阿片类药物添加对结肠镜检查过程条件的影响:一项比较异丙酚镇静方案的随机试验。

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-04 DOI:10.5946/ce.2024.347
David Novotny, Jan Palenik, Tomas Tyll, Nadija Brodyuk, Stepan Suchanek, Michal Sotak
{"title":"阿片类药物添加对结肠镜检查过程条件的影响:一项比较异丙酚镇静方案的随机试验。","authors":"David Novotny, Jan Palenik, Tomas Tyll, Nadija Brodyuk, Stepan Suchanek, Michal Sotak","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Propofol is the most effective sedative for colonoscopy; however, opioids do have several adverse effects that need to be discussed. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of colonoscopy during propofol-based sedation with and without fentanyl, while closely monitoring ventilatory data and the safety of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective single-center trial randomized 50 patients who underwent minor colonoscopies. The propofol group received sedation exclusively via propofol, whereas the propofol+fentanyl group was premedicated with 1 µg/kg fentanyl. Patients were monitored using a bioimpedance ventilatory monitor, and both the patients and endoscopists were questioned regarding their level of satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The endoscopists reported a higher level of ease with the colonoscopy procedure (mean on a 5-point scale, 1.2 vs. 1.72; p=0.028) and the overall patient satisfaction score was higher (1.15 vs. 1.28, p=0.026) in the propofol+fentanyl group. No significant differences were observed in the ventilatory parameters between the groups. No major adverse events were reported in any of the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of fentanyl leads to enhanced levels of satisfaction for both the endoscopist and the patient, without any impact on ventilation and safety. The use of bioimpedance monitoring of ventilation during colonoscopy is a suitable approach that may enhance the safety of procedural sedation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"722-730"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489561/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of opioid addition on procedural conditions during colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing propofol-based sedation protocols.\",\"authors\":\"David Novotny, Jan Palenik, Tomas Tyll, Nadija Brodyuk, Stepan Suchanek, Michal Sotak\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2024.347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Propofol is the most effective sedative for colonoscopy; however, opioids do have several adverse effects that need to be discussed. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of colonoscopy during propofol-based sedation with and without fentanyl, while closely monitoring ventilatory data and the safety of the procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective single-center trial randomized 50 patients who underwent minor colonoscopies. The propofol group received sedation exclusively via propofol, whereas the propofol+fentanyl group was premedicated with 1 µg/kg fentanyl. Patients were monitored using a bioimpedance ventilatory monitor, and both the patients and endoscopists were questioned regarding their level of satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The endoscopists reported a higher level of ease with the colonoscopy procedure (mean on a 5-point scale, 1.2 vs. 1.72; p=0.028) and the overall patient satisfaction score was higher (1.15 vs. 1.28, p=0.026) in the propofol+fentanyl group. No significant differences were observed in the ventilatory parameters between the groups. No major adverse events were reported in any of the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The inclusion of fentanyl leads to enhanced levels of satisfaction for both the endoscopist and the patient, without any impact on ventilation and safety. The use of bioimpedance monitoring of ventilation during colonoscopy is a suitable approach that may enhance the safety of procedural sedation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"722-730\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489561/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:异丙酚是结肠镜检查中最有效的镇静剂;然而,阿片类药物确实有一些需要讨论的副作用。本研究的目的是比较在使用和不使用芬太尼的异丙酚镇静期间结肠镜检查的便利性,同时密切监测通气数据和操作的安全性。方法:本前瞻性单中心试验随机选取50例接受小结肠镜检查的患者。异丙酚组只给予异丙酚镇静,异丙酚+芬太尼组预先给予1µg/kg芬太尼镇静。使用生物阻抗通气监测器对患者进行监测,并询问患者和内窥镜医师对其满意度。结果:内窥镜医师报告结肠镜检查过程的轻松程度更高(5分制的平均值,1.2比1.72;P =0.028),丙泊酚+芬太尼组患者总体满意度得分更高(1.15比1.28,P =0.026)。两组间通气参数无显著差异。所有组均未报告重大不良事件。结论:芬太尼的加入提高了内镜医师和患者的满意度,对通气和安全性没有任何影响。结肠镜检查时使用生物阻抗监测通气是一种合适的方法,可以提高手术镇静的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Impact of opioid addition on procedural conditions during colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing propofol-based sedation protocols.

Impact of opioid addition on procedural conditions during colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing propofol-based sedation protocols.

Impact of opioid addition on procedural conditions during colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing propofol-based sedation protocols.

Impact of opioid addition on procedural conditions during colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing propofol-based sedation protocols.

Background: Propofol is the most effective sedative for colonoscopy; however, opioids do have several adverse effects that need to be discussed. The objective of this study was to compare the ease of colonoscopy during propofol-based sedation with and without fentanyl, while closely monitoring ventilatory data and the safety of the procedure.

Methods: This prospective single-center trial randomized 50 patients who underwent minor colonoscopies. The propofol group received sedation exclusively via propofol, whereas the propofol+fentanyl group was premedicated with 1 µg/kg fentanyl. Patients were monitored using a bioimpedance ventilatory monitor, and both the patients and endoscopists were questioned regarding their level of satisfaction.

Results: The endoscopists reported a higher level of ease with the colonoscopy procedure (mean on a 5-point scale, 1.2 vs. 1.72; p=0.028) and the overall patient satisfaction score was higher (1.15 vs. 1.28, p=0.026) in the propofol+fentanyl group. No significant differences were observed in the ventilatory parameters between the groups. No major adverse events were reported in any of the groups.

Conclusions: The inclusion of fentanyl leads to enhanced levels of satisfaction for both the endoscopist and the patient, without any impact on ventilation and safety. The use of bioimpedance monitoring of ventilation during colonoscopy is a suitable approach that may enhance the safety of procedural sedation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信