Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Premedication”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources

Discomfort after outpatient abortion using paracervical block: a comparison between two opioids and one non-opioid drug for premedication.

One hundred and one patients undergoing outpatient abortion using local anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of three different premedications: morphine-scopolamine, pethidine or midazolam. The incidence of pain, anxiety, emetic (nausea-vomiting) and patient cooperation was analyzed. Discomfort was frequently noticed, 79 patients reported pain, 57 nausea and 26 vomited at least once during the postoperative period which lasted 2.6 h (mean value). There were no major differences in complaints among the different premedication groups. Nausea, though, was correlated to pain. Symptoms of pain, nausea and vomiting were frequent after abortion under paracervical block. These complaints were not found to be related to the type of premedication or other circumstances in the perioperative period.

Abortion, Induced↗

The efficacy of celecoxib premedication on postoperative pain and recovery times after ambulatory surgery: a dose-ranging study.

UNLABELLED: Recently, the Food and Drug Administration increased the celecoxib dosage recommendation from 200 mg to 400 mg for acute pain management. No studies have directly compared the analgesic efficacy of different doses of celecoxib for the prevention of postoperative pain. In this prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we compared oral celecoxib 200 mg to 400 mg when administered for premedication of outpatients undergoing minor ear-nose-throat surgery. A total of 93 healthy outpatients were assigned to 1 of 3 study groups: control (placebo; n = 30), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 30), or celecoxib 400 mg (n = 33). The study drug was given orally 30-45 min before surgery, and all patients received a standardized general anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain scores (0-10), recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, quality of recovery (0-100), patient satisfaction with pain management (0-100), and side effects were recorded. Pain was assessed at 30-min intervals using a verbal rating scale, with 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable, in the postanesthesia care unit and day surgery unit recovery areas and at 24 h after surgery. Celecoxib 400 mg was significantly more effective than 200 mg (and placebo) in reducing postoperative pain. Both celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg were more effective than placebo in reducing the postoperative fentanyl requirement (74 +/- 67 micro g and 56 +/- 62 micro g versus 120 +/- 86 micro g, respectively). The larger dose of celecoxib significantly reduced the percentage of patients with severe pain at discharge (6% versus 37% and 30% in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). The median number of doses of oral analgesic medication after discharge was also significantly reduced in the celecoxib 400 mg group (0 versus 2 and 2 in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). However, no differences were found among the three study groups with respect to recovery times and secondary outcome variables (e.g., patient satisfaction and quality of recovery). We conclude that oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing severe postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the early postoperative period. However, neither dose of celecoxib was more effective than a placebo in facilitating the recovery process after outpatient surgery.

Adult↗

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lorazepam as premedication for bronchoscopy.

To our knowledge, no study has clearly demonstrated the advantage of sedative premedication for bronchoscopy. In a double-blind study, we evaluated the efficacy of oral lorazepam as premedication for bronchoscopy. One hundred patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (group A) or lorazepam (2 mg) (group B) approximately 1.5 h before bronchoscopy. Immediately after the procedure and the following day, a questionnaire addressing the patient's perception of the procedure was administered. Specifically, subjects were asked to grade the bronchoscopy as very easy, easy, difficult, or very difficult to tolerate and if they would agree to a second bronchoscopy if believed necessary. In addition, their recollection of the procedure was graded as clear, indistinct, or not at all. No difference was found between the two groups for age, duration of the bronchoscopy, and the answers to the questionnaire administered immediately after the procedure. Most patients from both groups found their level of sedation adequate. On the following day, however, group B reported with lower frequency that the technique was difficult or very difficult (38.0% vs 65.3% for group A; p < 0.005) and that they would be less reluctant to a repeated bronchoscopy (30.0% vs 57.1% for group A; p < 0.015). Moreover, their recollection of the procedure was now less precise than for those who had received the placebo (p < 0.005). This suggests that the difference observed between the two groups at 24 h was related to the amnesic effect of lorazepam. We conclude that lorazepam, by improving patient's perception of the bronchoscopy, is a useful premedication and may facilitate patient's investigation when a second bronchoscopy becomes necessary.

Bronchoscopy↗

Breakthrough adverse reactions to low-osmolar contrast media after steroid premedication.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the nature of adverse reactions, or "breakthrough reactions," experienced by patients who received steroid premedication and low-osmolar contrast media. We compared the demographics of patients having these breakthrough reactions with those of patients who did not develop these reactions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our radiology quality improvement database to identify patients with breakthrough reactions that occurred from January 1, 1994, through October 1, 1999, and we reviewed their medical records. We compared these patients with a control cohort of patients who had a history of prior adverse reaction to contrast media but no breakthrough reaction after administration of low-osmolar contrast media and premedication with corticosteroids. RESULTS: Over the 6-year period, 52 patients experienced 61 breakthrough reactions. The breakthrough reaction was mild in 76% of the patients. The breakthrough reaction was similar to the patient's initial adverse reaction in 85% of the patients. A history of seafood allergy or hay fever was statistically more likely to be identified in the breakthrough group than the control group. CONCLUSION: Breakthrough reactions occur in a substantial number of patients despite premedication with steroids and use of low-osmolar contrast agents. Typically the breakthrough reaction is of similar severity to the patient's initial reaction. Severe or life-threatening reactions are seen in 24% of patients.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

Arterial oxygen tension changes in elderly patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. II. Influence of the narcotic premedication and endoscope diameter.

Changes in arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions were determined in 56 patients, mean age 67 years, during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with standard or pediatric instruments. All the patients received intravenous atropine, diazepam, and either meperidine or fentanyl premedication. There was an immediate and significant fall in PaO2 levels (20.3%-16.5%) after both narcotic injections. The oxygen tension remained significantly depressed during the endoscopic examinations except in the group receiving fentanyl premedication and examined with the narrow pediatric instrument. To minimize hypoxemia in elderly patients during endoscopy, a short-acting narcotic or, preferably, no narcotic at all should be used in the premedication, and a narrow, pediatric instrument be used.

Aged↗

Does it always have to hurt? Premedications for adults and children for use with intravenous therapy.

Determining the need for premedication or anesthetic agent use in starting intravenous therapy should be considered a necessary step toward a successful i.v. procedure. This article discusses the types of premedications currently available for adults and children. Discussion of each anesthetic agent, its usage and limitations, and other pertinent information is given. Antianxiety agents are briefly discussed as an adjunct to anesthetics. Relaxation techniques of distraction and biofeedback to aid in the reduction of pain also can provide some degree of success for i.v. procedures. Not all i.v. procedures require premedications or anesthetic agents. Making the correct decision regarding which medication or antianxiety method best suits the patient and the situation can improve the overall success of and satisfaction with i.v. procedures.

Adult↗

[Antioxidant Mexidol premedication of patients with periodontitis during antihomotoxic therapy].

The tranquilizing effect of antioxidant mexydol on 95 patients with chrconic generalized parodontitis against a background of various somatic diseases was evaluated. The anxiety and the efficiency of premedication were accessed according to Korach's and Spilberger's scales and according to the special psychological questionnaire. The quantitative characteristics of premedication were given baised on the psychological tests results. There was registered a definite improvement of health characteristics and of patient's mood in comparison to the initial input data as well as lower lever of their situational anxiety. This proves the tranquilizing effect of premedication with mexidol (5% amp.). The most evident dynamics of these changes can be observed among patients suffering from high initial anxiety level. The findings of the study are based on more than 2 year old history of treatment of 30 patients with traumel. 21 patients suffering from disfunction of the nervous system were given some comprehensive treatment (traumel locally orally and mexidol in injections). The clinical effect resulted in emotional stabilization of patients and reduced the time needed for their clinical treatment. The medicines were combined. No side effects were observed.

Adolescent↗

[Effects of midazolam premedication on induction doses of propofol and hemodynamic changes during tumor patient induction].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Midazolam is a useful drug used preoperatively because it can produce anxiolysis and sedation. This study compared the propofol requirements and haemodynamic effects during anaesthetic induction using propofol with premedication of midazolam or luminal. METHODS: Thirty patients (aged 20-65, ASA I-II) undergoing tumor surgery were randomly assigned into 2 groups (group M and group L): group M, receiving 0.5 mg atropine and 0.05 mg/kg midazolam; group L, receiving atropine and 2 mg/kg phenobarbital sodium 30 min before induction as premedication. Anesthesia was induced with propofol at the rate of 30 mg.kg-1.h-1 to achieve enough depth of anesthesia to intubate. Induction time, total propofol dosage, blood pressure, heart rate were recorded before and after induction, and after intubation. Awaken time was also recorded. RESULTS: The time of induction and the propofol dosage in group M (2.8 +/- 0.37 min and 79.9 +/- 15.3 mg) were significantly (P < 0.05) less than that in group L (3.3 +/- 0.54 min and 98.9 +/- 17.4 mg). Blood pressure was unchanged in M group after propofol induction and after the intubation. Heart rate change was much less in group M (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that midazolam compered to phenobarbital sodium as premedication could reduce the usage of propofol, and also provide stable cardiovascular state during propofol induction.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

[Manipulation, premedication, and chemoprophylaxis for fiberoptic bronchoscopy].

Manipulation, premedication, and chemoprophylaxis for fiberoptic bronchoscopy vary among institutions. We analyzed the actual conditions by means of a questionnaire distributed to 29 institutions. With regard to premedication, a combination of atropine sulfate and sedatives, such as hydroxyzine hydrochloride, was the most common method. In cases with heart disease and elderly subjects, a lower dosage or omission of atropine was common. In cases with marked anxiety, narcotics were prescribed. Bronchofiberscopic examination was performed under local anesthesia at all institutions. Lidocaine 4% was used for anesthesia of the orolarynx, and 2% was used for the tracheobronchus. For prophylaxis of infection, 19 of 29 institutions prescribed antibiotics routinely or under certain circumstances. ECG was used in 14 institutions, and percutaneous oxygen monitoring in 5 institutions. It is concluded that the manipulation and premedication for fiberoptic bronchoscopy vary between institutions. It is necessary to determine more efficacious and safer methods for fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

Anesthesia, Local↗

Effect of intravenous midazolam premedication on postoperative nausea and vomiting after cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Several drugs and techniques have been used to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However PONV continues to be a common postoperative complication. Midazolam premedication in pediatric patients has been reported to reduce the incidence of PONV. In the present study the effect of intravenous midazolam premedication on the incidence and severity of PONV was investigated in a sample of adult patients undergoing anesthesia for cholecystectomy. METHODS: Eighty-two adult patients undergoing general anesthesia for cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups to receive either midazolam 75 microg/kg or a same volume of normal saline intravenously fifteen minutes prior to induction of anesthesia. Incidence and severity of PONV together with the total amount of administered metoclopramide during the first postoperative day were compared between two groups. RESULTS: Severity of nausea was significantly lightened in midazolam group during the first six hours after recovery period compared with placebo group (3.7 +/- 1.6 of a ten point visual analog scale vs. 4.9 +/- 2.2 in placebo group; P < 0.05). Mean number of vomiting episodes was significantly lower in midazolam group (0.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 1.1 +/- 1.4 in placebo group; P < 0.05). Midazolam group received a significantly less amount of metoclopramide during the first postoperative day (2.1 +/- 3.7 mg vs. 5.3 +/- 6.8 mg in placebo group; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest the effectiveness of prophylactic intravenous midazolam premedication to reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Possible mechanisms for this effect of midazolam may be GABA receptor antagonism, inhibition of dopamine release, and anxiolytic effects.

Adult↗

Midazolam versus fentanyl as premedication for painful procedures in children with cancer.

Premedication for painful procedures in children with cancer is not routinely used. Many medications used are only intermittently effective or require special equipment or anesthesia support. In a randomized, double-blind, crossover study, the safety and efficacy of midazolam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, were compared with the safety and efficacy of fentanyl, a short-acting narcotic analgesic. In 25 children studied, 100% of children and their parents preferred study drugs to any previous premedication. Seventy-two percent preferred midazolam to fentanyl. Preprocedural anxiety, adverse behavioral symptoms, and visual analog scales all improved and side effects were minimal. It is concluded that premedication for painful procedures should be used routinely in children with cancer. With proper monitoring, fentanyl and midazolam can be used safely in the outpatient clinic setting. Midazolam was found to be the drug of preference for the majority of patients.

Adolescent↗

The effect of premedication on preoperative anxiety.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of premedication on anxiety, cortisol, residual gastric volume and gastric pH. Following the approval of the institutional Clinical Research Ethics Committee, 100 patients in ASA I-II scheduled for elective gynecologic surgery, were included into a double blind study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups; the placebo and the premedicated. Oral 10 mg diazepam in the evening before surgery and 1.5 mg midazolam at least 15 min before surgery. The same anesthetic procedure was applied for both groups. Anxiety levels of patients were assessed by using Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Scale (STAIs). Blood samples for cortisol measurements were obtained at the preoperative visits, preanesthesia and intraoperative phases. Gastric contents were collected through an orally inserted gastric tube, acidity was measured by using Merck's pH paper. In placebo group, the preanesthetic STAIs values were increased compared to the values obtained at preoperative visit (p < 0.001). The preanesthetic STAIs values were decreased in premedicated group (p < 0.001). The changes of preanesthetic and preoperative visit values were statistically different (p < 0.001). The preanesthetic and intraoperative cortisol values were increased in both groups compared to values of preoperative visit. The augmentation was significantly higher in the placebo group (p < 0.05). Positive correlation was observed between basal state anxiety and basal cortisol values and preanesthetic STAIs and cortisol values in the placebo group (r = 0.325, p < 0.05). These data support that preoperative sedation suppresses the preoperative anxiety and the cortisol augmentation resulting from surgery and stress.

Adolescent↗

[Secondary effects of Dimer X radiculography after premedication. A study of hundred patients (author's transl)].

The authors describe side effects of Dimer X radiculography after premedication. The side effects in a study of hundred patients are divided in early complications (during the examination : dizziness, radicular pains and collapse) and in late complications (noted during the first day following the examination : headache, meningismus, myocloni, epileptic seizure, cauda syndrome, increase of radicular pains). After premedication with tiapride the rate of dizziness is decreased, the rate of headache is not diminished, but the headaches are very slight. Nausea and vomiting are suppressed by the premedication.

Female↗

[Influence of diazepam premedication on upper digestive fiberscopy. 81 cases].

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is routinely used to follow up patients with digestive disease. The influence of premedication with diazepam on the procedure and on patients' acceptance of a second endoscopy was evaluated in a double-blind trial conducted on 81 patients randomized to 3 types of intravenous premedication: placebo (group A, 29 patients), diazepam 5 mg (group B, 27 patients) and diazepam 10 mg (group C, 25 patients). Endoscopy was performed under unfavourable conditions (refusal or agitation) in 12, 4 and 1 patients respectively of groups A, B and C (P less than 0.02). Out of 65 patients questioned one month later, 1 (group A) sternly refused a second endoscopy, 10 accepted unreservedly (O in group A, 4 in group B, 6 in group C; P less than 0.05 between A and C) and 54 accepted reluctantly. To find out whether diazepam was beneficial by impairing memory, a memory score on duration of the procedure was established; there were no significant differences between the three groups (P less than 0.001), but they did not correlate with the patients' acceptance of a second endoscopy. It is concluded that premedication with diazepam 10 mg i.v. makes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy easier to perform and facilitates acceptance of a repeat endoscopy 1 month later. This effect is probably independent of the impairment in memory induced by diazepam.

Diazepam↗

The premedical education of the first-year class in Canadian medical schools: 1965-66.

The premedical academic records of the 1965-66 entering class of Canadian medical students were analysed. Ninety-six per cent of the class had taken their preparation in a Canadian institution, while 80% had taken it in the same university as the medical school in which they enrolled. Forty per cent entered without a degree, the remainder having at least a bachelor's degree in arts or science.Thirty-six per cent of all courses taken by these students in their premedical education were in the physical sciences, 22% in the biological sciences and 41% in the social sciences and humanities. One-third of the students had taken no course in the behavioural sciences and another third had taken only one course.Analysis of the level of performance of the entering class showed that 10% had obtained an A average, 49% a B average, 41% a C average and 3% a D average. The grades of these students were higher generally in the natural sciences than in the social sciences or humanities.It was concluded that it could be questioned whether medical students received a premedical preparation which met the philosophy of a "broad, liberal education".

Adult↗

Premedication with non-selective and M1-selective muscarinic antagonists before ECT.

Atropine treatment before electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is used for two main reasons: a) to prevent transient post-ictal bradyarrhythmias due to excessive vagal tone; b) to minimize secretions within the respiratory tract. In the present study we have compared the effects of premedication using atropine, a non-selective muscarinic antagonist, with biperiden, an M1-selective muscarinic antagonist. Cardiac rate and other cardiac parameters and respiratory tract secretions after ECT were compared in order to determine whether atropine effects following ECT involve central or peripheral antagonistic effects. Our results show that in preventing excessive sialorrhea following ECT, atropine works antagonistically through peripheral glandular M2 receptors whereas biperiden antagonizing M1 receptors fails to prevent sialorrhea. Our results are not conclusive concerning cardiac protective effects of atropine following ECT. None of the patients, whether premedicated by atropine or biperiden, displayed bradyarrhythmias following ECT. No significant differences were found in any of the measured cardiac parameters following ECT between atropine and biperiden premedications. Thus, the question whether atropine exerts its protective cardiac effects following ECT through central (probably M1) or peripheral M2 receptors remains open.

Adult↗

Oral clonidine premedication prevents the rise in intraocular pressure following succinylcholine administration.

The objective of the study was to assess the effects of premedication with clonidine on intraocular pressure (IOP) after the administration of succinylcholine. Fifty elderly patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery were randomly allocated to two study groups. Group 1 patients (n = 25) received clonidine, 300 micrograms p.o. In group 2 (n = 25), the benzodiazepine dipotassium clorazepate was given p.o. at a dose of 0.3 mg.kg-1. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental 3-4 mg.kg-1, alfentanil 10 micrograms.kg-1, atracurium 0.07 mg.kg-1, and succinylcholine 1 mg.kg-1. Nine IOP measurements were taken in each patient starting before premedication and ending 3 min after endotracheal intubation. In both groups, there was a decrease in IOP after induction of anesthesia with thiopental and alfentanil. Succinylcholine administration and endotracheal intubation had no further effect on IOP in the clonidine group. In group 2, succinylcholine caused an increase in IOP when compared with the post induction value. We conclude that clonidine premedication can prevent the increase in IOP following succinylcholine administration.

Administration, Oral↗

[Acceptability of high colonoscopy using different premedication--a comparison of the effect of midazolam versus midazolam and pethidine from the viewpoint of the patient and the physician].

Invasive endoscopic procedures such as total colonoscopy result in a better patient acceptance, the less discomfort they cause. Therefore a premedication for total colonoscopy is often required. In a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study of 132 patients examined by one experienced endoscopist we compared two premedication schedules: midazolam (mean 5.2 mg i.v.) versus midazolam (mean 4.8 mg) plus pethidin (50 mg). We found that the combination midazolam plus pethidin provides a deeper and more reliable sedation and analgesia than midazolam alone. The combination of both drugs caused also more anterograde amnesia. It was also shown, that the endoscopist scored a higher degree of patient's pain during the examination than the patient did himself. No more negative side-effects such as decrease of arterial partial pressure of oxygen or cardiopulmonary complications were found using the combination of both drugs; they provided to be safe without added risk of hypoxia. Thus, the combination of both drugs can be given as premedication for total colonoscopy.

Adolescent↗