MP09-06 COMPARISON OF NITROUS OXIDE SEDATION VERSUS ORAL SEDATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING REZŪM PROSTATE ABLATION IN CLINIC

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Surgical Therapy & New Technology II (MP09)1 Sep 2021MP09-06 COMPARISON OF NITROUS OXIDE SEDATION VERSUS ORAL SEDATION IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING REZŪM PROSTATE ABLATION IN CLINIC Ajay Gopalakrishna, Manaf Alom, Raevti Bole, Erin Pagel, Jennifer Book, Chintan Mehta, and Tobias Kohler Ajay GopalakrishnaAjay Gopalakrishna More articles by this author , Manaf AlomManaf Alom More articles by this author , Raevti BoleRaevti Bole More articles by this author , Erin PagelErin Pagel More articles by this author , Jennifer BookJennifer Book More articles by this author , Chintan MehtaChintan Mehta More articles by this author , and Tobias KohlerTobias Kohler More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001982.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Little has been published on the pain or discomfort associated with Rezūm prostate ablation for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Oral sedatives and opioids are associated with adverse side effects. The objective of this study is to present our initial experience in regard to clinical efficacy and safety using inhaled nitrous oxide (N2O) in patients undergoing Rezūm. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing Rezūm in the ambulatory setting at our institution was performed. Demographics, preprocedural details, treatment characteristics, pain scores, and complications were recorded. Patients received either oral sedation in the form of oral diazepam and acetaminophen/hydrocodone or N2O sedation. All patients underwent local prostate block with 1% lidocaine. Pain scores and complications were compared. RESULTS: Of 117 patients who underwent Rezūm in the clinic, 52 received oral sedation while 65 received N2O sedation. Pain score in the N2O group was lower with median (interquartile range) at 4.0 (3.0-6.0), versus 5.0 (4.0-6.0) in the oral sedative group, though this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.22). No patients in either group reported nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis, sensory changes, or cardiopulmonary complications in the postprocedural period. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the use of N2O resulted in similar office pain scores in patients undergoing Rezūm in the ambulatory setting, in comparison to patients receiving oral sedation. N2O was well-tolerated without major adverse events and allows for the sparing of oral sedatives and opioids and their adverse side effect profiles. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e161-e161 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ajay Gopalakrishna More articles by this author Manaf Alom More articles by this author Raevti Bole More articles by this author Erin Pagel More articles by this author Jennifer Book More articles by this author Chintan Mehta More articles by this author Tobias Kohler More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...