These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Utility of routine use of reversion after sedation in outpatient colonoscopy].
    Author: Alarcón Fernández O, Baudet Arteaga JS, Sánchez del Río A, Moreno Sanfiel M, Martín Martín JM, Borque Barrera P, Borja Gutiérrez E, Avilés Ruiz J.
    Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2005 Jan; 28(1):10-4. PubMed ID: 15691462.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of flumazenil in reducing recovery time in the endoscopy unit after conscious sedation with midazolam and meperidine. However, its effectiveness in routine clinical practice has not been proved and therefore its use is debated. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in outpatient colonoscopy and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Two hundred consecutive outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy with conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine in 2 endoscopy units were prospectively included. According to routine clinical practice in each unit, 100 patients were reverted with flumazenil and 100 were not. Medical and demographic data, indications for endoscopy, doses of the medications used and endoscopic findings were collected. Three weeks after the colonoscopy each patient was interviewed by telephone to determine discomfort and complications associated with the endoscopy and/or with the use of sedation. The cost-effectiveness of the use of flumazenil was analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in age (52.9 +/- 15.5 vs 52.7 +/- 18.3, p = NS), indications for colonoscopy, findings, percentage of full colonoscopies (93 vs 95%; p = NS) or in the doses of sedatives used. The recovery time in each endoscopy unit was similar (19.2 +/- 11.7 vs 15.5 +/- 10.1 minutes, p = NS). In the reversion group there were fewer patients with prolonged stays, defined as those > 20 minutes (23 vs 11%, p < 0.001). The number of patients who remembered discomfort during the colonoscopy was significantly greater in the reversion group (23 vs 13%; p < 0.05). There were no differences in the number of patients who reported discomfort in the days following the endoscopy. The best cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for a mean stay of 25 min. CONCLUSION: Routine use of reversion does not decrease the mean stay in the endoscopy unit but does decrease the number of prolonged stays. Unpleasant memories of the colonoscopy were more frequent in reverted patients. The effectiveness of the routine use of reversion with flumazenil after conscious sedation with midazolam and pethidine depends on the ratio between the number of daily colonoscopies and the capacity of the recovery room.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]