...
首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation guided by processed EEG during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
【24h】

Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation guided by processed EEG during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

机译:丙泊酚与咪达唑仑在经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术中由加工过的脑电图指导的镇静镇静作用:一项前瞻性,随机,双盲研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure, which requires appropriate sedation. The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the quality and characteristics of sedation with midazolam or propofol in patients undergoing ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 32 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated for sedation with propofol (n = 15) or midazolam (n = 17). Blood pressure, heart rate, and O2 saturation were monitored. Sedation was maintained at near constant levels by use of the spectral edge frequency (SEF) technique, an EEG-based method for measuring the depth of sedation. Clinical variables, patient cooperation, time to recovery, and amnesia served as outcome variables. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two study groups in patient characteristics. The "target SEF" was 13.6 +/- 0.7 Hz for the propofol group and 14.8 +/- 1.1 Hz for the midazolam group (n.s.). The only clinical parameter with a significant difference between the groups was the percent of time in which the heart rate deviated more than 20% from baseline for at least 2 minutes, i.e. 14.6 +/- 2.0 % for propofol and 48.2 +/- 38.0% for midazolam (P<0.01). Patient cooperation was better in the propofol group than in the midazolam group (full cooperation, 13/15 vs. 1/17, respectively; P<0.001). Patient recovery was significantly quicker in the propofol group (P<0.001). The degree of amnesia was similar in both groups; no patient in either group remembered details of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP is better tolerated by patients sedated with propofol compared with midazolam, with a shorter recovery time and lesser hemodynamic side effects. Propofol should be considered to be the sedative drug of choice for ERCP.
机译:背景与研究目的:内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)是一个复杂的过程,需要适当的镇静剂。这项前瞻性,随机,双盲研究的目的是比较接受ERCP的患者使用咪达唑仑或丙泊酚镇静的质量和特点。病人和方法:总共32例接受ERCP的患者被随机分配接受丙泊酚(n = 15)或咪达唑仑(n = 17)镇静。监测血压,心率和氧气饱和度。通过使用频谱边缘频率(SEF)技术将镇静保持在接近恒定的水平,该技术是基于EEG的镇静深度测量方法。临床变量,患者合作,恢复时间和健忘症均作为结果变量。结果:两个研究组的患者特征无显着差异。丙泊酚组的“目标SEF”为13.6 +/- 0.7 Hz,咪达唑仑组的“目标SEF”为14.8 +/- 1.1 Hz(n.s.)。两组之间唯一显着差异的临床参数是心率偏离基线至少20分钟超过20%的时间百分比,即丙泊酚为14.6 +/- 2.0%,心律偏离为48.2 +/- 38.0%对于咪达唑仑(P <0.01)。丙泊酚组的患者合作优于咪达唑仑组(完全合作,分别为13/15与1/17; P <0.001)。丙泊酚组患者的康复明显更快(P <0.001)。两组的健忘程度相似。两组中没有患者记得该手术的细节。结论:与咪达唑仑相比,丙泊酚镇静的患者对ERCP的耐受性更好,恢复时间更短,血流动力学副作用更小。丙泊酚应被视为ERCP的镇静药物选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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