Jensen Jeppe Thue, Banning Anne-Marie, Clementsen Paul, Hammering Anne, Hornslet Pernille, Horsted Tina, Vilmann Peter
Anæstesiologisk Afdeling Z, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
Dan Med J. 2012 Aug;59(8):A4467.
This study provides an evaluation and risk analysis of propofol sedation for endoscopic pulmonary procedures according to our unit's "gastroenterologic nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) guideline".
The present study is a prospective descriptive study performed at the Endoscopy Unit, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, from May to July 2009. The study comprised at total of 51 consecutive patients who underwent 77 endoscopic procedures. Only patients above the age of 16 years were eligible for treatment. The exclusion criteria were as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class > 3, history of sedation-related complications, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Excluded were patients with a potentially difficult airway and ventricular retention. Data on the number and type of procedure, baseline characteristics, sedation time, propofol dose administered and adverse events were obtained from medical histories.
A total of 23 cases of adverse events were recorded, including one event of hypotension and 22 events of hypoxaemia. Five patients needed assisted ventilation. The frequency of hypoxaemia in sessions involving bronchoscopy was 17 of 26 (65%) compared with transoesophageal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (17 of 45, 35%) and endoscopic bronchial ultrasound (EBUS) (three of six, 50%). Endoscopist assessment of working conditions was good and patient assessment of discomfort was low. No patients required endotracheal intubation and there was no mortality.
This study supports the conclusion that propofol administered by nurses provides for good working conditions and satisfied patients. But our "NAPS for endoscopic gastroenterologic procedures" guideline was unsuited for endoscopic pulmonary procedures including EUS.
This work was supported by the START research foundation at Gentofte Hospital.
not relevant.
本研究根据本单位的“胃肠病学护士实施丙泊酚镇静(NAPS)指南”,对内镜肺部手术中丙泊酚镇静进行了评估和风险分析。
本研究是一项前瞻性描述性研究,于2009年5月至7月在哥本哈根根措夫特医院内镜科进行。该研究共纳入51例连续接受77例内镜手术的患者。仅16岁以上的患者符合治疗条件。排除标准如下:美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级>3、有镇静相关并发症病史、严重慢性阻塞性肺疾病。排除有潜在困难气道和心室潴留的患者。从病史中获取手术数量和类型、基线特征、镇静时间、丙泊酚给药剂量及不良事件的数据。
共记录到23例不良事件,包括1例低血压事件和22例低氧血症事件。5例患者需要辅助通气。支气管镜检查术中低氧血症的发生率为26例中的17例(65%),而经食管内镜超声检查(EUS)为45例中的17例(35%),内镜支气管超声检查(EBUS)为6例中的3例(50%)。内镜医师对工作条件的评估良好,患者对不适的评估较低。无患者需要气管插管,也无死亡病例。
本研究支持以下结论,即护士给予丙泊酚可提供良好的工作条件且患者满意。但我们的“内镜胃肠病学手术NAPS”指南不适用于包括EUS在内的内镜肺部手术。
本研究得到根措夫特医院START研究基金会的支持。
不相关。