Cited 38 times in
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 김남오 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 민경태 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 유영철 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이상길 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 김현주 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 주향미 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-02-04T11:14:52Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-02-04T11:14:52Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1007-9327 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/139996 | - |
dc.description.abstract | AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group ("very easy" 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group ("no + mild" 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group ("very good + good" 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477). CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility. | - |
dc.description.statementOfResponsibility | open | - |
dc.format | application/pdf | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY | - |
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 | Dexmedetomidine/administration & dosage* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Dexmedetomidine/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Dissection/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Dissection/methods* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Double-Blind Method | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Female | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Gastric Mucosa/pathology | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Gastric Mucosa/surgery* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Gastroscopy/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Gastroscopy/methods* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Humans | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Male | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Middle Aged | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Piperidines/administration & dosage* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Piperidines/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Propofol/administration & dosage* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Propofol/adverse effects | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Republic of Korea | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Stomach Neoplasms/pathology | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Stomach Neoplasms/surgery* | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Treatment Outcome | - |
dc.title | Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Medicine (의과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Anesthesiology (마취통증의학) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Namo Kim | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Young-Chul Yoo | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Sang Kil Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Hyunzu Kim | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Hyang Mi Ju | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Kyeong Tae Min | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.3748/wjg.v21.i12.3671 | - |
dc.admin.author | false | - |
dc.admin.mapping | false | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A00356 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A01400 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02484 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A02812 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J02795 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2219-2840 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 25834336 | - |
dc.subject.keyword | Dexmedetomidine | - |
dc.subject.keyword | Efficacy | - |
dc.subject.keyword | Endoscopic submucosal dissection | - |
dc.subject.keyword | Peristalsis | - |
dc.subject.keyword | Safety | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Kim, Namo | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Min, Kyeong Tae | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Yoo, Young Chul | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Lee, Sang Kil | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Kim, Namo | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Min, Kyeong Tae | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Yoo, Young Chul | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Lee, Sang Kil | - |
dc.rights.accessRights | free | - |
dc.citation.volume | 21 | - |
dc.citation.number | 12 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 3671 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 3678 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, Vol.21(12) : 3671-3678, 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.rimsid | 49018 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.