-
Gastrointest. Endosc. · Feb 2011
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyBalanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study.
- Chang Kyun Lee, Suck-Ho Lee, Il-Kwun Chung, Tae Hoon Lee, Sang-Heum Park, Eun-Ok Kim, Sae Hwan Lee, Hong-Soo Kim, and Sun-Joo Kim.
- Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011 Feb 1; 73 (2): 206-14.
BackgroundThere are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.DesignProspective, randomized, single-blinded study.SettingTertiary-care referral center.PatientsThis study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010.InterventionConventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision.Main Outcome MeasurementsRates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001).LimitationsSingle-center and single-blinded study.ConclusionCompared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.