Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.

Chonnam medical journal Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-25 DOI:10.4068/cmj.2024.60.3.192
Jae Woong Lim, Min Jae Kim, Gang Han Lee, Dae Sol Kim, Sang Hyuk Jung, Yu Yeon Kim, Jin Won Kim, Yohan Lee, Hyun Soo Kim, Seon Young Park, Dong Hyun Kim
{"title":"Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.","authors":"Jae Woong Lim, Min Jae Kim, Gang Han Lee, Dae Sol Kim, Sang Hyuk Jung, Yu Yeon Kim, Jin Won Kim, Yohan Lee, Hyun Soo Kim, Seon Young Park, Dong Hyun Kim","doi":"10.4068/cmj.2024.60.3.192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94372,"journal":{"name":"Chonnam medical journal","volume":"60 3","pages":"192-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chonnam medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4068/cmj.2024.60.3.192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

比较咪达唑仑和丙泊酚与咪达唑仑和哌替啶在结肠镜检查中的协同镇静作用:一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
结肠镜检查是早期发现结肠直肠癌的关键程序。尽管结肠镜检查非常重要,但由于结肠镜检查带来的不适往往需要使用镇静剂,而理想的镇静方案仍有待确定。在这项前瞻性随机对照试验中,计划接受结肠镜检查的患者被随机分配到两种不同的镇静方案中。A 组接受咪达唑仑和异丙酚联合镇静,B 组接受咪达唑仑和哌替啶联合镇静。研究分析了 51 名患者的数据,其中 A 组 23 人,B 组 28 人。此外,在盲肠插管时间或手术总持续时间方面也没有观察到明显差异。值得注意的是,A 组需要改变体位的频率较低(1.0±.7 vs. 1.5±0.7,P=0.02),人工压迫的比例也较低(52.2% vs. 82.1%,P=0.02)。两组在主观疼痛或总体满意度方面没有明显差异。两种镇静方案均安全有效。咪达唑仑和异丙酚联合使用可使手术过程更顺利,结肠镜检查过程中所需的体位调整和人工按压次数都更少。
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