0 43

Cited 1 times in

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol‐based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

Authors
 Eun Hye Kim  ;  Jun Chul Park  ;  Sung Kwan Shin  ;  Yong Chan Lee  ;  Sang Kil Lee 
Citation
 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol.33(4) : 894-899, 2018 
Journal Title
 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 
ISSN
 0815-9319 
Issue Date
2018
MeSH
Adult ; Aged ; Conscious Sedation/adverse effects ; Conscious Sedation/methods* ; Conscious Sedation/psychology ; Drug Combinations ; Endoscopy, Digestive System* ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Midazolam/administration & dosage* ; Middle Aged ; Personal Satisfaction ; Propofol/administration & dosage* ; Prospective Studies ; Safety
Keywords
endoscopy ; midazolam ; propofol ; sedation
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40-60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551). CONCLUSION: Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD
Full Text
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jgh.14026
DOI
10.1111/jgh.14026
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
김은혜(Kim, Eun Hye) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6691-6837
박준철(Park, Jun Chul) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8018-0010
신성관(Shin, Sung Kwan)
이상길(Lee, Sang Kil) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0721-0364
이용찬(Lee, Yong Chan)
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/163705
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

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

Browse