Comparison of Propofol-based Sedation Regimens Administered During Colonoscopy

Autores/as

  • Tulin Akarsu Ayazoglu Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul – TURKEY
  • Erdal Polat Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY
  • Cihan Bolat Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul – TURKEY
  • Necdet F Yasar Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY
  • Ugur Duman Department of General Surgery, Bursa Sevket Yilmaz Training and Research Hospital, Bursa - TURKEY
  • Sabiye Akbulut Department of Gastroenterology, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY
  • Sinan Yol Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY

Palabras clave:

Colonoscopy, Conscious sedation, Dexmedetomidine, Midazolam, Propofol, Sufentanil

Resumen

COMPARISON OF PROPOFOL-BASED SEDATION REGIMENS ADMINISTERED DURING COLONOSCOPY

Background: The ideal sedative agent for endoscopic procedures should allow a rapid modification of the sedation level and should not have any adverse effects. Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of some propofol-based sedation regimens administered during colonoscopy. Material and methods: One hundred twenty one patients scheduled for elective outpatient colonoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to four groups to evaluate the administration of dexmedetomidine, sufentanil, meperidine and midazolam in combination with propofol to maintain sedation during the procedure. Evaluated outcomes were efficacy, safety, cost and patient satisfaction of sedation procedures. Results: Patients receiving dexmedetomidine achieved a higher degree of sedation when compared with the other groups (p<0.05). The lapse to recover protective reflexes and motor function, was significantly shorter in groups receiving dexmedetomidine or sufentanil than in groups receiving meperidine or midazolam (p<0.05). There were no differences between groups in pre-sedation and post-sedation neurophysiologic performance, measured by the Trail Making A and B tests. Conclusions: Sedation for endoscopy can be safely and effectively accomplished with low doses of propofol combined with dexmedetomidine, intranasal sufentanil, IV meperidine and IV meperidine with midazolam.

COMPARACIÓN DE PROTOCOLOS DE SEDACIÓN BASADOS EN PROPOFOL PARA OBTENER SEDACIÓN DURANTE ENDOSCOPÍAS

Antecedentes: El protocolo de sedación ideal para procedimientos endoscópicos es aquel que permita efectuar modificaciones rápidas del nivel de sedación y no tenga efectos secundarios. Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia, seguridad, costos y satisfacción del paciente con protocolos de sedación basados en propofol, durante colonoscopias. Material y métodos: Ciento veinte pacientes programados para una colonoscopía fueron aleatorizados en cuatro grupos en que se evaluó la administración de dexmedetomidina, sufentanil, meperidina y midazolam en combinación con propofol, para mantener la sedación durante el procedimiento. Se evaluó la eficacia, seguridad, costo y satisfacción del paciente con los diferentes protocolos de sedación. Resultados: Los pacientes que recibieron dexmedetomidina, alcanzaron un mayor nivel de sedación que el resto de los grupos. El lapso necesario para recuperar reflejos y funciones motoras protectoras, fue significativamente menor en los grupos que recibieron dexmedetomidina o  sufentanil comparado con los grupos que recibieron meperidina o midazolam (p<0.05). No hubo diferencias entre los grupos en la capacidad neuro-cognitiva, medida con los Tests de Reitan A y B, antes o después de la sedación. Conclusiones: Se puede obtener una buena sedación para endoscopía combinando dosis bajas de propofol con dexmedetomidina, sufentanil intranasal,  meperidina endovenosa con o sin midazolam.

 

 

 

 

Biografía del autor/a

Tulin Akarsu Ayazoglu, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul – TURKEY

000

Erdal Polat, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY

000

Cihan Bolat, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul – TURKEY

000

Necdet F Yasar, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY

000

Ugur Duman, Department of General Surgery, Bursa Sevket Yilmaz Training and Research Hospital, Bursa - TURKEY

Bursa Sevket Yilmaz Egitim ve Arast?rma Hastanesi, Genel Cerrahi Klinigi, Mimar Sinan Mahallesi, Emniyet Caddesi Y?ld?r?m – Bursa – TURKEY E – Mail: drugurduman@yahoo.com Phone: +902242955000 Fax: +902242944499 Mobile: +905368361846

Sabiye Akbulut, Department of Gastroenterology, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY

000

Sinan Yol, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kartal Kosuyolu High Specialty Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul - TURKEY

000

Descargas

Publicado

2013-04-05

Cómo citar

Akarsu Ayazoglu, T., Polat, E., Bolat, C., Yasar, N. F., Duman, U., Akbulut, S., & Yol, S. (2013). Comparison of Propofol-based Sedation Regimens Administered During Colonoscopy. Revista Médica De Chile, 141(4). Recuperado a partir de https://revistamedicadechile.cl/index.php/rmedica/article/view/2355

Número

Sección

Artículos de Investigación