Inhaled Sevofluran vs Endovenous Propofol for Sedation Maintenance in Patients Submitted to Colonoscopy

L. Pérez-Díaz, Leopoldo Wulff, A. Salazar, M. Amaro, J. Álvarez
{"title":"Inhaled Sevofluran vs Endovenous Propofol for Sedation Maintenance in Patients Submitted to Colonoscopy","authors":"L. Pérez-Díaz, Leopoldo Wulff, A. Salazar, M. Amaro, J. Álvarez","doi":"10.24966/acc-8879/100032(1)","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Endoscopic procedures under sedation currently occupy an important place. Sedation allows optimal conditions for the study Objective: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of the inhalation versus intravenous technique for maintenance of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, randomized clinical study of 32 patients of both sexes ASA I-III, aged 18-80 years undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy, which was randomly divided into 2 groups. In both, intravenous induction with propofol (2-2.5 mg / kg) was performed, Group A remained sedated with propofol infusion (1-2 mg / kg / min); Group B by inhalation with sevoflurane at a concentration of 2 vol% through a nasal cannula with an oxygen flow. Results: Both techniques were performed without registering complications; group A comprised of 15 patients in which only 13% required rescue bolus and a wake-up time of 12 minutes. The group B consisted of 17 patients, with a wake-up time of 7 minutes in whom 35% required salvage bolus. Conclusion: Both anesthetic techniques proved to be safe and effective; patients receiving sevoflurane shortened their stay by 50% in the recovery of the endoscopic unit. Patients who only received propofol presented greater anesthetic depth required a lower rate of rescue boluses. Both techniques evidenced a good comfort level in both the patients and gastroenterologists.","PeriodicalId":73662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical anesthesia and intensive care","volume":"228 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical anesthesia and intensive care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24966/acc-8879/100032(1)","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic procedures under sedation currently occupy an important place. Sedation allows optimal conditions for the study Objective: To compare the anesthetic efficacy of the inhalation versus intravenous technique for maintenance of sedation in patients undergoing endoscopy. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, randomized clinical study of 32 patients of both sexes ASA I-III, aged 18-80 years undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy, which was randomly divided into 2 groups. In both, intravenous induction with propofol (2-2.5 mg / kg) was performed, Group A remained sedated with propofol infusion (1-2 mg / kg / min); Group B by inhalation with sevoflurane at a concentration of 2 vol% through a nasal cannula with an oxygen flow. Results: Both techniques were performed without registering complications; group A comprised of 15 patients in which only 13% required rescue bolus and a wake-up time of 12 minutes. The group B consisted of 17 patients, with a wake-up time of 7 minutes in whom 35% required salvage bolus. Conclusion: Both anesthetic techniques proved to be safe and effective; patients receiving sevoflurane shortened their stay by 50% in the recovery of the endoscopic unit. Patients who only received propofol presented greater anesthetic depth required a lower rate of rescue boluses. Both techniques evidenced a good comfort level in both the patients and gastroenterologists.
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
结肠镜检查患者吸入七氟醚与静脉注射异丙酚维持镇静的比较
内镜下镇静手术目前占有重要地位。目的:比较吸入性麻醉与静脉注射麻醉在内镜患者镇静维持中的效果。材料与方法:纵向随机临床研究32例ASA I-III型男女,年龄18-80岁行诊断性结肠镜检查的患者,随机分为2组。两组均采用异丙酚(2-2.5 mg / kg)静脉诱导,A组仍采用异丙酚输注(1-2 mg / kg / min)镇静;B组通过鼻插管吸氧吸入浓度为2vol %的七氟醚。结果:两种方法均无并发症发生;A组15例患者,其中只有13%需要抢救丸,唤醒时间为12分钟。B组17例患者,醒来时间为7分钟,其中35%需要补救性丸。结论:两种麻醉方法均安全有效;接受七氟醚治疗的患者在内窥镜病房恢复期间的住院时间缩短了50%。仅接受异丙酚麻醉深度较大的患者需要较低的抢救丸率。这两种技术都证明了患者和胃肠病学家的良好舒适度。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The role of hybrid arch repair with thoracic endovascular repair for contemporary management of complex arch and descending thoracoabdominal aortopathies Commentary on ‘Late presentation of right coronary artery stent infection as left empyema and pleuro-pericardial fistula’ Case Report of a Contained Ascending Aortic Rupture Mind-body approaches for reducing the need for post-operative opioids: Evidence and opportunities Mind-body approaches for reducing the need for post-operative opioids: Evidence and opportunities.
×
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