Serviço de Gastrenterologia, Hospital Beatriz Ângelo, Loures, Portugal.
Endoscopy. 2016 Aug;48(8):747-53. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-105560. Epub 2016 Apr 21.
Propofol provides the best sedation in colonoscopy. The safety of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) is still a matter of debate. The aim of the current study was to evaluate sedation safety, colonoscopy quality, and patient satisfaction with NAAP.
The study was a single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial comparing NAAP (Group A) with anesthesiologist-administered sedation (Group B) performed at a single academic institution. Patients (18 - 80 years) who underwent colonoscopy and were at low anesthetic risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I - II) were included. The primary end point was the incidence of adverse events. Secondary end points were propofol dose, patient satisfaction and pain, colonoscopy quality indicators, and procedure and recovery times.
A total of 277 patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of adverse events was 39.3 % in Group A and 39.0 % in Group B (absolute difference - 0.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 % to 11.4 %; P = 0.959). There were no sentinel adverse events. The following interventions (Group A vs. Group B) were necessary: atropine administration (0 % vs. 5.5 %; P = 0.004); airway repositioning (8.7 % vs. 4.7 %; P = 0.196); increased oxygen administration (6.7 % vs. 3.9 %; P = 0.317), and increased fluid rate (2.7 % vs. 0.8 %; P = 0.379). There were no differences in cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates. Recovery times were longer in Group B (58 ± 33 vs. 67 ± 29 minutes; P = 0.032). There were no differences in mean propofol dose, withdrawal time, painless colonoscopy, satisfaction, and amnesia. All but two patients (Group B) were willing to repeat the colonoscopy.
NAAP is equivalent to anesthesiologist-administered sedation in the rate of adverse events in a low risk population.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02067065).
异丙酚在结肠镜检查中提供最佳的镇静效果。非麻醉医师管理异丙酚(NAAP)的安全性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估 NAAP 的镇静安全性、结肠镜检查质量和患者满意度。
本研究是一项单盲、非劣效性、随机对照试验,比较了单家学术机构中 NAAP(A 组)与麻醉医师管理镇静(B 组)的效果。纳入接受结肠镜检查且低麻醉风险(美国麻醉医师学会分级 I-II)的患者(18-80 岁)。主要终点是不良事件的发生率。次要终点是异丙酚剂量、患者满意度和疼痛、结肠镜检查质量指标以及操作和恢复时间。
共纳入 277 例患者进行分析。A 组不良事件发生率为 39.3%,B 组为 39.0%(绝对差值-0.3%,95%置信区间[CI]-12.0%至 11.4%;P=0.959)。无不良事件发生。以下干预措施(A 组与 B 组相比)是必要的:阿托品给药(0% vs. 5.5%;P=0.004);气道重新定位(8.7% vs. 4.7%;P=0.196);增加吸氧(6.7% vs. 3.9%;P=0.317);增加输液速度(2.7% vs. 0.8%;P=0.379)。盲肠插管率和腺瘤检出率无差异。B 组恢复时间较长(58±33 分钟 vs. 67±29 分钟;P=0.032)。异丙酚剂量、退出时间、无痛结肠镜检查、满意度和遗忘率无差异。除两名患者(B 组)外,所有患者均愿意再次接受结肠镜检查。
在低危人群中,NAAP 的不良事件发生率与麻醉医师管理镇静相当。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02067065)。