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:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Young Shim, Seo, Euikeun, Han, Jung-Ho, Yoon, Soon Man, Chae, Hee Bok, Park, Seon Mee, Youn, Sei Jin
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