Lee Danny W H, Chan Angus C W, Sze Tak-Suen, Ko Chi-Wah, Poon Chi-Ming, Chan Kang-Chung, Sin Kwok-Sang, Chung S C Sydney
Department of Surgery, North District Hospital, New Territories East Cluster, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Nov;56(5):629-32. doi: 10.1067/mge.2002.128919.
A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the safety, effectiveness, and patient acceptance of patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in a group of elderly patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.
One hundred patients over 65 years of age were recruited and randomized to patient-controlled sedation (n = 50) or intravenous sedation (n = 50) groups by means of computer-generated numbers. In the patient-controlled sedation group, a mixture of propofol and alfentanil was delivered by means of a patient-controlled pump; each bolus delivered 4.8 mg propofol and 12 microg alfentanil. No loading dose was used and the lockout time was set at zero. In the intravenous sedation group, fixed doses of diazemuls (0.1 mg/kg) and meperidine (0.5 mg/kg) were given with further increases in dosages administered at the discretion of the endoscopist. Outcome measures assessed included cardiopulmonary complications, recovery time, pain score, and satisfaction score.
The mean (SD) age of patients in the patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation groups were, respectively, 72.4 years (5.3) and 73.5 years (6.1). The mean dose of propofol consumed in the patient-controlled sedation group was 0.79 (0.46) mg/kg. The mean doses of diazemuls and meperidine consumed in intravenous sedation group were, respectively, 5.8 (1.3) mg and 30.1 (6.8) mg. Hypotension occurred in 2 (4%) patients in the patient-controlled sedation group and 14 (28%) in the intravenous sedation group (p < 0.01). Oxygen desaturation was recorded for 4 patients (8%) in the intravenous sedation group. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) recovery time was significantly shorter in the patient-controlled sedation group compared with the intravenous sedation group (respectively, 0 minutes [IQR 0-5] vs. 5 minutes [IQR 5-10]; p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for pain and satisfaction scores.
Patient-controlled sedation appears to be safer than intravenous sedation, with comparable effectiveness and acceptance, in elderly patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy.
进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,以比较门诊结肠镜检查的一组老年患者中,患者自控镇静和静脉镇静在安全性、有效性及患者接受度方面的差异。
招募了100名65岁以上的患者,通过计算机生成的数字随机分为患者自控镇静组(n = 50)和静脉镇静组(n = 50)。在患者自控镇静组中,通过患者自控泵给予丙泊酚和阿芬太尼的混合物;每次推注给予4.8毫克丙泊酚和12微克阿芬太尼。未使用负荷剂量,锁定时间设定为零。在静脉镇静组中,给予固定剂量的地西泮乳剂(0.1毫克/千克)和哌替啶(0.5毫克/千克),内镜医师可酌情进一步增加剂量。评估的结果指标包括心肺并发症、恢复时间、疼痛评分和满意度评分。
患者自控镇静组和静脉镇静组患者的平均(标准差)年龄分别为72.4岁(5.3)和73.5岁(6.1)。患者自控镇静组丙泊酚的平均消耗量为0.79(0.46)毫克/千克。静脉镇静组地西泮乳剂和哌替啶的平均消耗量分别为5.8(1.3)毫克和30.1(6.8)毫克。患者自控镇静组有2名(4%)患者发生低血压,静脉镇静组有14名(28%)患者发生低血压(p < 0.01)。静脉镇静组有4名(8%)患者记录到氧饱和度下降。与静脉镇静组相比,患者自控镇静组的中位(四分位间距[IQR])恢复时间明显更短(分别为0分钟[IQR 0 - 5]和5分钟[IQR 5 - 10];p < 0.01)。两组之间的疼痛和满意度评分无统计学显著差异。
在接受择期门诊结肠镜检查的老年患者中,患者自控镇静似乎比静脉镇静更安全,并具有相当的有效性和接受度。