Minerva anestesiologica · 2009
Propofol sedation in a colorectal cancer screening outpatient cohort.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chelazzi C, Consales G, Boninsegni P, Bonanomi G A, Castiglione G, De Gaudio A R
Аннотация
AIM: Colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies require sedation for both anxiety and pain. Propofol is used worldwide and allows for rapid and profound sedation with quick recovery after cessation of infusion. However, there is still a debate about whether it should be administered by anesthetists, gastroenterologists, or trained nurses. The aim of the study was to assess the number and proportion of patients who might benefit from the quality and safety of sedation under propofol during colonoscopies in a cohort of colorectal cancer screening outpatients.
METHODS: Patients' genders, ages, numbers of operative procedures, and prior experience with colonoscopies were recorded, and differences were tested between sedated and unsedated patients. The need for mask ventilation and the rate of anesthetically, medically, or surgically related complications were compared between sedated and unsedated patients. The number of complete colonoscopies, length of the procedures, and time to reach the ileocecal valve were compared between sedated and unsedated patients.
RESULTS: Of 135 colonoscopies, 101 were performed under sedation. All sedated patients underwent complete endoscopic examinations, while 8.9% of unsedated patients had their examination stopped due to excessive discomfort or pain. Colonoscopies tended to be shorter in sedated than unsedated patients. No anesthesia-related complications occurred. In 3/135 patients, a short period (<3 min) of mask ventilation was necessary. One surgical complication occurred among the sedated patients. One unsedated patient suffered a medical complication (dyspnea and ST-T elevation).
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation can be safely applied to colorectal cancer screening outpatients. Sedation was managed by a dedicated anesthetic staff and no patient suffered anesthesia-related complications.
METHODS: Patients' genders, ages, numbers of operative procedures, and prior experience with colonoscopies were recorded, and differences were tested between sedated and unsedated patients. The need for mask ventilation and the rate of anesthetically, medically, or surgically related complications were compared between sedated and unsedated patients. The number of complete colonoscopies, length of the procedures, and time to reach the ileocecal valve were compared between sedated and unsedated patients.
RESULTS: Of 135 colonoscopies, 101 were performed under sedation. All sedated patients underwent complete endoscopic examinations, while 8.9% of unsedated patients had their examination stopped due to excessive discomfort or pain. Colonoscopies tended to be shorter in sedated than unsedated patients. No anesthesia-related complications occurred. In 3/135 patients, a short period (<3 min) of mask ventilation was necessary. One surgical complication occurred among the sedated patients. One unsedated patient suffered a medical complication (dyspnea and ST-T elevation).
CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation can be safely applied to colorectal cancer screening outpatients. Sedation was managed by a dedicated anesthetic staff and no patient suffered anesthesia-related complications.