Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Jan;40(1):128-36.
doi: 10.1007/BF02347706.

Pain model and fuzzy logic patient-controlled analgesia in shock-wave lithotripsy

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Pain model and fuzzy logic patient-controlled analgesia in shock-wave lithotripsy

J S Shieh et al. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2002 Jan.

Abstract

Pain control in conscious patients was investigated using a push-button, demand-driven supply of drugs. A fuzzy logic patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) algorithm was compared with a conventional algorithm, for alfentanil administration in extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. The conventional PCA algorithm used an initial dose of 0.25mg, a fixed infusion rate of 60 mg h(-1) and a fixed bolus size of 0.2 mg with a 1 min lockout. The fuzzy logic PCA algorithm used an initial dose of 0.25 mg, a changeable infusion rate and a bolus size of 0.1 or 0.05 mg. The infusion rate was adjusted according to a look-up table that accepted the button-pressing history over the last three lockout intervals. The look-up table was designed using fuzzy logic. The bolus size was adjusted according to the button-pressing history over the past two lockout intervals. Twelve patients were treated using conventional PCA, and thirteen were treated with PCA + fuzzy logic control (FLC). PCA + FLC patients consumed 45% less drug. Also, PCA + FLC patients had a mean delivery/demand ratio of 82%, compared with 60% in conventional PCA. When the pain intensity scale was analysed, PCA + FLC patients had acceptable pain intensity at 62%, compared with 44% in conventional PCA.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1990 May;18(2):205-9 - PubMed
    1. Anesthesiology. 1987 Jan;66(1):3-12 - PubMed
    1. Br J Anaesth. 1997 Apr;78(4):412-5 - PubMed
    1. Br J Anaesth. 1998 Jun;80(6):748-51 - PubMed
    1. Clin J Pain. 1996 Mar;12(1):50-5 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources