Hayee Bu'Hussain, Dunn Jason, Loganayagam Aathavan, Wong Mandy, Saxena Vishal, Rowbotham David, McNair Alistair
Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Elizabeth National Health Service Trust, Woolwich, London, United Kingdom.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):681-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.033.
A combination of midazolam and opioid is usually used to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy. Two commonly used opioids are meperidine and fentanyl, but few studies have compared their efficacy.
This randomized trial aimed to compare the efficacy and recovery time of 2 sedation regimens consisting of midazolam in combination with either meperidine or fentanyl.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A total of 300 consecutive, unselected adults attending outpatient colonoscopy at a District General Hospital were enrolled with informed consent and randomized to receive midazolam with meperidine or fentanyl. Data for procedure times, perceived discomfort (according to standard 100-mm visual analog scales [VAS]), and recovery time were collected. Patients and all endoscopy staff directly involved with the procedure were blinded to the regimen used.
Primary: patients' experience of pain (postrecovery VAS score); secondary: recovery time.
A total of 287 patients (150 female, mean [SD] age 54 [17] years) were studied. Recovery time (in minutes) was significantly shorter in patients receiving fentanyl (n = 138) than in those receiving meperidine (n = 149, mean +/- SE: 13.7 +/- 1.8 vs 18.7 +/- 1.7, P = .03), whereas there was no difference in the patients', endoscopists', or nurses' perception of pain during the procedure between the 2 groups. Both groups received a median dose of 3 mg of midazolam (range 2-5 mg). In patients receiving lower doses (2-2.5 and 3-3.5 mg), recovery times were significantly faster with fentanyl (P < .01 and <.05, respectively), whereas at higher doses of midazolam (> or =4 mg) there was no difference between the 2 groups.
The use of VAS scores and nurse assessment of recovery time were chosen in this study because, despite their subjectivity, these measures were felt to most closely reflect true clinical practice.
The use of fentanyl in combination with low-dose midazolam results in significantly faster recovery from sedation compared with meperidine, without any apparent loss of analgesic effect.
在结肠镜检查期间,通常联合使用咪达唑仑和阿片类药物来实现镇静和镇痛。两种常用的阿片类药物是哌替啶和芬太尼,但很少有研究比较它们的疗效。
这项随机试验旨在比较由咪达唑仑分别联合哌替啶或芬太尼组成的两种镇静方案的疗效和恢复时间。
设计、地点和患者:在一家地区综合医院,共有300名连续、未经挑选的成年门诊结肠镜检查患者在获得知情同意后入组,并随机接受咪达唑仑联合哌替啶或芬太尼治疗。收集了操作时间、感知不适(根据标准的100毫米视觉模拟量表[VAS])和恢复时间的数据。参与该操作的患者和所有内镜检查人员均对所使用的方案不知情。
主要指标:患者的疼痛体验(恢复后VAS评分);次要指标:恢复时间。
共研究了287例患者(150例女性,平均[标准差]年龄54[17]岁)。接受芬太尼的患者(n = 138)的恢复时间(分钟)明显短于接受哌替啶的患者(n = 149,平均±标准误:13.7±1.8对18.7±1.7,P = 0.03),而两组患者、内镜医师或护士在操作过程中对疼痛的感知没有差异。两组咪达唑仑的中位剂量均为3 mg(范围2 - 5 mg)。在接受较低剂量(2 - 2.5 mg和3 - 3.5 mg)的患者中,芬太尼组的恢复时间明显更快(分别为P < 0.01和<0.05),而在咪达唑仑较高剂量(≥4 mg)时,两组之间没有差异。
本研究选择使用VAS评分和护士对恢复时间的评估,因为尽管它们具有主观性,但这些措施被认为最能密切反映真实的临床实践。
与哌替啶相比,芬太尼联合低剂量咪达唑仑可使镇静后的恢复明显更快,且镇痛效果无明显损失。