Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine the influence of using a sedation decision aid when selecting a sedation option for totally implantable vascular access device placement on patient choice, workup, and recovery time. An institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective study of 76 patients (aged 23–89 years, 58% female) presenting to a vascular interventional radiology department between January 2, 2017, and May 5, 2017. Patients were given a decision aid that inquired about personal values and goals, and provided information about expectations; benefits; and risks of the options, including undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine), or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate). No sedation was selected by 15 out of 76 patients (19.7%), minimal sedation was selected by 26 out of 76 patients (34.2%), and moderate sedation was selected by 34 out of 76 patients (44.7%). Postprocedure recovery time differences were significant (P < .001) with a mean of 17.4 minutes for no sedation, 49.3 minutes for minimal sedation, and 70.8 minutes for moderate sedation. The use of a decision aid did not slow down the process because workup times were not significantly different: 15.9 minutes for no sedation, 22.1 minutes for minimal sedation, and 18.4 minutes for moderate sedation. Patient sedation preference for totally implantable vascular access device is variable, signifying there is a role for utilizing a decision aid because it empowers a patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. Influence on departmental flow is notable because this does not slow down the workup and a majority of patients choose no or minimal sedation, resulting in a decreased postprocedure recovery time burden.

You do not currently have access to this content.