Etomidate and midazolam for reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation: a randomized,controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether patients with acute, anterior shoulder dislocation undergoing emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) with intravenous etomidate would experience a reduced time of impaired consciousness when compared with a group of patients receiving intravenous midazolam. METHODS: This study was a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, institutional review board-approved trial of ED patients with anterior shoulder dislocation. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous boluses of etomidate (0.1 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.033 mg/kg) during PSA. The primary outcome for comparison was PSA duration. RESULTS: Forty-six patients with anterior shoulder dislocation were enrolled: 22 in the etomidate group and 24 in the midazolam group. Three patients sustained reduction without physician or sedative intervention. Two patients were excluded from protocol because of unavailable study drug or fracture dislocation. The median lowest modified postanesthetic recovery score observed during PSA was 5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4 to 7) in the etomidate group and 6 (95% CI 6 to 7) in the midazolam group. The median time of PSA for patients receiving etomidate was 10 minutes (95% CI 8 to 15) compared with 23 minutes (95% CI 16 to 30) for patients receiving midazolam, with a difference between the group medians of 13 minutes (95% CI 5 to 22). Reduction success was achieved in 37 (90%) of 41 patients: 2 did not experience reduction with etomidate and 2 did not experience reduction with midazolam. There were 15 PSA complications reported. CONCLUSION: Etomidate provides effective PSA for reduction of ED patients with anterior shoulder dislocation. When compared with midazolam, etomidate use confers a significantly shorter period of PSA.     

Comparison of midazolam with or without fentanyl for conscious sedation and hemodynamics in coronary angiography

OBJECTIVE: To compare the hemodynamic and sedative effects of midazolam - with or without fentanyl combination - with placebo in coronary angiography. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized study. SETTING: University medical centre. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing coronary angiography. INTERVENTIONS: Demographic data, hemodynamic variables, sedation and anxiety scores, amnesia, patient and cardiologist satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated and compared among coronary angiography patients taking midazolam, midazolam and fentanyl, or placebo before the procedure. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety patients scheduled for coronary angiography were randomly assigned into three groups: a midazolam-placebo group (group MP), a midazolam-fentanyl group (group MF) and a placebo group (group P). Hemodynamic stability was better in each sedation group (groups MP and MF) than in group P. Sedation scores, anxiolysis, and patient and cardiologist satisfaction were not different between the sedation groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques of conscious sedation - midazolam and midazolam with fentanyl - are satisfactory for coronary angiography where hemodynamic stability and patient cooperation are required. In such procedures, local anesthesia without sedation may lead to hypertension and increase overall morbidity.     

Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.     

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for analgesia and sedation in the emergency department

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) as a noninvasive method of providing analgesia and sedation for patients in the emergency department. DESIGN: Prospective, nonblinded. SETTING: ED of a tertiary care university hospital. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Ten patients, 6 to 34 years old, with acute painful conditions requiring treatment in the ED. INTERVENTIONS: Premedication with OTFC and local anesthetic prior to incision or wound closure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain and activity (sedation) scores, vital signs (including systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressures, heart and respiratory rates, and pulse oximetry-determined oxygen saturation) were measured before and at two- to ten-minute intervals during and after OTFC consumption. All patients accepted OTFC. Patients received an average of 13.7 +/- 2.5 micrograms/kg of fentanyl citrate in 11.8 +/- 6.8 minutes. Decreases in pain were reported in two patients in two minutes and by all patients 14 minutes after beginning OTFC consumption. Sixty percent of patients became drowsy or sedated 12 to 30 minutes after beginning OTFC. Vital signs and oxygen saturation changes were small and not clinically significant. The most important side effects were pruritus (30%), nausea (20%), and dizziness and dry mouth (40%). All were considered mild and not disturbing, although one patient required post-procedure antiemetic therapy for recurrent vomiting. The mean time to discharge from the ED was 139 +/- 54 minutes after receiving OTFC. CONCLUSION: OTFC may be useful in providing rapid, noninvasive analgesia and sedation in the ED and deserves further evaluation.     

Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol

OBJECTIVES: Nurse-administered propofol has gained attention as a safe and effective means of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the effect of propofol on the technical performance of colonoscopy. METHODS: Three separate studies were conducted. In the first study, we reviewed procedure notes from consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist at our hospital endoscopy unit on patients sedated with either nurse-administered propofol (n = 162) or midazolam/narcotic (n = 164). In the second study, 100 eligible colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to receive either nurse-administered propofol (n = 50) or midazolam/fentanyl (n = 50). In both studies, the measured parameters included visualization of the cecum, time required to reach the cecum, repositioning of the patient, and the application of abdominal counterpressure. In a third study, we reviewed the rate of cecal intubation and colonic perforation in the first 2357 patients in our unit receiving nurse-administered propofol. RESULTS: In the retrospective comparative study, there was no difference in the cecal intubation rate in those receiving propofol (99.4%) compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (97%; p= 0.1), and three of five failed cecal intubations in the latter group resulted from obstructing masses. Patients sedated with propofol were repositioned less frequently compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (3.7%vs 26.2%) (p < 0.0001). Abdominal pressure was employed in 9.9% of patients sedated with propofol compared to 19.5% (p= 0.01) of those given midazolam/narcotic. The mean time to reach the cecum was lower in the propofol group than in the midazolam/narcotic group (4.6 min vs 6.0 min, p= 0.002). In the prospective randomized study, the endoscopist intubated the cecum in all 100 patients. Patients in the propofol group were repositioned less frequently than those in the midazolam/fentanyl group (2%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.001). The number of cases requiring abdominal counterpressure was not significantly different between the propofol and midazolam/fentanyl groups (12%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.1). The mean time to reach the cecum in the propofol group (3.2 min) was similar to that in the midazolam/fentanyl group (3.8 min, p= 0.08). Among the first 2357 patients in our unit undergoing colonoscopy with nurse-administered propofol, the rate of complete colonoscopy was 99.2% and there were no perforations. CONCLUSION: Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and simplifies the technical performance of colonoscopy compared to midazolam/narcotic sedation.     

Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the standard regimen of midazolam and pethidine administered by the gastroenterologist versus patient controlled sedation with a propofol-fentanyl mixture during upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography. Our primary end-points were patient satisfaction and patient cooperation assessed by endoscopist. METHODS: Fifty-four consecutive patients, undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography, received sedation with midazolam and pethidine (Group M: n=27) or propofol and fentanyl (Group P: n=27). Group M: pethidine 0.7mg/kg midazolam 0.04mg/kg before examination; boluses of same drugs if the sedation was insufficient plus a sham patient controlled sedation analgesia; Group P: propofol 17mg plus fentanyl 15microg before examination and a patient controlled sedation analgesia pump containing 170mg propofol plus 150microg fentanyl injecting 0.5ml every time the patient pressed the button (no "lock out"). Boluses of 1ml of the same mixture if the sedation was insufficient. RESULTS: Group M: mean dosage of pethidine and midazolam 88.6 and 5mg, respectively. Group P: mean dosage of propofol and fentanyl 119.7mg and 106microg, respectively. Both groups were similar for duration and difficulty of the procedure, the grade of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score) and judgement by endoscopist and patient about cooperation and satisfaction. The only difference between groups was about the extra boluses administered during the procedure. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a patient controlled sedation analgesia with propofol and fentanyl is an effective and safe technique for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography procedures and results in a high level of satisfaction both for patients and operator.     

Stepwise sedation is safe and effective for the insertion of central venous catheters

BACKGROUND: The introduction of a central venous catheter in haemodialysis patients is an unpleasant procedure for the patient. Intravenous sedation is accepted practice in complicated endoscopic procedures but not often used in haemodialysis patients. METHODS: We developed a protocol for the use of stepwise sedation in these patients with the use of midazolam and fentanyl. RESULTS: Stepwise sedation with midazolam and fentanyl was used in 155 procedures. No or minor movements were observed in 94% of 154 procedures. 88% of the 155 procedures were graded as very easy or easy. No or only very slight recall of the procedure were noted in 86% of 133 procedures. Only in 7% of 132 procedures were the patients able to recollect most of the procedure. No, or only a small amount of pain was recollected in 93% of 131 procedures. The most important complication was a slight decrease in oxygen saturation in 23 procedures. In the second part of the study we compared the effects of sedation with midazolam alone versus the combination of midazolam and fentanyl for the introduction of Tesio catheters. Amnesia, ease of procedure and the recollection of pain were equivalent. Oxygen desaturation occurred significantly less often with the use of midazolam alone. CONCLUSION: We conclude that stepwise sedation is effective and safe in haemodialysis patients and leads to a complete amnesia for the procedure.     

Conscious sedation with intermittent midazolam and fentanyl in electrophysiology procedures

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of intermittent midazolam and fentanyl conscious sedation for electrophysiology procedures (EP). BACKGROUND: Intermittent midazolam and fentanyl conscious sedation was administered in 700 consecutive cases (175 radiofrequency ablations, 163 EP studies, 261 pacemakers, and 101 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) for 471 patients (239 males, 51%) mean age 65 +/- 15 years. The mean dose of midazolam was 0.063 mg/kg/hr and fentanyl was 0.591 microgram/kg/hr. METHODS: Cardiac rate and rhythm were monitored continuously, while blood pressure and arterial oxygen saturation were noninvasively assessed every 5 minutes. Drugs were administered in aliquots of 0.5 to 2.0 mg of midazolam and 6.25 to 25 micrograms of fentanyl as determined by clinical condition every 15 to 30 minutes. RESULTS: There were no deaths. In no case was endotracheal intubation required. Mild hypoxemia (SaO2 > 80%, but < 90%) occurred in 17 cases (2.4%) and was easily reversed with verbal stimulation and oropharyngeal repositioning (12 cases, 1.7%), increased F1O2 (3 cases, 0.4%), or intravenous naloxone (2 cases, 0.3%). Reversible hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90, but > 60 mmHg) occurred in 14 patients (2.0%) and was corrected with intravenous crystalloid bolus or flumazenil (10 cases, 1.4%) or inotrope infusion (4 cases, 0.6%). No patient stay was prolonged due to sedation. Only five patients (0.7%) had any recollection of the procedure, while two (0.3%) were aware of pain. All hypoxemic episodes occurred during the first hour, whereas 43% (6/14) of hypotensive episodes occurred after the first hour. CONCLUSION: Conscious sedation with intermittent midazolam and fentanyl is safe and efficacious for a broad range of EP procedures.     

The electrostabilizing effect of a combination of midazolam and fentanyl: an experimental study in the dog

Using a model of local myocardial ischaemia in the dog, the authors studied the electrostabilizing effect of a combination of the benzodiazepine midazolam (Dormicum Hoffman--La Roche) and the strong narcotic analgesic drug Fentanyl (Richter). The electrostabilizing effect was assessed using the method of ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT) measurement. The same increase in the fibrillation threshold as that induced by the administration of midazolam or fentanyl alone was achieved by a combination of both drugs given, however, in reduced doses. The electrostabilizing effect of benzodiazepines and potent analgesics is enhanced by their simultaneous administration. At the same time, the adverse side effects observed on the administration of fentanyl alone (bradycardias, hypotension, cardiac blockade) due to the prevalence of parasympathetic drive, are reduced. Simultaneous administration of a benzodiazepine and an analgesic has become a modern technique, in anaesthesiology, so-called analgosedation. Experiments have shown the technique, in addition to the generally recognized analgesia, sedation and anxiolysis, exerts electrostabilizing effects on the myocardium damaged by ischaemia. The authors therefore recommend analgosedation in the drug treatment of acute myocardial infarction.     

Safety and efficacy of ketamine sedation for infant flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience with ketamine sedation during infant flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. Infants were sedated with midazolam and ketamine with or without fentanyl. The sedation regimen, final procedure performed, procedure duration, and complications were recorded. Complication rates between infants 6 months of age and between infants with upper vs lower airway symptoms were compared by chi(2) test with a contingency table. RESULTS: Fifty-nine procedures were performed in 55 patients aged 6.1 +/- 3.1 months (mean +/- SD). Sedation was achieved with ketamine and midazolam (n = 30) or ketamine, midazolam, and fentanyl (n = 29). Bronchoscopy with BAL was performed in 44 patients and bronchoscopy alone in 3 patients. In 11 patients, severe upper airway obstruction and/or anomalies prevented subglottic passage of the bronchoscope. One patient could not be adequately sedated. There were no major complications. Minor complications occurred in 14 patients (23.7%), most commonly mild hypoxemia (n = 9). Brief central apnea developed in three patients. Complication rates were unaffected by age or indication for bronchoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Infant flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy can be safely and effectively performed using ketamine sedation. Complications, especially mild hypoxemia, appear more common in infants, likely due to smaller airway diameter. Regardless of the sedative(s) used, additional vigilance is required when performing bronchoscopy in this population.     

Necessity of radiographs in the emergency department management of shoulder dislocations

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the necessity of radiographs in the emergency department management of patients with suspected shoulder dislocation. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated, Level I trauma center ED with an emergency medicine residency program. Physicians entered all patients with a suspected shoulder dislocation and reported whether they were certain that the patient's shoulder was dislocated or reduced, before obtaining radiographs. Outcome measures were the assessments of joint position and the radiology reports of prereduction and postreduction films. RESULTS: One hundred four patients were enrolled in the study, including 98 with shoulder dislocations, and 191 physician assessments were performed (96 prereduction, 95 postreduction). Twenty-eight patients had recurrent dislocations with an atraumatic mechanism (group 1), and 76 had no prior dislocation or a blunt mechanism of injury (group 2). There were no fractures in group 1 patients; the accuracy of confident assessments was 100% (95% confidence interval 92% to 100%). In group 2, the accuracy of confident assessments was 98% (95% confidence interval 94% to 100%). Incorrect assessments occurred only in patients with fractures. A derived algorithm would have reduced radiographs by 51%. CONCLUSION: Physicians are highly accurate in the clinical determination of shoulder dislocation and relocation. Radiographs should be obtained when the physician is uncertain of dislocation or reduction. Prereduction films should be obtained for patients with a blunt traumatic mechanism of injury, and postreduction for those found to have a fracture-dislocation. However, postreduction films add little in patients without fractures, and neither prereduction nor postreduction films are likely to affect the ED management of patients with recurrent dislocation by an atraumatic mechanism. Prospective validation of the derived algorithm is suggested.     

右美托咪定对小儿先天性心脏病外科手术麻醉血流动力学的影响

目的探讨右美托咪定对小儿先天性心脏病外科手术麻醉过程中血流动力学的影响。方法将68例在体外循环下行心脏手术的先天性心脏病患儿按随机数字法随机分为咪达唑仑组(n=34)和右美托咪定组(n=34)。麻醉诱导:两组均给予咪达唑仑0.2 mg/kg、芬太尼10μg/kg、维库溴铵0.2 mg/kg行麻醉诱导。麻醉诱导后,行气管内插管,机械通气。麻醉维持:咪达唑仑组输注咪达唑仑0.2 mg.kg-1.h-1和芬太尼10μg.kg-1.h-1,1 h后分别以0.1μg.kg-1.h-1和5μg.kg-1.h-1维持;右美托咪定组输注右美托咪定1μg.kg-1.h-1和芬太尼10μg.kg-1.h-1,1 h后分别以0.5μg.kg-1.h-1和5μg.kg-1.h-1维持。必要时以0.4%～1.0%异氟醚吸入维持麻醉。监测并记录记录麻醉诱导前、麻醉后1 h、切皮前、切皮后即刻、手术结束即刻、手术结束后10 min的血压和心率。结果两组患儿在输注麻醉药物1 h后,收缩压和心率均显著降低,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);在切皮时,咪达唑仑组收缩压、舒张压和心率较切皮前明显增高,且明显高于右美托咪定组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);右美托咪定组较少患儿需加用异氟醚,与咪达唑仑组比较,差异有统计学意义[35.3%(12/34)vs.85.3%(29/34),χ2=17.752,P=0.000]。结论与咪达唑仑比较,右美托咪定可更有效的维持小儿先天性心脏病外科手术麻醉过程中的血流动力学稳定。     

Anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy in a World Gastroenterology Organization Endoscopy Training Center

AIM:To study the anesthetic management of patients undergoing small bowel enteroscopy in the World Gastroenterology Organization(WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.METHODS:Patients who underwent small bowel enteroscopy during the period of March 2005 to March 2011 in Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center were retrospectively analyzed.The patients’ characteristics,pre-anesthetic problems,anesthetic techniques,anesthetic agents,anesthetic time,type and route of procedure and anesthesia-related complications were assessed.RESULTS:One hundred and forty-four patients underwent this procedure during the study period.The mean age of the patients was 57.6 ± 17.2 years,andmost were American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA) class Ⅱ(53.2%).Indications for this procedure were gastrointestinal bleeding(59.7%),chronic diarrhea(14.3%),protein losing enteropathy(2.6%) and others(23.4%).Hematologic disease,hypertension,heart disease and electrolyte imbalance were the most common pre-anesthetic problems.General anesthesia with endotracheal tube was the anesthetic technique mainly employed(50.6%).The main anesthetic agents administered were fentanyl,propofol and midazolam.The mean anesthetic time was 94.0 ± 50.5 min.Single balloon and oral(antegrade) intubation was the most common type and route of enteroscopy.The anesthesia-related complication rate was relatively high.The overall and cardiovascular-related complication rates including hypotension in the older patient group(aged ≥ 60 years old) were significantly higher than those in the younger group.CONCLUSION:During anesthetic management for small bowel enteroscopy,special techniques and drugs are not routinely required.However,for safety reasons anesthetic personnel need to optimize the patient’s condition.     

心房颤动经导管射频消融的止痛治疗

目的研究小剂量咪唑安定联合芬太尼在心房颤动(简称房颤)经导管射频消融术中的止痛疗效及安全性。方法对50例房颤患者在CARTO指导下行环肺静脉电隔离和/或左房线性消融。消融前静脉给予1μg/kg芬太尼和0.4mg/kg咪唑安定,术中以小剂量(1μg.kg-1.h-1)芬太尼静脉维持,消融剂量1～3μg.kg.-1.h-1,消融剂量以患者无疼痛或仅有轻微疼痛掌握,特别疼痛处加用咪唑安定1mg。结果50例共隔离肺静脉204根,17例患者加做左房线性消融,9例典型心房扑动患者加做右房峡部消融,即刻电隔离成功率98.0%。手术时间262±21min,透视时间38±7min,芬太尼剂量245±32μg,咪唑安定剂量3.1±1.1mg,术中患者仅有轻微疼痛。结论小剂量咪唑安定联合芬太尼在房颤经导管射频消融术中止痛治疗安全有效。     

Improving the selective use of plain radiographs in the initial evaluation of shoulder pain

OBJECTIVE: In a previous retrospective study, we had found that shoulder radiographs were overused in the initial evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department with shoulder pain. Our objective was to prospectively define clinical criteria that identify patients who have a low risk of radiographic findings that influence the management of the initial evaluation of shoulder pain in the emergency department. METHODS: All adult patients presenting to the emergency department of a university teaching hospital with shoulder pain were eligible to participate. Patients with deformities, penetrating wounds, referred pain, and those presenting for followup were excluded. Data were recorded prospectively using a standardized form. All radiographs were classified as therapeutically uninformative (TU) except fracture, acromioclavicular joint separation (> or =Grade 3), infection, or malignancy. A classification tree was used for analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred six patients had shoulder radiographs, of which 88% were TU. The model yielded 3 sets of low risk patients with a high percentage of TU radiographs: (1) no fall, no swelling (99% TU: 106 TU, 1 radiograph with lytic lesions in a cancer patient); (2) a fall, but no swelling, and no pain at rest (100% TU, n = 18); (3) a fall and pain at rest, but no swelling and normal range of motion (100% TU, n = 10). Not performing radiographs on these low risk patients would have decreased radiograph utilization from 52 to 18% of all shoulder patients seen. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that specific clinical criteria are able to identify patients who do not need radiographs as part of the initial management of shoulder pain. Prospective validation of these criteria are needed to confirm that these low risk patients can be safely evaluated without radiographs.     

右美托咪啶与咪达唑仑在电子支气管镜检查中随机双盲研究

目的 评估右美托咪啶联合芬太尼与咪达唑仑联合芬太尼在电子支气管镜镇静中的临床应用价值比较.方法 选择年龄在18～70岁、美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级1～3级的电子支气管镜检查患者52例进行前瞻性双盲研究,随机分为右美托咪啶组(右美托咪啶十芬太尼,D组)26例和咪达唑仑组(咪达唑仑十芬太尼,M组)26例.记录患者一般资料,麻醉前(T0)、进鼻腔时(T1)、过声门时(T2)、过声门后1 min (T3)、3 min (T4)、5 min (T5)的平均动脉压(MAP)、心率(HR)和Sp()2,镜检中情况、镜检时间及复苏时间,术后调查患者满意度.结果 D组HR在T1、T2、T3、T4、T5低于M组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),T0两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);D组Sp()2在T1、T2、T3、T4、T5高于M组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),T0两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).镜检过程中D组追加芬太尼人次、出现低氧血症人次均少于M组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);使用阿托品或异丙肾上腺素人次两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).D组患者镜检过程满意度较M组高,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);镜检时间、复苏时间两组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 右美托咪啶合并芬太尼在电子支气管镜检查中相比咪达唑仑合并芬太尼具有呼吸抑制不明显,患者舒适度高的优点,而对镜检和复苏时间影响不明显.     

Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: Propofol by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because the drug is commonly used to produce deep sedation or general anesthesia. Propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines can be titrated to moderate sedation, which might be safer. AIM: To compare recovery time, patient satisfaction, and other end points with propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol combination therapy with opioids and/or benzodiazepines. METHOD: A randomized controlled clinical trial of propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus fentanyl plus propofol versus midazolam plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam plus propofol in 200 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Each combination regimen was titrated to moderate sedation. RESULTS: Patients receiving propofol alone received higher doses of propofol and had deeper sedation scores compared with combination therapy (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving combination regimens were discharged more quickly (median 13.0-14.7 versus 18.1 min) than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.01). There were no differences in vital signs or oxygen saturations among the study arms. There were no significant differences in pain or satisfaction among the study arms in the recovery area. At a follow-up phone call, patients receiving fentanyl and propofol remembered more of the procedure than those in the other regimens (p < 0.005) and remembered more pain than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol in combination with fentanyl and/or midazolam can be titrated to moderate levels of sedation without substantial loss of satisfaction and with shorter recovery times compared with propofol titrated to deep sedation throughout the procedure.     

In vitro effects of intravenous anesthetics on the sphincter of Oddi strips of sheep.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous anesthetics are often used for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic sphincter of Oddi (SO) manometry. This study was designed to investigate the direct effects of some intravenous anesthetics on SO in sheep. METHODS: In sheep SO rings, changes in isometric tension in response to cumulative concentrations of intravenous anesthetics were determined, and values for Emax (mean maximal inhibition) and pD2 (i.e. the negative logarithm of the concentration for the half-maximal response, EC50) were compared. RESULTS: Meperidine (10(-7) to 3 x 10(-5) M), fentanyl (10(-7) to 3 x 10(-5) M), midazolam (10(-7) to 3 x 10(-5) M) and propofol (10(-7) to 3 x 10(-4) M) induced concentration-dependent relaxations on SO precontracted with carbachol (10(-6) M). Emax and pD2 values following meperidine, fentanyl and midazolam administration were significantly greater than after propofol (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in Emax and pD2 values for meperidine, fentanyl and midazolam. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that meperidine, fentanyl and midazolam are equipotent relaxants in the sheep SO in vitro. The relaxatory effect of propofol was 10 times less potent compared to the above agents, and it can be beneficial during SO manometry in controlled clinical human studies.