A randomised controlled trial of intravenous versus inhalational analgesia during outpatient oocyte recovery

N Thompson, Sarah Murray, F MacLennan, John A S Ross, Michael E Tunstall, M Hamilton, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and acceptability of conventional intravenous sedation with patient-controlled inhalational isodesox, 57 women undergoing outpatient oocyte recovery were randomly allocated to receive isodesox by face mask, while 55 women were given intravenous fentanyl and midazolam. Women's satisfaction with pain relief, peroperative pain, clouding of memory and the surgeons' assessment of operating conditions were evaluated. Thirty-eight women in the inhalation group (67%) and 41 (75%) women in the intravenous group were 'very satisfied' with their analgesia (p = 0. 41). The mean (SD) pain score in women given isodesox was 46.8 (34. 7), while in the intravenous group it was 34.1 (21.3) (p = 0.02). Oxygen saturation levels <94% were recorded in one woman using isodesox and in 16 (29%) women given intravenous analgesia. Despite higher pain scores, in comparison with the conventional analgesia, patient-controlled isodesox offers a safer method of pain relief with comparable satisfaction rates.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)770-3
Number of pages4
JournalAnaesthesia
Volume55
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2000

Keywords

  • Administration, Inhalation
  • Adult
  • Analgesia
  • Analgesia, Patient-Controlled
  • Anesthetics, Inhalation
  • Anesthetics, Intravenous
  • Female
  • Fentanyl
  • Humans
  • Memory Disorders
  • Midazolam
  • Oocyte Donation
  • Pain
  • Treatment Outcome

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A randomised controlled trial of intravenous versus inhalational analgesia during outpatient oocyte recovery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this