Kern Michael, Kerner Thoralf, Tank Sascha
Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Pain Medicine, Asklepios Klinikum Harburg, Eißendorfer Pferdeweg 52, 21075 Hamburg, Germany.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017 Aug;30(4):490-495. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000483.
This article focuses on the issue of sedation provided either by proceduralists or anesthesiologists for advanced bronchoscopy procedures. The relative merits of both approaches are presented. Current evidence from the literature and guideline recommendations relevant to this topic are reviewed.
In general, patient and proceduralist satisfaction as well as patient safety are increased when intravenous sedation is provided for advanced bronchoscopic procedures. However, guidelines by various societies remain vague on defining the appropriate level of care required when providing sedation for these procedures. In addition, targeted depth of sedation varies considerably among practitioners. While in some settings, nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation has been proven safe; nevertheless, its use is controversial, especially in the bronchoscopy suite.
The role of the anesthesiologist in sedation for advanced bronchoscopy remains undefined. When deep sedation for prolonged interventional procedures is needed or when dealing with patients who have multiple comorbidities, an anesthesiologist should be involved.
本文聚焦于由操作医生或麻醉医生为高级支气管镜检查操作提供镇静的问题。文中阐述了两种方法各自的优点。回顾了该主题相关的文献现有证据及指南建议。
总体而言,为高级支气管镜检查操作提供静脉镇静时,患者及操作医生的满意度以及患者安全性均有所提高。然而,各学会的指南在定义为这些操作提供镇静时所需的适当护理水平方面仍不明确。此外,不同从业者的目标镇静深度差异很大。虽然在某些情况下,非麻醉医生给予丙泊酚镇静已被证明是安全的;但其使用仍存在争议,尤其是在支气管镜检查室。
麻醉医生在高级支气管镜检查镇静中的作用仍不明确。当需要对延长的介入操作进行深度镇静或处理有多种合并症的患者时,应让麻醉医生参与。