| Title |
Implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia: patients’ satisfaction with oral lorazepam
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s80330 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
De-Hua Chang, Sonja Hiss, Lena Herich, Ingrid Becker, Kamal Mammadov, Mareike Franke, Anastasios Mpotsaris, Robert Kleinert, Thorsten Persigehl, David Maintz, Christopher Bangard |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study reported here was to evaluate patients' satisfaction with implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia (LA) with and without additional oral sedation. A total of 77 patients were enrolled in the prospective descriptive study over a period of 6 months. Subcutaneous implantable venous access devices through the subclavian vein were routinely implanted under LA. Patients were offered an additional oral sedative (lorazepam) before each procedure. The level of anxiety/tension, the intensity of pain, and patients' satisfaction were evaluated before and immediately after the procedure using a visual analog scale (ranging from 0 to 10) with a standardized questionnaire. Patients' satisfaction with the procedure was high (mean: 1.3±2.0) with no significant difference between the group with premedication and the group with LA alone (P=0.54). However, seven out of 30 patients (23.3%) in the group that received premedication would not undergo the same procedure without general anesthesia. There was no significant influence of lorazepam on the intensity of pain (P=0.88). In 12 out of 30 patients (40%) in the premedication group, the level of tension was higher than 5 on the visual analog scale during the procedure. In 21 out of 77 patients (27.3%), the estimate of the level of tension differed between the interventionist and the patient by 3 or more points in 21 out of 77 patients (27.3%). Overall patient satisfaction is high for implantation of venous access devices under LA. A combination of LA with lorazepam administered orally might not be adequate for patients with a high level of anxiety and tension. The level of tension is often underestimated by the interventionist. Pre-procedural standardized questionnaires could be used to identify patients for whom a gradual approach of individualized sedation may be more effective. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 33% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,648
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,489
of 277,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#50
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.