...
首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. >Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anesthetist
【24h】

Sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled study of patient-controlled propofol sedation and that given by a nurse anesthetist

机译:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术期间的镇静作用:患者控制的丙泊酚镇静和护士麻醉师进行的镇静随机对照研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective. Different regimens are used for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Our objectives were to compare safety, ease of treatment, recovery, and patients' experiences using patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol, nurse anesthetist-controlled sedation (ACS), or the department's standard of care, midazolam given by the procedure team (control group). Material and methods. The study included 281 adults in 301 procedures. The PCS group (n = 101) delivered bolus doses of 5mg of propofol according to their need for sedation. The ACS group (n = 100) had 2-8 mg/kg/h of propofol infused, with the target for sedation being level 3 of the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale. The control group was given 2-3mg of midazolam for induction and additional 1mg if required. Results. PCS and ACS increased the ease of the procedure and reduced the number of sedation failures compared to midazolam sedation (ACS n = 0; PCS n = 4; midazolam n = 20). The ACS group had more deeply sedated patients (OAA/S level 2), desaturation, and obstructed airways than the PCS and midazolam groups. Time to full recovery (Aldrete score >= 9) was shortest following PCS. PCS resulted in the least fatigue and pain after the procedure. Patients' preference for PCS and ACS was the same. Conclusion. PCS with propofol is superior to midazolam and comparable to ACS. PCS resulted in a rapid recovery, fewer respiratory events, and was almost as effective as ACS in ensuring a successful examination.
机译:目的。内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)期间使用了不同的镇静方法。我们的目标是比较使用患者自控镇静(PCS)与异丙酚,护士麻醉师自控镇静(ACS)或程序小组提供的咪达唑仑部门标准的安全性,易于治疗,恢复和患者的体会(控制组)。材料与方法。该研究在301个程序中纳入281名成人。 PCS组(n = 101)根据镇静需要推注5mg异丙酚。 ACS组(n = 100)输注了2-8 mg / kg / h的异丙酚,镇静的目标是观察者警觉/镇静评估(OAA / S)等级的3级。对照组给予2-3mg咪达唑仑用于诱导,如果需要则另外给予1mg。结果。与咪达唑仑镇静相比(ACS n = 0; PCS n = 4;咪达唑仑n = 20),PCS和ACS增加了操作的简便性并减少了镇静失败的次数。与PCS和咪达唑仑组相比,ACS组的镇静患者(OAA / S 2级),去饱和和气道阻塞程度更高。完全恢复时间(Aldrete评分> = 9)是PCS之后最短的时间。手术后PCS可使疲劳和疼痛最小化。患者对PCS和ACS的偏好相同。结论。含异丙酚的PCS优于咪达唑仑,与ACS相当。 PCS可以快速恢复,减少呼吸事件,并且在确保成功检查方面几乎与ACS一样有效。

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