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: Propofol compared with combination propofol or midazolam/fentanyl for endoscopy in a community setting.
    Author: Poulos JE, Kalogerinis PT, Caudle JN.
    Journal: AANA J; 2013 Feb; 81(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 23513321.
    Abstract:
    This retrospective cohort study evaluated procedural efficiency and patient satisfaction in patients who had received propofol, midazolam/fentanyl/propofol (MFP), or midazolam/fentanyl, as sedation for either esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy. Questionnaires about procedural times and patient satisfaction were administered. Use of propofol for colonoscopy resulted in shorter time (minutes) from induction to start of procedure (mean +/- standard deviation: propofol, 1.3 +/- 0.57; MFP, 3.2 +/- 2.2; midazolam/fentanyl, 3.8 +/- 2.7; P < .04) and shorter procedure time (propofol, 13 +/- 0.36; MFP, 15 +/- 0.004; midazolam/fentanyl, 75 +/- 0.005 minutes; P < .05). Recovery time was less for patients receiving propofol for their colonoscopy compared with the other groups (propofol, 9 +/- 8; MFP, 15 +/- 9; midazolam/ fentanyl, 18 +/- 117 minutes; P < .05). Patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy who received propofol had a shorter recovery time (9 +/- 7 minutes vs MFP, 14 +/- 9 minutes, and midazolam/fentanyl, 19 +/- 11 minutes; P < .05). Patients receiving propofol felt less discomfort and need for adjustment in the sedation, and remembered less of the procedure compared with the MFP group. Propofol resulted in less time in the endoscopy unit, quicker recovery and discharge, and greater patient satisfaction than did balanced or conscious sedation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]