[Evaluation of preoperative anxiety in patients with and without premedication].

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether elimination of premedication before general anesthesia affects preoperative anxiety. METHODS: Subjects were assigned to one of two groups: a sedative group (0.5 mg midazolam i.m., n = 111) or a no-premedication group (n = 98). We used patients' responses to a questionnaire to compare the no-premedication group and the sedative group. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent of patients in the no-premedication group entered the operating room ambulatory. The responses concerning preoperative anxiety were not different between the two groups. There was a high rate of recall of the conversation before anesthesia induction in the no-premedication group, and most of these patients replied that making conversation before general anesthesia was beneficial to them. Increases in heart rate and blood pressure at the point of entrance to operating room were observed in the no-premedication group, but the degrees of increase were not considered clinically important. CONCLUSION: We conclude that elimination of premedication does not increase anxiety in comparison with patients receiving sedatives, but makes patients feel comfortable by way of preoperative conversation. Elimination of premedication also makes ambulatory entrance possible, both improving safety with respect to patient identification and reducing the demand on nursing.

[A comparison of perioperative factors with two methods of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): off-pump and conventional].

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficiency of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) are still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this approach in comparison with the conventional cardiopulmonary bypass technique (cCABG). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting independently without other operations between January 1, 1999 and September 30, 2001 was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent OPCAB and the remainder for cCABG. The perioperative factors of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 152 OPCAB and 142 cCABG cases were reviewed. Compared with cCABG, OPCAB significantly reduced the amount of catecholamine needed on admission to ICU, intubation time, overall hospital length of stay, and neurologic events. There were also trends for decreases in ICU length of stay, mortality, and renal failure. On the other hand, OPCAB did not affect perioperative blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Overall OPCAB is safer and more efficient than cCABG. However, we have to note in anesthetic management that OPCAB does not reduce blood loss.