316 709

Cited 21 times in

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: A randomized trial

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author박준철-
dc.contributor.author박찬혁-
dc.contributor.author신서경-
dc.contributor.author유영철-
dc.contributor.author이상길-
dc.contributor.author이용찬-
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-04T11:09:37Z-
dc.date.available2016-02-04T11:09:37Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/139800-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.format.extente0120529-
dc.relation.isPartOfPLOS ONE-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHAged-
dc.subject.MESHAnesthetics/administration & dosage-
dc.subject.MESHAnesthetics/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHAnesthetics/therapeutic use*-
dc.subject.MESHDeep Sedation/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHDeep Sedation/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHDissection/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHDissection/methods-
dc.subject.MESHEndoscopy/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHEndoscopy/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHFemale-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHInfusions, Parenteral-
dc.subject.MESHInjections-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHMidazolam/administration & dosage-
dc.subject.MESHMidazolam/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHMidazolam/therapeutic use*-
dc.subject.MESHMiddle Aged-
dc.subject.MESHPropofol/administration & dosage-
dc.subject.MESHPropofol/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHPropofol/therapeutic use*-
dc.titleAssessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: A randomized trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Internal Medicine (내과학)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChan Hyuk Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeokyung Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSang Kil Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHyuk Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYong Chan Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJun Chul Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoung Chul Yoo-
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0120529-
dc.admin.authorfalse-
dc.admin.mappingfalse-
dc.contributor.localIdA01676-
dc.contributor.localIdA01711-
dc.contributor.localIdA02109-
dc.contributor.localIdA02484-
dc.contributor.localIdA02812-
dc.contributor.localIdA02988-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ02540-
dc.identifier.eissn1932-6203-
dc.identifier.pmid25803441-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Jun Chul-
dc.contributor.alternativeNamePark, Chan Hyuk-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameShin, Seo Kyung-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameYoo, Young Chul-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLee, Sang Kil-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLee, Yong Chan-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Jun Chul-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorPark, Chan Hyuk-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorShin, Seo Kyung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorYoo, Young Chul-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLee, Sang Kil-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorLee, Yong Chan-
dc.rights.accessRightsfree-
dc.citation.volume10-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPagee0120529-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationPLOS ONE, Vol.10(3) : e0120529, 2015-
dc.identifier.rimsid53830-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine (마취통증의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.