首页> 外文期刊>Knowledge & Health Journal >Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Intravenous Propofol with Midazolam during Colonoscopy and ERCR
【24h】

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Intravenous Propofol with Midazolam during Colonoscopy and ERCR

机译:低剂量静脉丙泊酚与咪达唑仑在结肠镜检查和ERCR期间的安全性和有效性比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction: Propofol can be used for intravenous sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures but a safe and effective dose for outside operating room usage is not defined. In this single blind clinical trial we compare safety and efficacy of low dose intravenous propofol sedation (0.8mg/kg stat and 25μg/kg/min maintenance) with intravenous midazolam sedation (0.1mg/kg). Method: During a 7 month period of this clinical trial, 140 consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy and ERCP randomly received either midazolam or propofol for sedation. Vital signs (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and SPO2) were continuously monitored for safety measurement and procedure related variables, patient's autonomic and somatic response to stimulus, the recovery time and postanesthesia discharge time, patient’s intraoperative awareness and gastroenterologist satisfaction were assessed for efficacy measurement of two methods. Results: In propofol group mean systolic blood pressure changes (initial systolic blood pressure vs. maximum systolic blood pressure during procedure) was less than midazolam group (P<0.05). Mean respiratory change (initial respiratory rate vs. minimum heart rate during procedure and initial SPO2 with room air vs. minimum SPO2 during procedure with 5 lit/min O2) had no differences in two groups. Apnea and hypoxia was not observed in any patient. Mean recovery time and mean postanesthesia discharge time were significantly lower in propofol than midazolam group. Other variables had no significant differences in midazolam and propofol group. Conclusions: Low dose propofol sedation (0.8mg/kg stat and 25μg/kg/min maintenance) is safer and more effective than midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) sedation and is associated with less systolic blood pressure changes, faster recovery and shorter postanesthesia discharge time.
机译:简介:丙泊酚可用于胃肠道内窥镜手术中的静脉镇静剂,但尚未确定在室外手术室使用的安全有效剂量。在这项单盲临床试验中,我们比较了低剂量静注丙泊酚镇静(静注0.8mg / kg和维持25μg/ kg / min)与咪达唑仑静注(0.1mg / kg)的安全性和有效性。方法:在该临床试验的7个月期间,连续接受常规结肠镜检查和ERCP的140例患者随机接受咪达唑仑或丙泊酚镇静。持续监测生命体征(收缩压,心率,呼吸频率和SPO2)的安全性和与手术相关的变量,患者对刺激的自主神经和躯体反应,恢复时间和麻醉后排出时间,患者的术中意识以及胃肠病医生的满意度用于两种方法的功效测量。结果:丙泊酚组的平均收缩压变化(术中初始收缩压与最大收缩压之比)低于咪达唑仑组(P <0.05)。两组的平均呼吸变化(初始呼吸频率与最小心率之间的关系以及室内空气下的初始SPO2与5升/分钟O2的过程中的最小SPO2)无差异。在任何患者中均未观察到呼吸暂停和低氧。丙泊酚的平均恢复时间和麻醉后平均放电时间明显低于咪达唑仑组。咪达唑仑和丙泊酚组的其他变量无显着差异。结论:低剂量丙泊酚镇静(静注0.8mg / kg,维持25μg/ kg / min)比咪达唑仑(0.1mg / kg)镇静更安全,更有效,并且收缩压变化少,恢复快,麻醉后排出时间短时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号