Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Mar 26, 2022; 10(9): 2773-2782
Published online Mar 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i9.2773
Published online Mar 26, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i9.2773
Table 1 Responsiveness scores of the modified observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation scale
Responsiveness | Score |
Responds readily to name spoken in normal tone | 5 |
Lethargic response to name spoken in normal tone | 4 |
Responds only after name is called loudly and/or repeatedly | 3 |
Responds only after mild prodding or shaking | 2 |
Responds only after painful trapezius squeeze | 1 |
Does not respond to painful trapezius squeeze | 0 |
Table 2 The prior probability of moderate sedation at six doses of intranasal sufentanil
Dose level, μg/kg | Response probability |
0 | 0.5 |
0.1 | 0.75 |
0.2 | 0.9 |
0.3 | 0.95 |
0.4 | 0.98 |
0.5 | 0.99 |
Table 3 Demographic data and key characteristics of subjects
Parameter | Value |
Age (yr) | 42 (26-59) |
Height (cm) | 167.77 (7.58) |
Weight (kg) | 66.00 (9.64) |
BMI (kg/m2) | 23.46 (2.99) |
Gender (F/M) | 15/15 |
ASA-I/II | 21/9 |
Baseline heart rate (per min) | 75.80 (12.10) |
Baseline SpO2 (%) | 99 (96-100) |
Procedure duration (min) | 29.80 (3.63) |
Table 4 The posterior probability for each intranasal sufentanil
Patients | Allocated SUF dose, μg/kg | Clinical response(Success 1, Failure 0) | SUF dose, μg/kg | |||||
0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | |||
Prior estimated probability for each dose (%) | ||||||||
50 | 75 | 90 | 95 | 98 | 99 | |||
Posterior probability for each dose (%) | ||||||||
1-3 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 62.5 | 80.0 | 91.6 | 95.7 | 98.3 | 99.1 |
4-6 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 65.4 | 82.0 | 92.5 | 96.2 | 98.5 | 99.2 |
7-9 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 67.8 | 83.6 | 93.3 | 96.6 | 98.6 | 99.3 |
10-12 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 70.0 | 84.9 | 93.9 | 96.9 | 98.8 | 99.4 |
13-15 | 0.2 | 1,1,1 | 73.6 | 87.0 | 94.8 | 97.4 | 99.0 | 99.5 |
16-18 | 0.2 | 1,1,1 | 76.4 | 88.7 | 95.5 | 97.8 | 99.1 | 99.6 |
19-21 | 0.2 | 1,0,0 | 47.4 | 71.7 | 88.2 | 94.0 | 97.6 | 98.8 |
22-24 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 49.3 | 73.1 | 88.8 | 94.3 | 97.7 | 98.9 |
25-27 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 51.1 | 74.3 | 89.4 | 94.6 | 97.8 | 98.9 |
28-30 | 0.3 | 1,1,1 | 52.8 | 75.4 | 89.9 | 94.9 | 98.0 | 99.0 |
Table 5 Adverse events and satisfaction after intranasal dexmedetomidine and sufentanil
SUF dose, μg/kg | P value | ||
0.2 (n = 9) | 0.3 (n = 21) | ||
Hypotension, n | 0 | 1 | |
Nausea and vomiting, n | 1 | 2 | |
Local mucosal irritation, n | 1 | 1 | |
Endoscopist’s satisfaction, mean (SD) | 8.7 (0.9) | 8.5 (1.3) | 0.654 |
Patients’ satisfactions, mean (SD) | 9.0 (1.1) | 8.1 (1.0) | 0.052 |
- Citation: Zou Y, Li N, Shao LJZ, Liu FK, Xue FS, Tao X. Determination of the ED95 of intranasal sufentanil combined with intranasal dexmedetomidine for moderate sedation during endoscopic ultrasonography. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(9): 2773-2782
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i9/2773.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i9.2773