期刊文献+

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam 被引量:3

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO 2 ) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO 2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO 2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Ⅱ [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA Ⅲ [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of Ⅳ midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of Ⅳ propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO 2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO 2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO 2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO 2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41vs 12 of 42,P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO 2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam. AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO 2 ) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO 2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO 2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Ⅱ [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA Ⅲ [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of Ⅳ midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of Ⅳ propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO 2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO 2 〈 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO 2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO 2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41vs 12 of 42,P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO 2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2012年第38期5389-5396,共8页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 异丙酚 结肠镜 二氧化碳积累 检查 脉搏血氧饱和度 毫米汞柱 平均年龄 二氧化碳浓度 Colonoscopy Deep sedation Propofol Hypoventilation Blood gas monitoring Transcutaneous
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献32

  • 1Kiesslich R,Gossner L,Goetz M,Dahlmann A,Vieth M, Stolte M,Hoffman A,Jung M,Nafe B,Galle PR,Neurath MF.In vivo histology of Barrett’s esophagus and associated neoplasia by confocal laser endomicroscopy.Clin Gastroen- terol Hepatol 2006;4:979-987.
  • 2Kakeji Y,Yamaguchi S,Yoshida D,Tanoue K,Ueda M,Ma- sunari A,Utsunomiya T,Imamura M,Honda H,Maehara Y,Hashizume M.Development and assessment of morpho- logic criteria for diagnosing gastric cancer using confocal endomicroscopy:an ex vivo and in vivo study.Endoscopy 2006;38:886-890.
  • 3Kiesslich R,Burg J,Vieth M,Gnaendiger J,Enders M,Del- aney P,Polglase A,McLaren W,Janell D,Thomas S,Nafe B,Galle PR,Neurath MF.Confocal laser endoscopy for di- agnosing intraepithelial neoplasias and colorectal cancer in vivo.Gastroenterology 2004;127:706-713.
  • 4Kiesslich R,Goetz M,Lammersdorf K,Schneider C,Burg J, Stolte M,Vieth M,Nafe B,Galle PR,Neurath MF.Chromos- copy-guided endomicroscopy increases the diagnostic yield of intraepithelial neoplasia in ulcerative colitis.Gastroenter- ology 2007;132:874-882.
  • 5Leong RW,Nguyen NQ,Meredith CG,Al-Sohaily S,Kukic D,Delaney PM,Murr ER,Yong J,Merrett ND,Biankin AV. In vivo confocal endomicroscopy in the diagnosis and eval- uation of celiac disease.Gastroenterology 2008;135:1870-1876.
  • 6Foersch S,Kiesslich R,Waldner MJ,Delaney P,Galle PR, Neurath MF,Goetz M.Molecular imaging of VEGF in gas- trointestinal cancer in vivo using confocal laser endomicros- copy.Gut 2010;59:1046-1055.
  • 7McQuaid KR,Laine L.A systematic review and meta-anal-ysis of randomized,controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures.Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:910-923.
  • 8Waring JP,Baron TH,Hirota WK,Goldstein JL,Jacobson BC,Leighton JA,Mallery JS,Faigel DO.Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:317-322.
  • 9Arrowsmith JB,Gerstman BB,Fleischer DE,Benjamin SB. Results from the American Society for Gastrointestinal En- doscopy/U.S.Food and Drug Administration collaborative study on complication rates and drug use during gastroin- testinal endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:421-427.
  • 10Faulx AL,Vela S,Das A,Cooper G,Sivak MV,Isenberg G, Chak A.The changing landscape of practice patterns re- garding unsedated endoscopy and propofol use:a national Web survey.Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:9-15.

共引文献58

同被引文献60

引证文献3

二级引证文献31

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部