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is s

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

124 changing, with an increased use of moderate sedation (from 1.6% to 5.1%) and increase in femoral acc

125 microg/kg/h to achieve physician-prescribed sedation goals.

126 nts [95% CI, -5.6 to -0.8]) vs the conscious sedation group (mean NIHSS score, 17.2 at admission vs 1

127 a group (n = 73) or a nonintubated conscious sedation group (n = 77) during stroke thrombectomy.

128 l anesthesia group vs 18.2% in the conscious sedation group P = .01]).

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

130 In the general anesthesia vs the conscious sedation group, substantial patient movement was less fr

131 status or types of memories between the two sedation groups, we present the findings for all patient

132 Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation has a shorter half-life and thus may allow more

133 s' behavioral sensitivity to ethanol-induced sedation, highlighting this pathway in acute responses t

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

135 n one session with US guidance and conscious sedation in 20 euthyroid patients (mean age, 44.5 years)

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

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

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

139 etic, and is used for inhalational long-term sedation in critically ill patients at risk to develop e

140 ia but also in the intensive care setting of sedation in critically ill patients.

141 e Arf6, is a key mediator of ethanol-induced sedation in Drosophila.

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

143 Sedation, in contrast, was not influenced by cannabinoid

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

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

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

147 dation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption.

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

149 Volatile sedation is feasible in cardiac arrest survivors.

150 the loss of reportable consciousness during sedation is hampered by significant individual variabili

151 Perioperative necessity of deep sedation is inevitably associated with diaphragmatic ina

152 Objective: To assess whether conscious sedation is superior to general anesthesia for early neu

153 Conscious sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve repla

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

155 ere acquired prospectively to assess patient sedation levels and were used as ground truth.

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

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

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

159 a higher percentage of time in satisfactory sedation levels than did haloperidol (92.7% [95% CI, 84.

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

161 moderate and transient, consisting mainly of sedation, lightheadedness, tachycardia, and hypotension;

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

163 Sedation managed per usual care or Randomized Evaluation

164 To describe sedation management in children supported on extracorpor

165 tments (including mechanical ventilation and sedation management) to standard care (control group) or

166 esearch has demonstrated that volatile-based sedation may provide superior awakening and extubation t

167 s by focusing on the management of delirium, sedation, mechanical ventilation, mobility, ambulation,

168 n outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication.

169 The primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication.

170 tcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication.

171 sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric.

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

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

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

175 n-analgesia quality data; and use of a novel sedation-monitoring technology (the Responsiveness Index

176 lgesia and reduced side effects (that is, no sedation, motor impairment and tolerance development).

177 re under general anesthesia (GA) or moderate sedation (MS).

178 To address the confounding effects from sedation of fish and removal from the aquatic habitat fo

179 Optimal sedation of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requ

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

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

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

183 Data about the influence of the type of sedation on yield, complications, and tolerance of endob

184 uired using either a hand-held SD OCT during sedation or a table-top SD OCT in children old enough to

185 We investigated the current use of sedation or analgesia in neonatal ICUs (NICUs) in Europe

186 he intensive care unit (ICU) are often given sedation or analgesia.

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

188 rm-equivalent age, without administration of sedation or intravenous contrast.

189 went EGD procedures under either intravenous sedation or local anesthesia.

190 old at 40 cm H2O airway pressure under heavy sedation or paralysis.

191 s with acute brain pathologies to facilitate sedation or surgical and interventional procedures.

192 due to increased periods free from excessive sedation (OR 1.59 [1.09-2.31]) and poor ventilator synch

193 as not associated with cognitive impairment, sedation, or clinically significant QTc prolongation.

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

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

196 xtrapyramidal symptoms (p = 0.31), excessive sedation (p = 0.31), or new-onset hypotension (p = 1.0)

197 gies include avoiding intubation, minimizing sedation, paired daily spontaneous awakening and breathi

198 PICUs (14 sites; n = 1224 patients) managed sedation per usual care.

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

200 ring protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption.

201 term effects might be amenable to changes in sedation practice and increased early mobilization.

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

203 ent consequences associated with our current sedation practice, there is growing interest to find non

204 Sedation proportions did not change significantly over t

205 , 3.33; 95% CI, 1.04-10.64; p=0.04), written sedation protocol (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.25-4.45;

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

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

208 ates for multidisciplinary rounds and formal sedation protocols may be necessary strategies to increa

209 The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation doma

210 A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and valid

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

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

213 Propofol sedation reduced populations of effector phagocytes and

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

215 0.86-1.48]), but fewer patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 0.56 [0.32-0.99]).

216 rove quality (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.54-1.00]) or sedation-related adverse events (OR 1.15 [0.61-2.15]).

217 However, more patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 1.91 [1.02-3.58]).

218 ty for each 12 h period of nursing care, and sedation-related adverse events daily.

219 The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G ch

220 Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily.

221 ital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, sedation-related adverse events, measures of sedative ex

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

223 rders associated with cooling and minimizing sedation requirement.

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

225 incidence of dry mouth (RR=13.0, NNH=5) and sedation (RR=4.59, NNH=5) compared with placebo/UC.

226 0) and nonsedated states (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale > 0).

227 y = 79%) between sedated (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale < 0) and nonsedated states (Richmond Agit

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

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

230 , denoted "unarousable" (Richmond Agitation- Sedation Scale = -5, -4), "sedated" (-3, -2, -1), "awake

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

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

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

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

235 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores were acquired prospectively to ass

236 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores were grouped into four levels, den

237 agitation was controlled (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scoring range, 0 to -2) or reaching the m

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

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

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

241 ethod for the ICU and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.

242 d benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale.

243 ethod for the ICU and Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale.

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

245 stoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, sedation score, ICU or hospital length of stay, or patie

246 patients receiving olanzapine had increased sedation (severe in 5%) on day 2.

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

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

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

250 ommon after ICU discharge despite the use of sedation strategies that promoted wakefulness.

251 es reported were not influenced by the trial sedation strategy.

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

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

254 Analgesic and sedation therapies are essential, and opiates and benzod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

263 a from the RESTORE (Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure) study, a pro

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

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

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

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

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

269 use of low tidal volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinar

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

271 atus, prior day's delirium status, and daily sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids, via both bol

272 gned to receive anesthesia and postoperative sedation using IV propofol (n = 74) or inhaled volatile

273 cherichia coli and receiving protocol-guided sedation, ventilation, IV fluids, and norepinephrine inf

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

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

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

277 Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation has a shorter half-life and

278 rculation undergoing thrombectomy, conscious sedation vs general anesthesia did not result in greater

279 Design, Setting, and Participants: SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment

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

281 Conscious sedation was associated with reductions in procedural in

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

283 Sedation was the most common adverse effect.

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

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

286 ting, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning.

287 nnectivity networks before, during and after sedation were combined with measurements of behavioural

288 Ts, and percentage of SBTs performed without sedation were mirrored by significant decreases in durat

289 No adverse events with sedation were recorded.

290 te behavioral and physiological responses to sedation were strongly correlated with immune responses

291 ity increases sensitivity to ethanol-induced sedation, whereas neuronal activation decreases ethanol

292 Mechanical ventilation was provided during sedation with continuous infusions of sufentanil and mid

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

294 This observation is important as sedation with propofol and other compounds with GABA rec

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

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

297 n a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation

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

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

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