Safety and Efficacy of the Moderate Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopic Procedure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Moderate sedatives have been increasingly used to improve patient comfort during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, routine use of moderate sedation during FB is controversial because its efficacy and safety are not well established.This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of moderate sedation during FB.A search was made of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to May 2014.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included.The main analysis was designed to examine the efficacy of moderate sedation during FB in sedation than no-sedation.The willingness to repeat FB was significantly more in sedation than no-sedation (odds ratio [OR] 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–4.73; P = 0.02; I² = 22.5). The duration of FB was shorter in sedation group than no-sedation group (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.21; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.03; P = 0.02; I² = 78.3%). Event of hypoxia was not significantly different between sedation and no-sedation groups (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.42–1.73; P = 0.67; I² = 0%). The SpO₂ during procedure was not different between sedation and no-sedation groups (SMD −0.14; 95% CI −0.37 to 0.08; P = 0.21; I² = 49.9%). However, in subgroup analysis without supplemental oxygen, the SpO₂ was significantly lower in sedation than no-sedation group (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.11; P = 0.01; I² = 0.0%).According to this meta-analysis, moderate sedation in FB would be useful in patients who will require repeated bronchoscopies as well as safe in respiratory depression. To our knowledge, although the various sedative drugs are already used in the real field, this analysis was the first attempt to quantify objective results. We anticipate more definite and studies designed to elucidate standardized outcomes for moderate sedation in FB.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.     

不同波形低频率电刺激对小鼠海马电点燃癫痫的作用比较

目的观察比较不同脉冲波形的低频率电刺激对海马电点燃癫痫模型小鼠的作用差异。方法采用电点燃刺激法建立小鼠癫痫模型, 观察正弦波、单相方波、双相方波低频率电刺激对模型小鼠癫痫行为发作及后放电持续时间的影响, 并比较不同时间点给予正弦波低频率电刺激的抗癫痫作用。结果与对照组比较, 正弦波低频率电刺激30 s能降低小鼠海马电点燃癫痫发作等级(2.85 ± 0.27 vs 4.75 ±0.12, P < 0.05)、减少大发作概率(53.6% vs 96.5%, P < 0.01) 和缩短后放电持续时间[(16.22 ± 1.69) s vs (30.29 ± 1.12) s, P < 0.01], 而单相方波和双相方波低频率电刺激30 s没有明显的抗癫痫作用。常用的单相方波低频率电刺激15 min能降低小鼠海马电点燃发作等级(3.58 ± 0.16, P < 0.05)、减少大发作概率(66.7%, P < 0.01);但对海马后放电持续时间及大发作持续时间无影响(均 P>0.05)。此外, 电点燃刺激前预先给予或结束后3 s内给予正弦波低频率电刺激具有明显的抗癫痫作用( P < 0.05或 P < 0.01), 而电点燃刺激结束10 s给予正弦波低频率电刺激则无上述抗癫痫作用。 结论低频率电刺激抗癫痫作用受波形参数的影响, 其中正弦波低频率电刺激能有效抑制小鼠海马电点燃癫痫的发作。     

Comparative outcomes of vascular access in patients older than 70 years with end-stage renal disease

Objective

The advantage of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) in older patients requiring dialysis is controversial. We reviewed our vascular access experience in patients ≥70 years of age (older group) compared with younger patients.