Inhaled Sevofluran vs Endovenous Propofol for Sedation Maintenance in Patients Submitted to Colonoscopy

L. Pérez-Díaz, Leopoldo Wulff, A. Salazar, M. Amaro, J. Álvarez
{"title":"Inhaled Sevofluran vs Endovenous Propofol for Sedation Maintenance in Patients Submitted to Colonoscopy","authors":"L. Pérez-Díaz, Leopoldo Wulff, A. Salazar, M. Amaro, J. Álvarez","doi":"10.24966/acc-8879/100032(1)","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Endoscopic procedures under sedation currently occupy an important place. Sedation allows optimal conditions for the study Objective: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of the inhalation versus intravenous technique for maintenance of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, randomized clinical study of 32 patients of both sexes ASA I-III, aged 18-80 years undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy, which was randomly divided into 2 groups. In both, intravenous induction with propofol (2-2.5 mg / kg) was performed, Group A remained sedated with propofol infusion (1-2 mg / kg / min); Group B by inhalation with sevoflurane at a concentration of 2 vol% through a nasal cannula with an oxygen flow. Results: Both techniques were performed without registering complications; group A comprised of 15 patients in which only 13% required rescue bolus and a wake-up time of 12 minutes. The group B consisted of 17 patients, with a wake-up time of 7 minutes in whom 35% required salvage bolus. Conclusion: Both anesthetic techniques proved to be safe and effective; patients receiving sevoflurane shortened their stay by 50% in the recovery of the endoscopic unit. Patients who only received propofol presented greater anesthetic depth required a lower rate of rescue boluses. Both techniques evidenced a good comfort level in both the patients and gastroenterologists.","PeriodicalId":73662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical anesthesia and intensive care","volume":"228 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical anesthesia and intensive care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24966/acc-8879/100032(1)","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic procedures under sedation currently occupy an important place. Sedation allows optimal conditions for the study Objective: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of the inhalation versus intravenous technique for maintenance of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, randomized clinical study of 32 patients of both sexes ASA I-III, aged 18-80 years undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy, which was randomly divided into 2 groups. In both, intravenous induction with propofol (2-2.5 mg / kg) was performed, Group A remained sedated with propofol infusion (1-2 mg / kg / min); Group B by inhalation with sevoflurane at a concentration of 2 vol% through a nasal cannula with an oxygen flow. Results: Both techniques were performed without registering complications; group A comprised of 15 patients in which only 13% required rescue bolus and a wake-up time of 12 minutes. The group B consisted of 17 patients, with a wake-up time of 7 minutes in whom 35% required salvage bolus. Conclusion: Both anesthetic techniques proved to be safe and effective; patients receiving sevoflurane shortened their stay by 50% in the recovery of the endoscopic unit. Patients who only received propofol presented greater anesthetic depth required a lower rate of rescue boluses. Both techniques evidenced a good comfort level in both the patients and gastroenterologists.
结肠镜检查患者吸入七氟醚与静脉注射异丙酚维持镇静的比较
内镜下镇静手术目前占有重要地位。目的:比较吸入性麻醉与静脉注射麻醉在内镜患者镇静维持中的效果。材料与方法:纵向随机临床研究32例ASA I-III型男女,年龄18-80岁行诊断性结肠镜检查的患者,随机分为2组。两组均采用异丙酚(2-2.5 mg / kg)静脉诱导,A组仍采用异丙酚输注(1-2 mg / kg / min)镇静;B组通过鼻插管吸氧吸入浓度为2vol %的七氟醚。结果:两种方法均无并发症发生;A组15例患者,其中只有13%需要抢救丸,唤醒时间为12分钟。B组17例患者,醒来时间为7分钟,其中35%需要补救性丸。结论:两种麻醉方法均安全有效;接受七氟醚治疗的患者在内窥镜病房恢复期间的住院时间缩短了50%。仅接受异丙酚麻醉深度较大的患者需要较低的抢救丸率。这两种技术都证明了患者和胃肠病学家的良好舒适度。
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