VanNatta Megan E, Rex Douglas K
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis Indiana 46202, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;101(10):2209-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00760.x.
Propofol by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because the drug is commonly used to produce deep sedation or general anesthesia. Propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines can be titrated to moderate sedation, which might be safer.
To compare recovery time, patient satisfaction, and other end points with propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol combination therapy with opioids and/or benzodiazepines.
A randomized controlled clinical trial of propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus fentanyl plus propofol versus midazolam plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam plus propofol in 200 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Each combination regimen was titrated to moderate sedation.
Patients receiving propofol alone received higher doses of propofol and had deeper sedation scores compared with combination therapy (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving combination regimens were discharged more quickly (median 13.0-14.7 versus 18.1 min) than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.01). There were no differences in vital signs or oxygen saturations among the study arms. There were no significant differences in pain or satisfaction among the study arms in the recovery area. At a follow-up phone call, patients receiving fentanyl and propofol remembered more of the procedure than those in the other regimens (p < 0.005) and remembered more pain than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.02).
Propofol in combination with fentanyl and/or midazolam can be titrated to moderate levels of sedation without substantial loss of satisfaction and with shorter recovery times compared with propofol titrated to deep sedation throughout the procedure.
非麻醉医生使用丙泊酚存在争议,因为该药物常用于产生深度镇静或全身麻醉。丙泊酚与阿片类药物和/或苯二氮䓬类药物联合使用可滴定至中度镇静,这可能更安全。
比较单独使用丙泊酚滴定至深度镇静与丙泊酚与阿片类药物和/或苯二氮䓬类药物联合治疗的恢复时间、患者满意度及其他终点指标。
对200例接受结肠镜检查的门诊患者进行一项随机对照临床试验,比较单独使用丙泊酚滴定至深度镇静、芬太尼加丙泊酚、咪达唑仑加丙泊酚、芬太尼加咪达唑仑加丙泊酚的效果。每种联合方案均滴定至中度镇静。
与联合治疗相比,单独接受丙泊酚治疗的患者接受的丙泊酚剂量更高,镇静评分更深(均p<0.001)。接受联合方案治疗的患者出院更快(中位数13.0 - 14.7分钟对18.1分钟),比单独接受丙泊酚治疗的患者快(p<0.01)。各研究组之间的生命体征或血氧饱和度无差异。在恢复区,各研究组之间的疼痛或满意度无显著差异。在随访电话中,接受芬太尼和丙泊酚治疗的患者比其他方案的患者对操作过程的记忆更多(p<0.005),且比单独接受丙泊酚治疗的患者记忆的疼痛更多(p<0.02)。
与在整个操作过程中滴定至深度镇静的丙泊酚相比,丙泊酚与芬太尼和/或咪达唑仑联合使用可滴定至中度镇静水平,且满意度无实质性损失,恢复时间更短。