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

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Balanced propofol sedation for therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study.
    Author: Lee CK, Lee SH, Chung IK, Lee TH, Park SH, Kim EO, Lee SH, Kim HS, Kim SJ.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2011 Feb; 73(2):206-14. PubMed ID: 21168838.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There are few controlled studies on balanced propofol sedation (BPS) for therapeutic endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of BPS (propofol in combination with midazolam and meperidine) with conventional sedation (midazolam and meperidine) in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: This study involved 222 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP from July 2009 to March 2010. INTERVENTION: Conventional sedation or BPS by trained registered nurses under endoscopist supervision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Rates of sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications and interruption of the procedures, procedure-related times, and assessments of health care providers (endoscopists and sedation nurses) and patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the BPS and conventional groups in the rates of cardiopulmonary complications (8.8% [9/102] vs 5.8% [6/104], respectively) and transient interruption of procedures (2.9% [3/102] vs 0% [0/104], respectively). No patient required assisted ventilation or premature termination of a procedure. BPS provided significantly higher health care provider satisfaction (mean±SD 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS] score) compared with conventional sedation (endoscopists: 7.57±2.61 vs 6.55±2.99, respectively; P=.011; sedation nurses: 7.86±2.31 vs 6.67±2.90, respectively; P=.001). Patient cooperation was significantly better in the BPS group (VAS; endoscopists: 7.24±2.97 vs 6.27±3.09, P=.024; sedation nurses: 7.75±2.30 vs 6.54±2.99, P=.001). LIMITATIONS: Single-center and single-blinded study. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional sedation, BPS provides higher health care provider satisfaction, better patient cooperation, and similar adverse event profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]