丙泊酚镇静对比咪达唑仑推注或滴定用于门诊结肠镜检查:一项前瞻性随机双盲研究

2020
10/10

+
分享
评论
米勒之声
A-
A+

丙泊酚镇静对比咪达唑仑推注或滴定用于门诊结肠镜检查

本文由“罂粟花”授权转载

丙泊酚镇静对比咪达唑仑推注或滴定用于门诊结肠镜检查:一项前瞻性随机双盲研究

翻译:何幼芹  编辑:冯玉蓉  审校:曹莹


背景及目的:目前门诊结肠镜检查过程中最安全、最有效的镇静方法不清楚。本研究旨在比较丙泊酚镇静与咪达唑仑推注或滴定给药在门诊结肠镜检查患者中的有效性和安全性。


方法将接受结肠镜检查的患者随机分为丙泊酚组、咪达唑仑推注组和咪达唑仑滴定组。丙泊酚组:静脉推注0.5 mg/kg0.05 ml/kg)后以0.25 mg/kg0.025 ml/kg)进行滴定。咪达唑仑推注组:接受单次快速注射哌替啶和咪达唑仑,剂量根据年龄和体重的列线图计算。咪达唑仑滴定组:按ASA指南每2 ~ 3 min增加咪达唑仑和哌替啶的剂量直到镇静深度满足检查操作。比较三组的总体检查时间、诱导时间、恢复时间和出院时间。此外,还比较了患者满意度和不良事件的发生率。


结果:研究共纳入267例患者(各研究组89)丙泊酚组患者的总体检查时间(39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 min; P < 0.001)、诱导时间 (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 min; P < 0.001)、恢复时间(11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 min; P < 0.001)和出院时间(20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 min; P < 0.001)均比咪达唑仑推注组和咪达唑仑滴定组短。此外,丙泊酚组患者的满意度高于静脉推注或滴定咪达唑仑+哌替啶组(9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 vs 9.6P=0.0074.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8P=0.008)。组间不良事件无显著差异。


结论:项随机试验结果表明,在门诊结肠镜检查过程中的内镜周转效率和患者满意度方面丙泊酚镇静优于静脉推注或滴定咪达唑仑


原始文献来源:Kim DB, Kim JS, Huh CW, et al. Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study[J]. Gastrointest. Endosc., 2020, undefined: undefined.



Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear.The study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.


METHODS:We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time between the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events.


RESULTS: In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period.Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 min; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 min; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 min; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 min; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6; P = 0.007, 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8; P = .008). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups.


CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy.





     

   

免责声明:

本微信公众平台所刊载原创或转载内容不代表米勒之声的观点或立场。文中所涉及药物使用、疾病诊疗等内容仅供参考。

本文由作者自行上传,并且作者对本文图文涉及知识产权负全部责任。如有侵权请及时联系(邮箱:guikequan@hmkx.cn
关键词:
咪达唑仑推注,结肠镜检查,咪达唑仑,丙泊酚组,前瞻性,哌替啶,门诊,双盲,滴定,镇静

人点赞

收藏

人收藏

打赏

打赏

我有话说

0条评论

0/500

评论字数超出限制

表情
评论

为你推荐

推荐课程


社群

精彩视频

您的申请提交成功

确定 取消
剩余5
×

打赏金额

认可我就打赏我~

1元 5元 10元 20元 50元 其它

打赏

打赏作者

认可我就打赏我~

×

扫描二维码

立即打赏给Ta吧!

温馨提示:仅支持微信支付!