SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.110 número11Screening-detected colorectal cancers show better long-term survival compared with stage-matched symptomatic cancersSwitching from endoscopic submucosal dissection to salvage piecemeal knife-assisted snare resection to remove a lesion: a preoperative risk score from the beginning índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas

versión impresa ISSN 1130-0108

Resumen

GOMEZ, Laura-Julián et al. A clinical trial comparing propofol versus propofol plus midazolam in diagnostic endoscopy of patients with a low anesthetic risk. Rev. esp. enferm. dig. [online]. 2018, vol.110, n.11, pp.691-698. ISSN 1130-0108.  https://dx.doi.org/10.17235/reed.2018.5289/2017.

Background and objectives:

propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response.

Patients and methods:

a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B).

Results:

in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received.

Conclusions:

the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.

Palabras clave : Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Propofol; Midazolam; Prospective studies.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español | Inglés     · Español ( pdf ) | Inglés ( pdf )