Cubiella Fernández J, Lancho Seco A, Echarri Piudo A, Ulloa Rocha J L, Fernández Seara J
Service of Digestive Diseases, Complexo Hospitalario, Ourense, Spain.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2005 Jan;97(1):24-37. doi: 10.4321/s1130-01082005000100004.
To evaluate the human and material resources available for sedation, and the usual manner of handling them at endoscopic units in Galicia.
A prospective and descriptive study based on the performance, distribution, and analysis of a clinical practice inquiry. We requested information about endoscopies performed, available means for sedation, sedation monitoring, and level of sedation used in each procedure.
Our inquiry was answered by twenty endoscopic units (thirteen were in public hospitals, and eleven performed complex procedures). Of these units, 80% had a pulse oximeter, 42% had continuous electrocardiography, 40% had a defibrillator, and 45% had a recovery area. The drug most commonly used in gastroscopies was midazolam (76%), and the combination midazolam-meperidine was most frequent in both colonoscopies (72%) and ERCPs (60%). An anesthesiologist was usually available for certain procedures in 15% of units, and as an exception in 65%. Of those inquired, 35% wished to have a full-time anesthesiologist in the unit, 25% wished to have an anesthetist only for certain procedures, and 35% on an exceptional basis. Finally, endoscopists considered that 83% of therapeutical gastroscopies, 87% of therapeutical colonoscopies, 98% of ERCPs, 95% of enteroscopies, and 98% of echoendoscopies deserved sedation.
Although endoscopists consider that endoscopic procedures should benefit from sedation in a high proportion, the available resources to safely monitor patients are inadequate in some units.
