4.4 Article

Effect of preoperative intravenous carbohydrate loading on preoperative discomfort in elective surgery patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 123-127

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328319be16

关键词

carbohydrate loading; intravenous glucose infusion; oral carbohydrate beverage; preoperative fasting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective We studied the effect of three different fasting protocols on preoperative discomfort and glucose and insulin levels. Methods Two hundred and ten ASA I-III patients undergoing general or gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to three groups: overnight intravenous 5% glucose infusion (1000 ml), carbohydrate-rich drink (400 ml) at 6-7 a.m., or overnight fasting. The subjective feelings of thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, weakness, tiredness, anxiety, headache and pain of each patient were questioned preoperatively using a visual analogue scale. Serum glucose and insulin levels were measured at predetermined time points preoperatively. Results During the waiting period before surgery, the carbohydrate-rich drink group was less hungry than the fasting group (P=0.011). No other differences were seen in visual analogue scale scores among the study groups. Trend analysis showed increasing thirst, mouth dryness and anxiety in the intravenous glucose group (P<0.05). The carbohydrate-rich drink group experienced decreasing thirst but increasing hunger and mouth dryness (P<0.05). In the fasting group, thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, weakness, tiredness and anxiety increased (P<0.05). Both intravenous and oral carbohydrate caused a significant increase in glucose and insulin levels. Conclusion Intravenous glucose infusion does not decrease the sense of thirst and hunger as effectively as a carbohydrate-rich drink but does alleviate the feelings of weakness and tiredness compared with fasting, Euro J Anaesthesiol 26:123-127 (c) 2009 European Society of Anaesthesiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据