首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing patient-controlled administration of propofol and alfentanil with physician-administered midazolam and pethidine.
【24h】

Patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing patient-controlled administration of propofol and alfentanil with physician-administered midazolam and pethidine.

机译:结肠镜检查的患者控制镇静作用:一项随机试验,比较了患者控制的丙泊酚和阿芬太尼与医生控制的咪达唑仑和哌替啶的控制镇静作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol and alfentanil provides effective sedation for colonoscopy, with the advantage of a shorter recovery time in comparison with diazepam and pethidine. However, most endoscopy units in the United Kingdom are currently using midazolam (a shorter-acting benzodiazepine) as a sedative agent. This study compares the efficacy of sedation and recovery times between PCS and a combination of midazolam and pethidine.[nl] PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-seven patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned prospectively to receive sedation with either PCS, using propofol and alfentanil, or a bolus of midazolam and pethidine. Sedation and pain scores were recorded during the procedure by one specialist nurse. Patients' recollection of pain was recorded after the procedure. Recovery was assessed using number connection tests. The impact on subsequent activities and the level of amnesia, as well as overall satisfaction, were established by telephone call after 24 h.[nl] RESULTS: The sedation method had no impact on the success, difficulty, or duration of the colonoscopy. PCS could be set up by the specialist nurse without affecting the time between cases. Patients in the PCS group recovered significantly faster (median 5 min vs 35 min; P < 0.0001) and left the department more quickly (median 40 min vs 75 min; P < 0.0001). Patients in the PCS group had significantly higher pain scores and significantly more recall than those in the midazolam and pethidine group. All patients were satisfied with the sedation they received.[nl] CONCLUSIONS: PCS provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with midazolam and pethidine with the advantage of significantly faster recovery times, which are of relevance in the outpatient setting.
机译:背景和研究目的:使用异丙酚和阿芬太尼的患者控制镇静(PCS)可为结肠镜检查提供有效的镇静作用,与地西epa和哌替啶相比,其恢复时间更短。但是,英国大多数内窥镜检查单位目前都在使用咪达唑仑(一种速效苯二氮卓类药物)作为镇静剂。这项研究比较了PCS与咪达唑仑和哌替啶联用时镇静作用和恢复时间的疗效。[nl]病人和方法:67名接受结肠镜检查的患者被随机分配接受丙泊酚和阿芬太尼联合PCS镇静,或一剂咪达唑仑和哌替啶。一名专科护士在手术过程中记录镇静和疼痛评分。手术后记录患者的疼痛记忆。使用数字连接测试评估恢复。 24小时后通过电话确定对后续活动和健忘症水平以及总体满意度的影响。[nl]结果:镇静方法对结肠镜检查的成功,困难或持续时间没有影响。可以由专科医生设置PCS,而不会影响两次检查之间的时间间隔。 PCS组患者的恢复明显更快(中位5分钟vs 35分钟; P <0.0001),离开部门更快(中位40分钟vs 75分钟; P <0.0001)。与咪达唑仑和哌替啶组相比,PCS组的患者疼痛评分明显更高,召回率也明显更高。结论:PCS为咪达唑仑和哌替啶镇静提供了一种可接受的替代方法,其优点是恢复时间明显加快,这与门诊患者的情况有关。

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