McLeskey C H, Walawander C A, Nahrwold M L, Roizen M F, Stanley T H, Thisted R A, White P F, Apfelbaum J L, Grasela T H, Hug C C
Department of Anesthesiology, Texas A&M University Health Science Center, Scott and White Hospital and Clinic, Temple 76508.
Anesth Analg. 1993 Oct;77(4 Suppl):S3-9.
Phase II and III studies are tightly controlled trials investigating adverse effects before government approval of a new drug. However, because postapproval Phase IV studies involve a much larger and more complex population, the true nature of adverse effects can be seen. We analyzed Phase IV data for the new drug propofol with regard to the incidence of adverse events, and evaluations of such events by anesthesiologists versus postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses. Data pertained to 25,981 patients, 1722 institutions, and 1819 anesthesiologists giving propofol in three anesthetic regimens. Inclusion criteria were liberal: age, 18-80 yr; ASA physical status I-III; no continuing pregnancy; and no prior adverse anesthetic experience. Anesthesiologists and PACU nurses used data collection forms to record demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables; to evaluate recovery (excellent, good, or poor); and to describe adverse events. Adverse events were reported for 2813 patients (10.8%); the most common events were pain on injection (5.2%), hypotension (1.1%), nausea/vomiting (1.9%), and excitement (1.3%). The incidences of pain on injection and nausea/vomiting were approximately one-half and one-fifth, respectively, the values reported in earlier studies. Six hundred thirty-three patients (2.4%) had a "poor" recovery according to one or both of the evaluators (the anesthesiologist or PACU nurse). The PACU nurse was more influenced by nausea, vomiting, or postoperative pain; and the anesthesiologist was more influenced by postoperative confusion or delayed emergence from anesthesia. For only 0.6% of patients did both evaluators rate recovery as poor. Anesthesiologists gave more weight to intraoperative adverse events, and nurses to postoperative events.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
II期和III期研究是在新药获得政府批准之前对不良反应进行严格控制的试验。然而,由于批准后IV期研究涉及的人群规模更大、情况更复杂,不良反应的真实性质得以显现。我们分析了新药丙泊酚IV期数据中不良事件的发生率,以及麻醉医生与麻醉后护理单元(PACU)护士对这些事件的评估。数据涉及25981例患者、1722家机构以及1819名在三种麻醉方案中使用丙泊酚的麻醉医生。纳入标准较为宽松:年龄18至80岁;美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况分级为I至III级;非持续妊娠;且无既往不良麻醉经历。麻醉医生和PACU护士使用数据收集表记录人口统计学、围手术期和结果变量;评估恢复情况(优秀、良好或差);并描述不良事件。报告有不良事件的患者为2813例(10.8%);最常见的事件为注射痛(5.2%)、低血压(1.1%)、恶心/呕吐(1.9%)和兴奋(1.3%)。注射痛和恶心/呕吐的发生率分别约为早期研究报告值的二分之一和五分之一。根据一名或两名评估者(麻醉医生或PACU护士)的评估,633例患者(2.4%)恢复“差”。PACU护士受恶心、呕吐或术后疼痛的影响更大;而麻醉医生受术后意识模糊或麻醉苏醒延迟的影响更大。只有0.6%的患者被两名评估者均评为恢复差。麻醉医生更重视术中不良事件,而护士更重视术后事件。(摘要截选至250词)