Paspatis Gregorios A, Charoniti Ioanna, Manolaraki Maria, Vardas Emmanouil, Papanikolaou Nikolaos, Anastasiadou Almout, Gritzali Aliki
Department of Gastroenterology, Benizelion General Hospital, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2006 Aug;43(2):195-9. doi: 10.1097/01.mpg.0000228099.04702.39.
The primary objective of the present study was to compare the required dose of intravenous (IV) propofol between group A (synergistic sedation with an oral dose of midazolam combined with IV propofol) and group B (IV propofol alone), in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in pediatric patients. The secondary objective was to compare the safety, the efficacy, the ease of IV line placement and the ease of separation from parents between the 2 groups.
Fifty-four consecutive children (aged 3 y or older) who underwent UGIE were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 medication regimens. Patients in group A (n = 26, mean age: 8.1 y) received midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) orally. Thirty minutes after the midazolam dose was given, repeated IV doses of propofol 0.5 mg/kg were administered titrated to achieve the level of deep sedation. Patients in group B (n = 28, mean age: 9 y) received IV propofol alone with the same methodology and sedation end point.
The mean dose (1.8 +/- 0.7 mg/kg) of propofol administered in group A patients was remarkably lower compared with that (2.9 +/- 0.9 mg/kg) of group B. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, ASA grade and the type of sedation, the synergistic sedation was the only factor associated with the ease of IV line placement (chi(2) = 16.3, P < 0.001) and the ease of separation from parents (chi(2) = 41.6, P < 0.001). Additional multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, ASA grade and the type of sedation, synergistic sedation was the only factor associated with a higher level of patient comfort (chi(2) = 35.5, P < 0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in group B patients (7.7 +/- 3.6 min) compared with that of group A (25.9 +/- 4.1 minutes) (P < 0.01). The 2 regimens were equally safe.
Our data suggest that synergistic sedation with an oral dose of midazolam combined with propofol may benefit the children who undergo UGIE with regard to lower mean dose of propofol used, easier IV line placement, easier separation from the parents, less pain induced by the IV line placement and greater patient comfort.
本研究的主要目的是比较A组(口服咪达唑仑联合静脉注射丙泊酚的协同镇静)和B组(单纯静脉注射丙泊酚)在儿科患者诊断性上消化道内镜检查(UGIE)中所需的静脉注射丙泊酚剂量。次要目的是比较两组之间的安全性、有效性、静脉置管的难易程度以及与父母分离的难易程度。
54例连续接受UGIE的儿童(3岁及以上)被随机分配到两种药物治疗方案中的一种。A组(n = 26,平均年龄:8.1岁)患者口服咪达唑仑(0.5 mg/kg)。给予咪达唑仑剂量30分钟后,重复静脉注射丙泊酚0.5 mg/kg,滴定给药以达到深度镇静水平。B组(n = 28,平均年龄:9岁)患者采用相同的方法和镇静终点,单纯接受静脉注射丙泊酚。
A组患者丙泊酚的平均剂量(1.8±0.7 mg/kg)明显低于B组(2.9±0.9 mg/kg)。多因素逐步逻辑回归分析显示,在性别、年龄、ASA分级和镇静类型中,协同镇静是与静脉置管难易程度(χ² = 16.3,P < 0.001)和与父母分离难易程度(χ² = 41.6,P < 0.001)相关的唯一因素。额外的多因素逐步逻辑回归分析显示,在性别、年龄、ASA分级和镇静类型中,协同镇静是与较高患者舒适度相关的唯一因素(χ² = 35.5,P < 0.001)。B组患者的恢复时间(7.7±3.6分钟)明显短于A组(25.9±4.1分钟)(P < 0.01)。两种治疗方案同样安全。
我们的数据表明,口服咪达唑仑联合丙泊酚的协同镇静对于接受UGIE的儿童可能有益,因为所用丙泊酚的平均剂量较低、静脉置管更容易、与父母分离更容易、静脉置管引起的疼痛更少且患者舒适度更高。