Suppr超能文献

清醒镇静与监护麻醉护理下支气管镜检查期间患者舒适度的比较:一项前瞻性、观察性、对照研究。

Comparing Patient Comfort During Bronchoscopy Under Conscious Sedation and Monitored Anesthesia Care: A Prospective, Observational, Controlled Study.

作者信息

Hassan Kazmi Syed Murtaza, Abbasi Mahnoor Nawaz, Mudassir Yusra, Chaudhary Rashiqua Sulman, Siddiqa Ayesha, Atiq Muslim, Jafry Syed Shah Hussain, Ilyas Anum

机构信息

Pulmonology, Shifa International Hospital Islamabad, Islamabad, PAK.

General Medicine, Shifa International Hospital Islamabad, Islamabad, PAK.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Jun 14;16(6):e62381. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62381. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Flexible bronchoscopy (FB) often involves sedation, with the choice left to the bronchoscopist's discretion. Prior research on sedation in gastroscopic endoscopies yields conflicting information regarding the preferred method for FB. This study compares patient comfort levels during bronchoscopy with mindful sedation using fentanyl, nalbuphine, and midazolam versus monitored anesthesia care (MAC) using propofol, midazolam, and ketamine.

METHODS

This prospective observational study assessed 83 patients undergoing bronchoscopy under either conscious sedation (CS) (n=40) or MAC (n=43). Patient comfort, sedation levels, emotional state, recovery time, safety, and the impact of smoking history and comorbidities were evaluated. Data collection included direct patient questioning and observation using the Modified Observed Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) form.

RESULTS

Comfort levels were similar between groups, with mean scores of 3.6±0.89 for CS and 3.3±0.54 for MAC. MAC induced deeper sedation (mean scores: 4.37±0.66 vs. 3.8±0.98). Recovery time and complications were comparable. Emotional states and medical history did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

CS is not inferior to MAC for bronchoscopy, providing comparable comfort and safety with less intense sedation and lower cost. These findings support the use of CS for bronchoscopy procedures, offering a cost-effective alternative without compromising patient comfort or safety.

摘要

背景

可弯曲支气管镜检查(FB)通常需要镇静,具体选择由支气管镜检查医师自行决定。先前关于胃镜检查镇静的研究,对于FB的首选方法给出了相互矛盾的信息。本研究比较了在支气管镜检查期间,使用芬太尼、纳布啡和咪达唑仑进行正念镇静与使用丙泊酚、咪达唑仑和氯胺酮进行监护麻醉(MAC)时患者的舒适度。

方法

这项前瞻性观察性研究评估了83例接受清醒镇静(CS)(n = 40)或MAC(n = 43)下支气管镜检查的患者。评估了患者的舒适度、镇静水平、情绪状态、恢复时间、安全性,以及吸烟史和合并症的影响。数据收集包括直接询问患者和使用改良的警觉与镇静观察评估量表(MOAA/S)进行观察。

结果

两组的舒适度相似,CS组的平均评分为3.6±0.89,MAC组为3.3±0.54。MAC诱导的镇静更深(平均评分:4.37±0.66对3.8±0.98)。恢复时间和并发症相当。两组之间的情绪状态和病史没有显著差异。

结论

在支气管镜检查中,CS并不逊色于MAC,在提供相当的舒适度和安全性的同时,镇静程度较轻且成本较低。这些发现支持在支气管镜检查程序中使用CS,提供了一种经济有效的替代方案,而不影响患者的舒适度或安全性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/34fa/11246697/7afa402527f0/cureus-0016-00000062381-i01.jpg

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