L. Pérez-Díaz, Leopoldo Wulff, A. Salazar, M. Amaro, J. Álvarez
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Inhaled Sevofluran vs Endovenous Propofol for Sedation Maintenance in Patients Submitted to Colonoscopy
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.