Premedication administered to anesthesiologists as XXXX : their evaluations of its effect and its influence on premedication prescribing habits.

@entity1 @entity4489 @entity6918 @entity6882 @entity1245 @entity3575
Inquiries were sent to practising Austrian anesthesiologists to ascertain their premedication-prescribing habits and their assessment of premedicants that they received as @entity1 . The 143 replies received showed @entity6882 / @entity4489 (M/P) as most used n = 83 and received (n = 54) drug (combination), followed by @entity3575 / @entity6918 (F/D) n = 33 (n = 21), @entity1245 (BZ) n = 17 (n = 10) and several other drugs (combinations) n = 10 (n = 14). There was no significant difference in the premedication habits of the 82 anesthesiologists who had received premedication and those (61) who had no personal experience with premedicants. The former judged M/P to be significantly superior to F/D and other schemes; however there was no significant difference from the judgement of the BZ. Unpleasant side effects have been described in 9% of M/P, 10% of BZ, 24% of F/D and 21% of other premedicants. On future occasions 10% of BZ-, 13% of the M/P-, 24% F/D- and 21%-receivers of other combinations would reject the same drug. Seven F/D and five M/P users converted their prescription schemes after they had received the same drug for their own premedication. The prescription habits were not influenced by dependency on departmental or hospital orders. Of those who had received it 75% desired premedication and 25% accepted premedication, suggesting that anesthesiologists believe in the positive effects of premedication. However, the overall incidence of 10% unpleasant side effects, even in the better ranked drugs, shows that the available premedicants do not yet seem to be satisfactory.
