Xinyu Wu, Lina Zhang, Zangong Zhou, Lijie Qi, Yinhuan Liu, Xuebin Du, Lixia Ma, Xiangyu Ji
{"title":"平衡丙泊酚镇静用于支气管镜检查的疗效和安全性。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Efficacy and Safety Profile of Balanced Propofol Sedation for Bronchoscopy.
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.
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.