Ni Yung-Lun, Lo Yu-Lun, Lin Ting-Yu, Fang Yueh-Fu, Kuo Han-Pin
Department of Thoracic Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Med J. 2010 Jul-Aug;33(4):443-52.
Conscious sedation for patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy (FB) is suggested to alleviate discomfort and improve satisfaction despite controversy regarding its benefits. In Taiwan, the general FB practice involves local anesthesia only. This study aimed to assess the benefits and risks of conscious sedation in diagnostic FB.
This prospective case control study enrolled 44 non-sedated and 44 sedated patients who underwent diagnostic FB. All received the standard upper airway preparation, while sedated patients received clinically judged increments of midazolam and alfentanil for conscious sedation. Patient discomforts and the operator's opinions during FB were assessed using the verbal analogue score (VAS, 0-10 scale). Willingness to return was assessed as five scales to monitor patient satisfaction. Safety profiles throughout the procedures were also assessed.
Compared to non-sedated patients, sedated ones expressed less discomfort, with lower VAS scores regarding scope insertion (3.5 [0-10] vs. 0 [0-5], p < 0.001), cough (5 [0-10] vs. 0 [0-5], p < 0.001), dyspnea (3 [0-10] vs. 0 [0-8], p < 0.001), pain (3 [0-10] vs. 0 [0-5], p < 0.001), and global tolerance of the procedures (5 [1-10] vs. 0 [0-9], p < 0.001). More sedated patients expressed willingness to return (70.5% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.001). The bronchoscopist also rated lower VAS scores on cough and dyspnea in sedated patients. Sedated patients had less hypertension but more hypoxemic episodes during the procedure, which were all transient and not life-threatening.
Conscious sedation with clinically judged midazolam and alfentanil reduces discomforts, improves satisfaction, and carries slight, but manageable, hypoxemia risks in patients undergoing FB.
尽管对于柔性支气管镜检查(FB)中实施清醒镇静的益处存在争议,但仍建议对接受该检查的患者进行清醒镇静以减轻不适并提高满意度。在台湾,一般的FB操作仅采用局部麻醉。本研究旨在评估诊断性FB中清醒镇静的益处和风险。
这项前瞻性病例对照研究纳入了44例未接受镇静和44例接受镇静的诊断性FB患者。所有患者均接受标准的上呼吸道准备,而接受镇静的患者根据临床判断增加咪达唑仑和阿芬太尼以进行清醒镇静。使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS,0-10分制)评估FB过程中患者的不适以及操作者的意见。将返回意愿评估为五个等级以监测患者满意度。还评估了整个操作过程中的安全性。
与未接受镇静的患者相比,接受镇静的患者不适程度较轻,在镜身插入方面VAS评分较低(3.5[0-10]对0[0-5],p<0.001),咳嗽(5[0-10]对0[0-5],p<0.001),呼吸困难(3[0-10]对0[0-8],p<0.001),疼痛(3[0-10]对0[0-5],p<0.001)以及对操作的总体耐受性(5[1-10]对0[0-9],p<0.001)。更多接受镇静的患者表示愿意返回(70.5%对36.4%,p=0.001)。支气管镜检查者对接受镇静患者的咳嗽和呼吸困难的VAS评分也较低。接受镇静的患者在操作过程中高血压情况较少,但低氧血症发作较多,这些均为短暂性且无生命危险。
采用临床判断的咪达唑仑和阿芬太尼进行清醒镇静可减轻接受FB患者的不适,提高满意度,并带来轻微但可控制的低氧血症风险。