内镜逆行胰胆管造影的深度镇静:临床评估与 Narcotrend(TM) 监测的比较。

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2011-01-01 Epub Date: 2011-03-17 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S17236
Somchai Amornyotin, Wiyada Chalayonnawin, Siriporn Kongphlay
{"title":"内镜逆行胰胆管造影的深度镇静:临床评估与 Narcotrend(TM) 监测的比较。","authors":"Somchai Amornyotin, Wiyada Chalayonnawin, Siriporn Kongphlay","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S17236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Moderate to deep sedation is generally used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The depth of sedation is usually judged by clinical assessment and electroencephalography-guided monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring during deep-sedated ERCP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred patients who underwent ERCP in a single year were randomly assigned to either group C or group N. Patients in group C (52) were sedated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Patients in group N (48) were sedated using the Narcotrend(TM) system. The MOAA/S scale 1 or 2 and the Narcotrend(TM) index 47-56 to 57-64 were maintained during the procedure. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the endoscopic procedure. The secondary outcome variables were the total dose of propofol used during the procedure, complications during and immediately after procedure, and recovery time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All endoscopies were completed successfully. The mean total dose of propofol in group C was significantly lower than that in group N. However, the mean dose of propofol, expressed as dose/kg or dose/kg/h in both groups, was not significantly different (P = 0.497, 0.136). Recovery time, patient tolerance and satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. All sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure, such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, transient hypoxia, and upper airway obstruction, in group C (62.2%) were significantly higher than in group N (37.5%) (P = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation using propofol for deep sedation demonstrated comparable propofol dose and recovery time. Both monitoring systems were equally safe and effective. However, the Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation showed lower hemodynamic changes and fewer complications compared with the clinical assessment-guided sedation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":" ","pages":"43-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comparison between clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Somchai Amornyotin, Wiyada Chalayonnawin, Siriporn Kongphlay\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/MDER.S17236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Moderate to deep sedation is generally used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The depth of sedation is usually judged by clinical assessment and electroencephalography-guided monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring during deep-sedated ERCP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred patients who underwent ERCP in a single year were randomly assigned to either group C or group N. Patients in group C (52) were sedated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Patients in group N (48) were sedated using the Narcotrend(TM) system. The MOAA/S scale 1 or 2 and the Narcotrend(TM) index 47-56 to 57-64 were maintained during the procedure. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the endoscopic procedure. The secondary outcome variables were the total dose of propofol used during the procedure, complications during and immediately after procedure, and recovery time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All endoscopies were completed successfully. The mean total dose of propofol in group C was significantly lower than that in group N. However, the mean dose of propofol, expressed as dose/kg or dose/kg/h in both groups, was not significantly different (P = 0.497, 0.136). Recovery time, patient tolerance and satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. All sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure, such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, transient hypoxia, and upper airway obstruction, in group C (62.2%) were significantly higher than in group N (37.5%) (P = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation using propofol for deep sedation demonstrated comparable propofol dose and recovery time. Both monitoring systems were equally safe and effective. However, the Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation showed lower hemodynamic changes and fewer complications compared with the clinical assessment-guided sedation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"43-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417873/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S17236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2011/3/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S17236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)通常使用中度到深度镇静剂。镇静深度通常通过临床评估和脑电图引导监测来判断。本研究旨在比较深度镇静ERCP期间临床评估和Narcotrend(TM)监测的临床疗效:C组(52 名)患者使用改良观察者警觉/镇静评估(MOAA/S)量表进行镇静。N 组(48 名)患者使用 Narcotrend(TM) 系统进行镇静。在手术过程中,MOAA/S 量表维持在 1 或 2,Narcotrend(TM) 指数维持在 47-56 至 57-64。研究的主要结果变量是成功完成内窥镜手术。次要结果变量是手术中使用的异丙酚总剂量、手术中和手术后的并发症以及恢复时间:所有内窥镜手术均顺利完成。C组丙泊酚的平均总剂量明显低于N组,但两组丙泊酚的平均剂量(以剂量/公斤或剂量/公斤/小时表示)无明显差异(P = 0.497,0.136)。两组患者的恢复时间、患者耐受性和满意度以及内镜医师满意度相当。C组(62.2%)术中和术后即刻发生的所有镇静相关不良事件,如低血压、高血压、心动过速、心动过缓、一过性缺氧和上气道阻塞,均明显高于N组(37.5%)(P = 0.028):结论:临床评估和 Narcotrend(TM)指导下使用异丙酚进行深度镇静的结果显示,异丙酚的剂量和恢复时间相当。两种监测系统同样安全有效。不过,与临床评估指导下的镇静相比,Narcotrend(TM)指导下的镇静显示出更低的血流动力学变化和更少的并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comparison between clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring.

Introduction: Moderate to deep sedation is generally used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The depth of sedation is usually judged by clinical assessment and electroencephalography-guided monitoring. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM) monitoring during deep-sedated ERCP.

Methods: One hundred patients who underwent ERCP in a single year were randomly assigned to either group C or group N. Patients in group C (52) were sedated using the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Patients in group N (48) were sedated using the Narcotrend(TM) system. The MOAA/S scale 1 or 2 and the Narcotrend(TM) index 47-56 to 57-64 were maintained during the procedure. The primary outcome variable of the study was the successful completion of the endoscopic procedure. The secondary outcome variables were the total dose of propofol used during the procedure, complications during and immediately after procedure, and recovery time.

Results: All endoscopies were completed successfully. The mean total dose of propofol in group C was significantly lower than that in group N. However, the mean dose of propofol, expressed as dose/kg or dose/kg/h in both groups, was not significantly different (P = 0.497, 0.136). Recovery time, patient tolerance and satisfaction, and endoscopist satisfaction were comparable between the two groups. All sedation-related adverse events during and immediately after the procedure, such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, transient hypoxia, and upper airway obstruction, in group C (62.2%) were significantly higher than in group N (37.5%) (P = 0.028).

Conclusion: Clinical assessment and Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation using propofol for deep sedation demonstrated comparable propofol dose and recovery time. Both monitoring systems were equally safe and effective. However, the Narcotrend(TM)-guided sedation showed lower hemodynamic changes and fewer complications compared with the clinical assessment-guided 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
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信