The Efficacy and Safety Profile of Balanced Propofol Sedation for Bronchoscopy.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S495253
Xinyu Wu, Lina Zhang, Zangong Zhou, Lijie Qi, Yinhuan Liu, Xuebin Du, Lixia Ma, Xiangyu Ji
{"title":"The Efficacy and Safety Profile of Balanced Propofol Sedation for Bronchoscopy.","authors":"Xinyu Wu, Lina Zhang, Zangong Zhou, Lijie Qi, Yinhuan Liu, Xuebin Du, Lixia Ma, Xiangyu Ji","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S495253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We conducted a prospective, real-world study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) in bronchoscopy and identify an advantageous sedation regimen for such procedures.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The participants were placed in four groups based on their sedation regimen (exposure factor): the M-S group (midazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), R-S group (remimazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), M-S-P group (midazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS), and R-S-P group (remimazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS). The primary outcomes included satisfaction metrics (satisfaction of the patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses) and follow-up questionnaires. The secondary outcomes included time metrics (induction time, recovery time, and discharge time), dosage metrics (induction dose, maintenance dose, and total dose of each sedative), completion rate of sedation, intraprocedural dose, and frequency of lidocaine spray in the airway, and incidence of adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 418 subjects were included in this study. Compared to traditional sedation, both BPS groups significantly increased the satisfaction of patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses (P < 0.05) and reduced the incidence of intraprocedural wakefulness (P < 0.05). Additionally, induction and recovery of the BPS group were rapid, with high sedation completion rates and no increase in the incidence of intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse reactions (P < 0.05). The RSP group was better than the MSP group in terms of various time metrics and postprocedural adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BPS can be safely and effectively applied during bronchoscopy, with remimazolam and sufentanil combined with a small dose of propofol being an optimal medication regimen.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":"20 ","pages":"849-860"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11649497/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S495253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a prospective, real-world study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) in bronchoscopy and identify an advantageous sedation regimen for such procedures.

Patients and methods: The participants were placed in four groups based on their sedation regimen (exposure factor): the M-S group (midazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), R-S group (remimazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), M-S-P group (midazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS), and R-S-P group (remimazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS). The primary outcomes included satisfaction metrics (satisfaction of the patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses) and follow-up questionnaires. The secondary outcomes included time metrics (induction time, recovery time, and discharge time), dosage metrics (induction dose, maintenance dose, and total dose of each sedative), completion rate of sedation, intraprocedural dose, and frequency of lidocaine spray in the airway, and incidence of adverse reactions.

Results: In total, 418 subjects were included in this study. Compared to traditional sedation, both BPS groups significantly increased the satisfaction of patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses (P < 0.05) and reduced the incidence of intraprocedural wakefulness (P < 0.05). Additionally, induction and recovery of the BPS group were rapid, with high sedation completion rates and no increase in the incidence of intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse reactions (P < 0.05). The RSP group was better than the MSP group in terms of various time metrics and postprocedural adverse reactions.

Conclusion: BPS can be safely and effectively applied during bronchoscopy, with remimazolam and sufentanil combined with a small dose of propofol being an optimal medication regimen.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平衡丙泊酚镇静用于支气管镜检查的疗效和安全性。
目的:我们进行了一项前瞻性、现实世界的研究,以评估平衡异丙酚镇静(BPS)在支气管镜检查中的有效性和安全性,并确定一种有利的镇静方案。患者和方法:根据镇静方案(暴露因子)将参与者分为四组:M-S组(咪达唑仑+舒芬太尼传统镇静),R-S组(雷马唑仑+舒芬太尼传统镇静),M-S- p组(咪达唑仑+舒芬太尼+异丙酚BPS), R-S- p组(雷马唑仑+舒芬太尼+异丙酚BPS)。主要结果包括满意度指标(患者、内窥镜医生和护士的满意度)和随访问卷。次要结果包括时间指标(诱导时间、恢复时间和出院时间)、剂量指标(诱导剂量、维持剂量和每种镇静剂的总剂量)、镇静完成率、术中剂量、气道内利多卡因喷雾频率和不良反应发生率。结果:本研究共纳入418名受试者。与传统镇静相比,BPS组患者、内镜医师和护士的满意度均显著提高(P < 0.05),术中清醒发生率显著降低(P < 0.05)。BPS组诱导和恢复迅速,镇静完成率高,术中、术后不良反应发生率均未增加(P < 0.05)。RSP组在各项时间指标和术后不良反应方面均优于MSP组。结论:BPS可以安全有效地应用于支气管镜检查,以雷马唑仑、舒芬太尼联合小剂量异丙酚为最佳用药方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
139
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas. The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Recurrent Emergency Department Visits for Epistaxis in Adults, Cross Sectional Study in Two Tertiary Care Hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [Letter]. Mesalazine-Induced Acute Pancreatitis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Systematic Review. Obstacles to Early Diagnosis of Gaucher Disease. Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation: A Consideration for Manual In-Line Stabilization Without Cervical Collar Versus Full Immobilization. Risk Factors of Delirium Following Reconstructive Surgery for Head and Neck Tumors: A Retrospective Clinical Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1