首页> 外文期刊>The clinical respiratory journal. >A comparison of propofol–midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective cohort study
【24h】

A comparison of propofol–midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective cohort study

机译:异丙酚 - 咪达唑仑和咪达唑仑的比较单独用于镇静镇压跨越横向针刺展示:回顾性队列研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Objectives Endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) is a new, minimally invasive, bronchoscopic technique used in the evaluation of inthrathoracic lymph nodes.Use of sedation drugs before the procedure differs among centres. There is no standardization about sedation before EBUS‐TBNA.We used a policy decision to shift from use of propofol with midazolam vs midazolam alone in a large tertiary hospital to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of EBUS‐TBNA procedure. Methods Files of all the patients who were performed EBUS‐TBNA between the dates of September 2010 and May 2014 were surveyed. All the EBUS‐TBNA cases were performed under sedation of propofol and midazolam with an accompanying anesthesiologist in the beginning, however, sedation is applied with midazolam without an accompanying anesthesiologist after April 2013 due to changes in sedation policy. The diagnostic yield and complication rates were compared by chi‐squared analysis between two groups. Results The files of 340 EBUS‐TBNA performed patients were evaluated. Of the patients 274 eligible patients were analysed. 152 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analysed in propofol‐midazolam (P) sedated group and 122 patients were analysed in midazolam (M) group. There is no statistically significant difference between two different sedated groups in terms of age and gender. Diagnostic value was detected as 77.6% in P group and 85.7% in M group and the difference was not statistically significant. No difference between complication rates of both groups was observed. Conclusion Both sedation‐types for performing EBUS‐TBNA showed similar diagnostic value and complication rates in our study. Propofol with midazolam application requires with an accompanying anaesthesiologist, therefore, it increases cost. EBUS‐TBNA procedures had been performed in safe with no decrease in diagnostic yield under moderate sedation.
机译:摘要目标胚胎超声引导跨越横向针吸附(EBUS-TBNA)是一种用于评估Inthrathoracic淋巴结的新的,微创的支气管镜技术。在该程序在中心不同之前使用镇静药物。在EBUS-TBNA之前没有关于镇静的标准化。我们使用了一项政策决定从占咪达洛姆与咪达唑仑的使用转移,单独在大型高等院医院中评估EBUS-TBNA程序的诊断产量和安全性。方法对2010年9月日期和2014年5月之间进行的所有患者的档案进行了调查。所有EBUS-TBNA病例都在异丙酚和Midazolam的镇静中进行,并且在开始时,伴随着镇静剂在2013年4月后的没有伴随麻醉师,由于镇静政策的变化,没有伴随麻醉师。通过两组之间的Chi平方分析进行了诊断产量和并发症率。结果评估了340名EBUS-TBNA的文件。患者的274例符合条件的患者进行了分析。 152例满足纳入标准的患者在Purchofol-midazoLam(P)镇静组中分析了122名患者,在咪达唑仑(M)组中分析。在年龄和性别方面,两种不同的镇静群体之间没有统计学意义。在P组中检测到77.6%的诊断值,M组中的85.7%,差异没有统计学意义。观察到两组的并发症率之间没有差异。结论在我们的研究中表现为EBUS-TBNA的镇静类型显示出类似的诊断价值和并发症率。咪达唑仑应用的异丙酚需要随附的麻醉师,因此,它增加了成本。 EBUS-TBNA程序已在安全的情况下进行,不降低镇静剂的诊断产量。

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