Cargando…
Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
BACKGROUND/AIMS: For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD. METHODS:...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741108 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.22 |
_version_ | 1782234290832015360 |
---|---|
author | Cho, Young Shim Seo, Euikeun Han, Jung-Ho Yoon, Soon Man Chae, Hee Bok Park, Seon Mee Youn, Sei Jin |
author_facet | Cho, Young Shim Seo, Euikeun Han, Jung-Ho Yoon, Soon Man Chae, Hee Bok Park, Seon Mee Youn, Sei Jin |
author_sort | Cho, Young Shim |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD. METHODS: A total of 44 consecutive patients undergoing ESD were randomly assigned to the two groups. In the M group, 2 mg of midazolam was given repeatedly to maintain after a loading dose of 5 mg. The MP group initially received 5 mg of midazolam and 20 mg of propofol. Then, we increased the dosage of propofol by 20 mg gradually. RESULTS: The average amount of midazolam was 12 mg in the M group. In the M group, 10 patients were given propofol additionally, since they failed to achieve proper sedation. The average amount of propofol was 181 mg in the MP group. Procedure time, vital signs and rates of complications were not significantly different between two groups. Movement of patients and discomfort were lower in the MP group. CONCLUSIONS: During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3363047 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-33630472012-06-27 Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Cho, Young Shim Seo, Euikeun Han, Jung-Ho Yoon, Soon Man Chae, Hee Bok Park, Seon Mee Youn, Sei Jin Clin Endosc Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD. METHODS: A total of 44 consecutive patients undergoing ESD were randomly assigned to the two groups. In the M group, 2 mg of midazolam was given repeatedly to maintain after a loading dose of 5 mg. The MP group initially received 5 mg of midazolam and 20 mg of propofol. Then, we increased the dosage of propofol by 20 mg gradually. RESULTS: The average amount of midazolam was 12 mg in the M group. In the M group, 10 patients were given propofol additionally, since they failed to achieve proper sedation. The average amount of propofol was 181 mg in the MP group. Procedure time, vital signs and rates of complications were not significantly different between two groups. Movement of patients and discomfort were lower in the MP group. CONCLUSIONS: During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2011-09 2011-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3363047/ /pubmed/22741108 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.22 Text en Copyright © 2011 The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Cho, Young Shim Seo, Euikeun Han, Jung-Ho Yoon, Soon Man Chae, Hee Bok Park, Seon Mee Youn, Sei Jin Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title | Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_full | Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_short | Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_sort | comparison of midazolam alone versus midazolam plus propofol during endoscopic submucosal dissection |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741108 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choyoungshim comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT seoeuikeun comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT hanjungho comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT yoonsoonman comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT chaeheebok comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT parkseonmee comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT younseijin comparisonofmidazolamaloneversusmidazolampluspropofolduringendoscopicsubmucosaldissection |