Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

被引:11
作者
Akbulut, Ulas Emre [1 ]
Kartal, Seyfi [2 ]
Dogan, Ufuk [2 ]
Akcali, Gulgun Elif [2 ]
Kalayci, Serap [2 ]
Kirci, Hulya [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci, Dept Pediat Gastroenterol Hepatol & Nutr, Antalya Educ & Res Hosp, Antalya, Turkey
[2] Univ Hlth Sci, Dept Anesthesiol & Intens Care Med, Kanuni Training & Res Hosp, Trabzon, Turkey
[3] Univ Hlth Sci, Dept Pediat Gastroenterol Hepatol & Nutr, Kanuni Training & Res Hosp, Trabzon, Turkey
关键词
Conscious sedation; Endoscopy; Propofol; Midazolam; Children; MODERATE SEDATION; ESOPHAGOGASTRODUODENOSCOPY; COMBINATION; FENTANYL; KETAMINE; SAFETY;
D O I
10.5223/pghn.2019.22.3.217
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Purpose: Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined. Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p= 0.010). Conclusion: The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.
引用
收藏
页码:217 / 224
页数:8
相关论文
共 26 条
[21]   Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: Safe and effective administration by registered nurses supervised by endoscopists [J].
Tohda, G ;
Higashi, S ;
Wakahara, S ;
Morikawa, M ;
Sakumoto, H ;
Kane, T .
ENDOSCOPY, 2006, 38 (04) :360-367
[22]   Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues [J].
Triantafillidis, John K. ;
Merikas, Emmanuel ;
Nikolakis, Dimitrios ;
Papalois, Apostolos E. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 19 (04) :463-481
[23]   Safe and Effective Procedural Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Children [J].
van Beek, Elke J. A. H. ;
Leroy, Piet L. J. M. .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY AND NUTRITION, 2012, 54 (02) :171-185
[24]   Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy [J].
VanNatta, Megan E. ;
Rex, Douglas K. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (10) :2209-2217
[25]   Position Statement: Nonanesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for GI Endoscopy [J].
Vargo, John J. ;
Cohen, Lawrence B. ;
Rex, Douglas K. ;
Kwo, Paul Y. .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 137 (06) :2161-2167
[26]  
2015, J MAXILLOFAC ORAL SU, V14, P773, DOI DOI 10.1007/S12663-014-0676-Y