在低风险集体中使用内窥镜引导镇静剂的安全性。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-11 DOI:10.1055/a-1957-7788
Angelika Behrens, Christian Ell
{"title":"在低风险集体中使用内窥镜引导镇静剂的安全性。","authors":"Angelika Behrens, Christian Ell","doi":"10.1055/a-1957-7788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong> The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a \"shadow\" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the \"shadow\" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":23853,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective.\",\"authors\":\"Angelika Behrens, Christian Ell\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-1957-7788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong> The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a \\\"shadow\\\" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the \\\"shadow\\\" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1957-7788\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1957-7788","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介在全球范围内,胃肠道内窥镜检查主要是在镇静剂的作用下进行的。各国和国际指南和建议对消化道内窥镜检查中镇静剂的使用规定大相径庭。目的:本研究旨在评估在确定的低风险人群(低风险手术和低风险患者)中,就镇静相关并发症的发生率而言,无额外镇静辅助的内镜引导镇静是否不逊于有额外镇静辅助的内镜引导镇静:结果:27 个德国研究中心参与了这项研究。在 2015 年 8 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 10 日的研究期间,共记录了 30 569 例内镜手术。最终数据分析包括 28 673 次检查(64.1% 为食管胃十二指肠镜检查,35.9% 为结肠镜检查)。在 307 例(1.1%)检查中,发生了 322 例与镇静相关的并发症。其中,321 例(1.1%)为轻微并发症,1 例(0.003%)为严重并发症。在有额外镇静辅助和无额外镇静辅助的内窥镜引导下,镇静相关并发症的发生频率在统计学上没有明显差异。在法律框架内,没有镇静辅助的研究组有一名 "影子 "镇静助理。在101例(0.7%)内窥镜手术中,该助手因镇静相关并发症而介入:结论:这项研究证明了在低风险人群中使用异丙酚内镜引导镇静的安全性。在98.9%的内窥镜手术中,没有发生与镇静相关的并发症,或者并发症极少,无需干预(如增加供氧量)。这项研究通过随机、前瞻性的设计证明,低风险内窥镜检查(低风险患者、低风险手术)中的镇静可以在内窥镜医师指导下进行,无需额外的镇静辅助,而且不会明显降低安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Safety of endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk collective.

Introduction:  Worldwide, gastrointestinal endoscopies are predominantly performed under sedation. National and international guidelines and recommendations contain very different specifications for the use of sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. These differences come from specific requirements for staffing during endoscopy.

Aim:  The aim of the study is to evaluate whether endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance is not inferior to endoscopist-guided sedation with additional sedation assistance with respect to the rate of sedation-associated complications in a defined low-risk population (low-risk procedure and low-risk patient).

Methods:  Prospective, multicenter, randomized study.

Results:  27 German study centers participated in the study. A total of 30 569 endoscopies were recorded during the study period from 1.8.2015 to 10.3.2020. The final data analysis included 28 673 examinations (64.1 % esophagosgastroduodenoscopies and 35.9 % colonoscopies). In 307 (1.1 %) examinations, 322 sedation-associated complications occurred. Of these, 321 (1.1 %) were minor complications and one (0.003 %) was a major complication. There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of sedation-associated complications between endoscopist-guided sedation with versus without additional sedation assistance. Within the legal framework, a "shadow" sedation assistant was present in the study group without sedation assistance. This assistant intervened because of sedation-associated complications in 101 (0.7 %) of the endoscopies.

Conclusion:  The study documents the safety of propofol-based endoscopist-guided sedation in a low-risk population. In 98.9 % of all endoscopies, no sedation-associated complication occurred or it was so minimal that no intervention (e. g., increase of oxygen supply) was necessary. The study cannot answer to what extent a serious complication was avoided by the active intervention of the "shadow" sedation assistance in the group without sedation assistance.The study proves in a randomized, prospective design that sedation in low-risk endoscopy (low-risk patient, low-risk procedure) can be performed as endoscopist-guided sedation without additional sedation assistance, without demonstrably accepting a reduction in safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie
Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
562
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie ist seit über 50 Jahren die führende deutsche Fachzeitschrift auf dem Gebiet der Gastroenterologie. Sie richtet sich an Gastroenterologen und alle anderen gastroenterologisch interessierten Ärzte. Als offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten sowie der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie informiert sie zuverlässig und aktuell über die wichtigen Neuerungen und Entwicklungen in der Gastroenterologie.
期刊最新文献
Konservative versus chirurgische Therapie beim idiopathischen und sekundären Megakolon oder Megarektum im Erwachsenenalter - eine retrospektive multizentrische Kontrollstudie. Hemosuccus pancreaticus - Multidisciplinary therapy for a splenic artery aneurysm, ruptured into the pancreatic duct. Sub-optimal therapy of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in the real-life stetting of the German PBC cohort. Remission of refractory esophageal lichen planus induced by tofacitinib. [Management of gastroparesis care in Germany - a survey by the working group of guiding gastroenterologic clinicians (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitender Gastroenterologischer Krankenhausärzte, ALGK)].
×
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