Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Incheon St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jan;93(1):201-208. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.05.045. Epub 2020 Jun 3.
The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.
We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events.
In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups.
In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.).
门诊结肠镜检查中最安全、最有效的镇静方法仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较咪达唑仑推注与滴定给药和丙泊酚给药用于门诊结肠镜检查患者的效率和安全性。
我们将接受结肠镜检查的患者随机分为丙泊酚组、咪达唑仑推注组和咪达唑仑滴定组。我们比较了 3 组之间的总操作时间、诱导时间、恢复时间和出院时间。我们还比较了患者满意度和不良事件的发生率。
研究期间共纳入 267 例患者(每组 89 例)。丙泊酚组的总操作时间(39.5 分钟比 59.4 分钟比 58.1 分钟;P<0.001)、诱导时间(4.6 分钟比 6.3 分钟比 7.6 分钟;P<0.001)、恢复时间(11.5 分钟比 29.5 分钟比 29.2 分钟;P<0.001)和出院时间(20.6 分钟比 34.9 分钟比 34.7 分钟;P<0.001)均短于咪达唑仑推注组和咪达唑仑滴定组。丙泊酚组患者的满意度高于咪达唑仑推注或滴定加哌替啶组(9.9 比 9.6 比 9.6[P=0.007]和 4.9 比 4.7 比 4.8[P=0.008])。各组之间不良事件无显著差异。
在这项随机试验中,与咪达唑仑推注或滴定相比,丙泊酚在门诊结肠镜检查中具有更高的内镜检查效率和患者满意度。(临床试验注册号:KCT0002805。)