Suppr超能文献

二氧化碳充气在上消化道内镜治疗深度镇静患者中的安全性。

Safety of carbon dioxide insufflation for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic treatment of patients under deep sedation.

机构信息

Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1638-45. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0824-5. Epub 2010 Jan 28.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is well known that carbon dioxide (CO(2)) is absorbed faster in the body than air and also that it is rapidly excreted through respiration. This study aimed to investigate the safety of CO(2) insufflation used for esophageal and gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients under deep sedation.

METHODS

Patients with either early gastric or esophageal cancers that could be resected by ESD were enrolled in this study from March 2007 to July 2008 and randomly assigned to undergo ESD procedures with CO(2) insufflation (CO(2) group) or air insufflation (air group). A TOSCA measurement system and TOSCA 500 monitor were used to measure and monitor both transcutaneous partial pressure of CO(2) (PtcCO(2)) and oxygen saturation (SpO(2)).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 89 patients and randomly assigned them to a CO(2) group (45 patients) or an air group (44 patients). The mean CO(2) group versus air group measurements were as follows: PtcCO(2) (49.1 +/- 5.0 vs. 50.1 +/- 5.3 mmHg; nonsignificant difference [NS]), maximum PtcCO(2) (55.1 +/- 6.5 vs. 56.8 +/- 7.0 mmHg; NS), PtcCO(2) elevation (9.1 +/- 5.4 vs. 11.4 +/- 5.6 mmHg; p = 0.054), SpO(2) (99.0 +/- 0.7% vs. 99.0 +/- 1.0%; NS), minimum SpO(2) (96.5 +/- 2.4% vs. 95.4 +/- 3.3%; p = 0.085), and SpO(2) depression (2.4 +/- 2.3% vs. 3.3 +/- 2.9%; NS). The PtcCO(2) and SpO(2) measurements were similar in the two groups, but the CO(2) group was better than the air group in PtcCO(2) elevation and minimum SpO(2).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrated CO(2) insufflation to be as safe as air insufflation for upper gastrointestinal tract ESDs performed for patients under deep sedation without evidencing any adverse effects.

摘要

背景

众所周知,二氧化碳(CO2)在体内的吸收速度快于空气,并且也通过呼吸迅速排出。本研究旨在探讨在深度镇静下的患者中使用 CO2 充气进行食管和胃内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)的安全性。

方法

本研究于 2007 年 3 月至 2008 年 7 月招募了可通过 ESD 切除的早期胃或食管癌症患者,并将其随机分配至 CO2 充气(CO2 组)或空气充气(空气组)进行 ESD 手术。使用 TOSCA 测量系统和 TOSCA 500 监测仪测量和监测经皮二氧化碳分压(PtcCO2)和氧饱和度(SpO2)。

结果

本研究共纳入 89 例患者,并将其随机分配至 CO2 组(45 例)或空气组(44 例)。CO2 组与空气组的平均测量值如下:PtcCO2(49.1±5.0 vs. 50.1±5.3mmHg;无显著差异[NS])、最大 PtcCO2(55.1±6.5 vs. 56.8±7.0mmHg;NS)、PtcCO2 升高(9.1±5.4 vs. 11.4±5.6mmHg;p=0.054)、SpO2(99.0±0.7% vs. 99.0±1.0%;NS)、最低 SpO2(96.5±2.4% vs. 95.4±3.3%;p=0.085)和 SpO2 降低(2.4±2.3% vs. 3.3±2.9%;NS)。两组的 PtcCO2 和 SpO2 测量值相似,但 CO2 组在 PtcCO2 升高和最低 SpO2 方面优于空气组。

结论

这些发现表明,在深度镇静下的患者中,与空气充气相比,CO2 充气用于上消化道 ESD 同样安全,且没有任何不良反应。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验