Français
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014-Mar

Safety analysis of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation: a prospective, national multicenter study of 24 441 patients in German outpatient practices.

Seuls les utilisateurs enregistrés peuvent traduire des articles
Se connecter S'inscrire
Le lien est enregistré dans le presse-papiers
Andreas Sieg
bng-Study-Group
Sebastian Beck
Sabine G Scholl
Franz J Heil
Daniel N Gotthardt
Wolfgang Stremmel
Douglas K Rex
Kilian Friedrich

Mots clés

Abstrait

OBJECTIVE

Since 2008, there exists a German S3-guideline allowing non-anesthesiological administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this prospective, national, multicenter study, we evaluated the safety of endoscopist-administered propofol sedation (EDP) in German outpatient practices of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

In this multicenter survey of 53 ambulatory practices of Gastroenterology, we prospectively evaluated 24 441 patients that had received EDP. We recorded adverse events during the endoscopic procedure and additionally retrieved questionnaires investigating subjective parameters 24 h after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

In 24 441 patients 13 793 colonoscopies, 6467 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 4181 double examinations were performed. In this study, 52.1% of the patients received propofol mono-sedation, and 47.9% received a combination of midazolam and propofol. Major adverse events occurred in four patients (0.016%) enrolled to this study (three mask ventilations and one laryngospasm). Minor adverse events were observed in 112 patients (0.46%) with hypoxemia being the most common minor event. All patients with adverse events recovered without persistent impairment. Minor adverse events occurred more frequently in patients sedated with propofol mono compared to propofol and midazolam (P < 0.0001) and correlated with increasing propofol dosages (P < 0.001; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.044). Twenty-four hours after the endoscopy, patients sedated with propofol plus midazolam stated a significantly reduced sensation of pain (P < 0.01) and improved symptoms of dizziness, nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) compared to patients having received propofol mono-sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Four years after the implementation of a German S3-Guideline for endoscopic sedation, we demonstrated that EDP is a safe procedure.

Rejoignez notre
page facebook

La base de données d'herbes médicinales la plus complète soutenue par la science

  • Fonctionne en 55 langues
  • Cures à base de plantes soutenues par la science
  • Reconnaissance des herbes par image
  • Carte GPS interactive - étiquetez les herbes sur place (à venir)
  • Lisez les publications scientifiques liées à votre recherche
  • Rechercher les herbes médicinales par leurs effets
  • Organisez vos intérêts et restez à jour avec les nouvelles recherches, essais cliniques et brevets

Tapez un symptôme ou une maladie et lisez des informations sur les herbes qui pourraient aider, tapez une herbe et voyez les maladies et symptômes contre lesquels elle est utilisée.
* Toutes les informations sont basées sur des recherches scientifiques publiées

Google Play badgeApp Store badge