Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures.

Current Health Sciences Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-30 DOI:10.12865/CHSJ.48.03.07
Denisa-Ancuța Popa-Ion, Dan-Ionuț Gheonea, Mădălina Maria Denicu, Luminița Cristina Chiuțu
{"title":"Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures.","authors":"Denisa-Ancuța Popa-Ion,&nbsp;Dan-Ionuț Gheonea,&nbsp;Mădălina Maria Denicu,&nbsp;Luminița Cristina Chiuțu","doi":"10.12865/CHSJ.48.03.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anesthesia is essential during colonoscopy because it provides patients with necessary sedation to perform the investigation safely and nonetheless to obtain the highest quality of the results. We aimed here to evaluate and establish which of the combinations of anesthetic drugs most frequently used for sedation purposes for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the ambulatory best covers the needs of the patient and the gastroenterologist. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study carried out on a total of 100 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, who meet the conditions for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into either group A (Propofol) or group B (Midazolam plus Propofol). Evaluation of the dose of Propofol used in the 2 groups, awakening time, anesthetic induction, as well as the occurrence of episodes of bradycardia and hypotension represented the parameters followed in the study. In group A, 50 patients received on average 218.6mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. In group B, 50 patients received 0.1mg/kg Midazolam and an average of up to 129.2mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. Awakening time was shorter in group A-3.18 minutes, than in group B-15.7 minutes. Bradycardia and hypotension were met in a larger number in group B than in group A. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups. The conclusion of our study was that the group to which only Propofol was administered had the best results from all aspects (rapid anesthetic induction, stability of vital functions, lower cost, awakening time much faster) compared to the combination of Propofol with Midazolam.</p>","PeriodicalId":10938,"journal":{"name":"Current Health Sciences Journal","volume":"48 3","pages":"292-302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b2/44/CHSJ-48-03-292.PMC9940920.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Health Sciences Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12865/CHSJ.48.03.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Anesthesia is essential during colonoscopy because it provides patients with necessary sedation to perform the investigation safely and nonetheless to obtain the highest quality of the results. We aimed here to evaluate and establish which of the combinations of anesthetic drugs most frequently used for sedation purposes for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the ambulatory best covers the needs of the patient and the gastroenterologist. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study carried out on a total of 100 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, who meet the conditions for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into either group A (Propofol) or group B (Midazolam plus Propofol). Evaluation of the dose of Propofol used in the 2 groups, awakening time, anesthetic induction, as well as the occurrence of episodes of bradycardia and hypotension represented the parameters followed in the study. In group A, 50 patients received on average 218.6mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. In group B, 50 patients received 0.1mg/kg Midazolam and an average of up to 129.2mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. Awakening time was shorter in group A-3.18 minutes, than in group B-15.7 minutes. Bradycardia and hypotension were met in a larger number in group B than in group A. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups. The conclusion of our study was that the group to which only Propofol was administered had the best results from all aspects (rapid anesthetic induction, stability of vital functions, lower cost, awakening time much faster) compared to the combination of Propofol with Midazolam.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

丙泊酚与丙泊酚联合咪唑安定用于门诊护理消化内镜手术的适度镇静比较研究。
麻醉在结肠镜检查过程中至关重要,因为它为患者提供了必要的镇静,以安全地进行调查,并获得最高质量的结果。我们的目的是评估和确定在门诊进行的胃肠道内窥镜手术中,最常用于镇静目的的麻醉药物组合中哪一种最能满足患者和胃肠病学家的需求。这是一项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究,共对100名年龄在18岁至80岁之间、符合纳入研究条件的患者进行了研究。患者被随机分为A组(异丙酚)或B组(咪唑安定加异丙酚)。评估两组中使用的异丙酚剂量、苏醒时间、麻醉诱导以及心动过缓和低血压发作的发生率是研究中遵循的参数。在A组中,50名患者平均接受218.6mg异丙酚,每次10-20mg。在B组中,50名患者接受0.1mg/kg的咪唑安定和平均高达129.2mg的丙泊酚,每次10-20mg。A-3.18分钟组苏醒时间短于B-15.7分钟组。B组出现心动过缓和低血压的人数比a组多。两组的内镜评估质量相似。我们的研究结论是,与丙泊酚和咪唑安定的组合相比,仅给予丙泊酚的组在各个方面(快速麻醉诱导、重要功能的稳定性、较低的成本、更快的苏醒时间)都取得了最好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信