29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perspectives on the Role of Fospropofol in the Monitored Anesthesia Care Setting

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is a safe, effective, and appropriate form of anesthesia for many minor surgical procedures. The proliferation of outpatient procedures has heightened interest in MAC sedation agents. Among the most commonly used MAC sedation agents today are benzodiazepines, including midazolam, and propofol. Recently approved in the United States is fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol which hydrolyzes in the body by alkaline phosphatase to liberate propofol. Propofol liberated from fospropofol has unique pharmacological properties, but recently retracted pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations make it difficult to formulate clear conclusions with respect to fospropofol's PK/PD properties. In safety and efficacy clinical studies, fospropofol demonstrated dose-dependent sedation with good rates of success at doses of 6.5 mg/kg along with good levels of patient and physician acceptance. Fospropofol has been associated with less pain at injection site than propofol. The most commonly reported side effects with fospropofol are paresthesia and pruritus. Fospropofol is a promising new sedation agent that appears to be well suited for MAC sedation, but further studies are needed to better understand its PK/PD properties as well its appropriate clinical role in outpatient procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists.

          (2002)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Can postoperative nausea and vomiting be predicted?

            Iletrospective studies fail to identify predictors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The authors prospectively studied 17,638 consecutive outpatients who had surgery to identify predictors. Data on medical conditions, anesthesia, surgery, and PONV were collected in the post-anesthesia care unit, in the ambulatory surgical unit, and in telephone interviews conducted 24 h after surgery. Multiple logistic regression with backward stepwise elimination was used to develop a predictive model An independent set of patients was used to validate the model Age (younger or older), sex (female or male), smoking status (nonsmokers or smokers), previous PONV, type of anesthesia (general or other), duration of anesthesia (longer or shorter), and type of surgery (plastic, orthopedic shoulder, or other) were independent predictors of PONV. A 10-yr increase in age decreased the likelihood of PONV by 13%. The risk for men was one third that for women. A 30-min increase in the duration of anesthesia increased the likelihood of PONV by 59%. General anesthesia increased the likelihood of PONV 11 times compared with other types of anesthesia. Patients with plastic and orthopedic shoulder surgery had a sixfold increase in the risk for PONV. The model predicted PONV accurately and yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.785+/-0.011 using an independent validation set. A validated mathematical model is provided to calculate the risk of PONV in outpatients having surgery. Knowing the factors that predict PONV will help anesthesiologists determine which patients will need antiemetic therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Anesthesiol Res Pract
                ARP
                Anesthesiology Research and Practice
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1687-6962
                1687-6970
                2011
                14 April 2011
                : 2011
                : 458920
                Affiliations
                1Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205-2196, USA
                2Department of Anesthesiology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 20057, USA
                3NEMA Research Inc., Naples, FL 34108-1877, USA
                4Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
                5Ambulatory Anesthesia of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA 30328, USA
                Author notes
                *Joseph V. Pergolizzi Jr.: jpjmd@ 123456msn.com

                Academic Editor: Uwe Rudolph

                Article
                10.1155/2011/458920
                3085302
                21541247
                c6d6ecf3-571d-4f21-8627-5d9f6d4cb158
                Copyright © 2011 Joseph V. Pergolizzi Jr. et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 October 2010
                : 4 January 2011
                : 8 February 2011
                Categories
                Review Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article