Cinar Kubilay, Yakut Mustafa, Ozden Ali
Ankara University, School of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Ankara.
Turk J Gastroenterol. 2009 Dec;20(4):271-5. doi: 10.4318/tjg.2009.0025.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The major goals of analgesia and sedation are to provide pain control and anxiolysis and to facilitate therapeutic and diagnostic interventions. A combination of midazolam and an opioid is usually administered to achieve sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy. However, the value of adding analgesics to sedative agents has not been well evaluated. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of midazolam versus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy.
A total of 74 patients admitted for routine colonoscopy to our hospital between September 2008 and March 2009 were eligible for the study. The midazolam group received midazolam (n=34) and the midazolam/meperidine group received midazolam plus meperidine (n=40). Data regarding the procedure times, degree of pain (determined according to the standard visual analog scales and recovery time were collected.
There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the rate of inadequate bowel preparation. Mean visual analog scales scores were over three points and similar in the two groups. Recovery times (in minutes) were similar in the two groups (28.2 min, SD 5.3 for the midazolam/meperidine sedation group and 28.3 min, SD 5.4 for the midazolam group). The total procedure times were also similar in the two groups (mean 18.64 min, SD 6.7 vs 19.3 min, SD 10.1). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the recovery time, procedures times and visual analog scales mean scores.
Patient safety, outcomes, and satisfaction are similar in colonoscopy procedures performed under sedation protocols using either midazolam and meperidine or midazolam alone. Although endoscopists favor the use of both medications together, adding meperidine to midazolam before the colonoscopy does not seem to have additive beneficial effect for the patients.
背景/目的:镇痛和镇静的主要目标是控制疼痛、缓解焦虑,并促进治疗和诊断干预。结肠镜检查期间,通常联合使用咪达唑仑和阿片类药物以实现镇静和镇痛。然而,在镇静剂中添加镇痛药的价值尚未得到充分评估。在本研究中,我们比较了咪达唑仑与咪达唑仑加哌替啶用于结肠镜检查的疗效和安全性。
2008年9月至2009年3月期间,我院共有74例因常规结肠镜检查入院的患者符合研究条件。咪达唑仑组接受咪达唑仑(n = 34),咪达唑仑/哌替啶组接受咪达唑仑加哌替啶(n = 40)。收集有关操作时间、疼痛程度(根据标准视觉模拟量表确定)和恢复时间的数据。
两组间肠道准备不充分的发生率无显著差异。两组的平均视觉模拟量表评分均超过3分且相似。两组的恢复时间(分钟)相似(咪达唑仑/哌替啶镇静组为28.2分钟,标准差5.3;咪达唑仑组为28.3分钟,标准差5.4)。两组的总操作时间也相似(平均18.64分钟,标准差6.7对19.3分钟,标准差10.1)。两组在恢复时间、操作时间和视觉模拟量表平均评分方面无统计学显著差异。
在使用咪达唑仑和哌替啶或单独使用咪达唑仑的镇静方案下进行的结肠镜检查中,患者的安全性、结局和满意度相似。尽管内镜医师倾向于联合使用这两种药物,但在结肠镜检查前在咪达唑仑中添加哌替啶对患者似乎没有额外的有益效果。