Patient Satisfaction With Oral vs Intravenous Sedation for Vitrectomy Surgery: A Randomized, Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Purpose: This work aims to determine whether patient satisfaction with oral sedation is noninferior to intravenous (IV) sedation in vitrectomy surgery. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-masked, noninferiority clinical trial measured patient satisfaction in 84 participants receiving oral...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vitreoretinal diseases (Print) 2022-05, Vol.6 (3), p.201-209
Hauptverfasser: Siegel, Nicole H., Fiorello, Marissa G., Ness, Steven, Kim, Jiwoo, Vig, Viha, Peeler, Crandall E., Chen, Xuejing, Subramanian, Manju L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: This work aims to determine whether patient satisfaction with oral sedation is noninferior to intravenous (IV) sedation in vitrectomy surgery. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-masked, noninferiority clinical trial measured patient satisfaction in 84 participants receiving oral or IV sedation during vitrectomy surgery under monitored anesthesia care. Patients were excluded if they were unable to receive benzodiazepines. Results: The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included surgeon and anesthesia provider satisfaction, need for supplemental anesthesia, and surgical complications. Among the 84 patients (46 [54.8%] men; mean [SD] age, 57.0 [12.7 years]), mean patient satisfaction scores were 5.22 ± 0.81 (range, 3.08-6; scale 1-6) with oral and 5.25 ± 0.63 (range, 3.83-6; scale 1-6) with IV sedation. With an a priori noninferiority margin of 0.5 and a difference in mean scores between the groups of 0.03 (1-tailed 95% CI, infinity to 0.29), our results demonstrated the noninferiority of oral sedation (P = .002). There were no significant differences in surgeon or anesthesia satisfaction or major intraoperative complications. Five patients receiving oral (11.9%) and 3 receiving IV (7.1%) sedation required supplemental IV sedation (difference, 4.8%; P = .46). Conclusions: Patient satisfaction for oral sedation was noninferior to IV sedation for vitrectomy surgery.
ISSN:2474-1264
2474-1272
2474-1272
DOI:10.1177/24741264211027820