Implantation of venous access devices under local anesthesia: patients’ satisfaction with oral lorazepam
Authors Chang D, Hiss S, Herich L, Becker I, Mammadov K, Franke M, Mpotsaris A, Kleinert R, Persigehl T, Maintz D, Bangard C
Received 5 January 2015
Accepted for publication 15 April 2015
Published 7 July 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 943—949
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
De-Hua Chang,1 Sonja Hiss,1 Lena Herich,2 Ingrid Becker,2 Kamal Mammadov,1 Mareike Franke,1 Anastasios Mpotsaris,1 Robert Kleinert,3 Thorsten Persigehl,1 David Maintz,1 Christopher Bangard1
1Department of Radiology, 2Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, 3Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Objective: 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.
Materials and methods: 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.
Results: 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%).
Conclusion: 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.
Keywords: patient satisfaction, pain, supportive care, chemotherapy, central venous port implantation
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]