Suppr超能文献

随机临床试验:一种改变内镜镇静实践的“推动”策略。

Randomised clinical trial: a 'nudge' strategy to modify endoscopic sedation practice.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Beaumont Hospital Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(2):229-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04703.x. Epub 2011 May 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In behavioural economics, a 'nudge' describes configuration of a choice to encourage a certain action without taking away freedom of choice.

AIM

To determine the impact of a 'nudge' strategy - prefilling either 3mL or 5mL syringes with midazolam - on endoscopic sedation practice.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing sedation for EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. On alternate weeks, midazolam was prefilled in either 3mL or 5mL syringes. Preprocedure sedation was administered by the endoscopist to achieve moderate conscious sedation; dosages were at the discretion of the endoscopist. Meperidine was not prefilled.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 patients received sedation for EGD [59 (5mL), 61 (3mL)] and 86 patients were sedated for colonoscopy [38 (5mL), 48 (3mL)]. For EGDs, average midazolam dose was significantly higher in the 5-mL group (5.2mg) vs. 3-mL group (3.3mg), (P<0.0001); for colonoscopies, average midazolam dose was also significantly higher in the 5-mL group (5.1mg) vs. 3-mL group (3.3mg), (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference in mean meperidine dose (42.1mg vs. 42.8mg, P=0.9) administered to both colonoscopy groups. No adverse sedation-related events occurred; no patient required reversal of sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that 'nudge' strategies may hold promise in modifying endoscopic sedation practice. Further research is required to explore the utility of 'nudges' in impacting other aspects of endoscopic practice.

摘要

背景

在行为经济学中,“推动”是指配置选择以鼓励某种行动,而不剥夺选择自由。

目的

确定“推动”策略——预填充 3 毫升或 5 毫升注射器中的咪达唑仑——对内镜镇静实践的影响。

方法

连续纳入接受 EGD 或结肠镜检查镇静的患者。在交替的周数中,咪达唑仑分别预填充在 3 毫升或 5 毫升注射器中。术前镇静由内镜医生给予,以达到中度镇静;剂量由内镜医生决定。未预填充哌替啶。

结果

共有 120 名患者接受 EGD 镇静[59 名(5 毫升),61 名(3 毫升)]和 86 名患者接受结肠镜镇静[38 名(5 毫升),48 名(3 毫升)]。对于 EGD,5 毫升组的咪达唑仑平均剂量明显高于 3 毫升组(5.2mg)vs.3 毫升组(3.3mg),(P<0.0001);对于结肠镜检查,5 毫升组的咪达唑仑平均剂量也明显高于 3 毫升组(5.1mg)vs.3 毫升组(3.3mg),(P<0.0001)。两组结肠镜检查的哌替啶平均剂量(42.1mg vs.42.8mg,P=0.9)无显著差异。没有发生与镇静相关的不良事件;没有患者需要镇静逆转。

结论

这些发现表明,“推动”策略可能有希望改变内镜镇静实践。需要进一步研究来探索“推动”在影响内镜实践其他方面的效用。

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