Suppr超能文献

在内镜逆行胰胆管造影术中,丙泊酚与咪达唑仑用于脑电双频指数引导下清醒镇静的前瞻性、随机、双盲研究。

Propofol versus midazolam for conscious sedation guided by processed EEG during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.

作者信息

Krugliak P, Ziff B, Rusabrov Y, Rosenthal A, Fich A, Gurman G M

机构信息

Dept. of Gastroenterology, Soroka Medical Center of Kupat Holim and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

出版信息

Endoscopy. 2000 Sep;32(9):677-82. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-9021.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure, which requires appropriate sedation. The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the quality and characteristics of sedation with midazolam or propofol in patients undergoing ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 32 patients undergoing ERCP were randomly allocated for sedation with propofol (n = 15) or midazolam (n = 17). Blood pressure, heart rate, and O2 saturation were monitored. Sedation was maintained at near constant levels by use of the spectral edge frequency (SEF) technique, an EEG-based method for measuring the depth of sedation. Clinical variables, patient cooperation, time to recovery, and amnesia served as outcome variables.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two study groups in patient characteristics. The "target SEF" was 13.6 +/- 0.7 Hz for the propofol group and 14.8 +/- 1.1 Hz for the midazolam group (n.s.). The only clinical parameter with a significant difference between the groups was the percent of time in which the heart rate deviated more than 20% from baseline for at least 2 minutes, i.e. 14.6 +/- 2.0 % for propofol and 48.2 +/- 38.0% for midazolam (P<0.01). Patient cooperation was better in the propofol group than in the midazolam group (full cooperation, 13/15 vs. 1/17, respectively; P<0.001). Patient recovery was significantly quicker in the propofol group (P<0.001). The degree of amnesia was similar in both groups; no patient in either group remembered details of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP is better tolerated by patients sedated with propofol compared with midazolam, with a shorter recovery time and lesser hemodynamic side effects. Propofol should be considered to be the sedative drug of choice for ERCP.

摘要

背景与研究目的

内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)是一项复杂的操作,需要适当的镇静。这项前瞻性、随机、双盲研究的目的是比较接受ERCP的患者使用咪达唑仑或丙泊酚镇静的质量和特点。

患者与方法

共有32例接受ERCP的患者被随机分配接受丙泊酚(n = 15)或咪达唑仑(n = 17)镇静。监测血压、心率和血氧饱和度。通过频谱边缘频率(SEF)技术维持镇静在接近恒定的水平,这是一种基于脑电图测量镇静深度的方法。临床变量、患者配合度、恢复时间和遗忘情况作为结果变量。

结果

两个研究组患者的特征无显著差异。丙泊酚组的“目标SEF”为13.6±0.7Hz,咪达唑仑组为14.8±1.1Hz(无显著差异)。两组之间唯一有显著差异的临床参数是心率偏离基线至少2分钟且超过20%的时间百分比,即丙泊酚组为14.6±2.0%,咪达唑仑组为48.2±38.0%(P<0.01)。丙泊酚组患者的配合度优于咪达唑仑组(完全配合分别为13/15和1/17;P<0.001)。丙泊酚组患者的恢复明显更快(P<0.001)。两组的遗忘程度相似;两组均无患者记得操作细节。

结论

与咪达唑仑相比,接受丙泊酚镇静的患者对ERCP的耐受性更好,恢复时间更短,血流动力学副作用更小。丙泊酚应被视为ERCP的首选镇静药物。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验