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.author | 박준철 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 박찬혁 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 신서경 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 유영철 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이상길 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이용찬 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-02-04T11:09:37Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-02-04T11:09:37Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/139800 | - |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: 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.statementOfResponsibility | open | - |
dc.format.extent | e0120529 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | PLOS ONE | - |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR | - |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/ | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Aged | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Anesthetics/administration & dosage | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Anesthetics/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Anesthetics/therapeutic use* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Deep Sedation/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Deep Sedation/methods* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Dissection/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Dissection/methods | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Endoscopy/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Endoscopy/methods* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Female | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Humans | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Infusions, Parenteral | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Injections | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Male | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Midazolam/administration & dosage | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Midazolam/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Midazolam/therapeutic use* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Middle Aged | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Propofol/administration & dosage | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Propofol/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Propofol/therapeutic use* | - |
dc.title | Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: A randomized trial | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Medicine (의과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Chan Hyuk Park | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Seokyung Shin | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Sang Kil Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Hyuk Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Yong Chan Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Jun Chul Park | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Young Chul Yoo | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1371/journal.pone.0120529 | - |
dc.admin.author | false | - |
dc.admin.mapping | false | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A01676 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A01711 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02109 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02484 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02812 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02988 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J02540 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1932-6203 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 25803441 | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Park, Jun Chul | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Park, Chan Hyuk | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Shin, Seo Kyung | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Yoo, Young Chul | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Lee, Sang Kil | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Lee, Yong Chan | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Park, Jun Chul | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Park, Chan Hyuk | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Shin, Seo Kyung | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Yoo, Young Chul | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Lee, Sang Kil | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Lee, Yong Chan | - |
dc.rights.accessRights | free | - |
dc.citation.volume | 10 | - |
dc.citation.number | 3 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | e0120529 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | PLOS ONE, Vol.10(3) : e0120529, 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.rimsid | 53830 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.