Cargando…
Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
The main objective of this study is to evaluate general anesthesia or propofol-based sedation methods at gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. The anesthetic method administered to cases undergoing upper gastrointestinal ESD between 2013 and 2015 was retrospectively investigated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4902416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27196474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003680 |
_version_ | 1782436987366539264 |
---|---|
author | Yurtlu, Derya Arslan Aslan, Fatih Ayvat, Pinar Isik, Yasemin Karakus, Nesli Ünsal, Belkis Kizilkaya, Mehmet |
author_facet | Yurtlu, Derya Arslan Aslan, Fatih Ayvat, Pinar Isik, Yasemin Karakus, Nesli Ünsal, Belkis Kizilkaya, Mehmet |
author_sort | Yurtlu, Derya Arslan |
collection | PubMed |
description | The main objective of this study is to evaluate general anesthesia or propofol-based sedation methods at gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. The anesthetic method administered to cases undergoing upper gastrointestinal ESD between 2013 and 2015 was retrospectively investigated. Procedure time, lesion size, dissection speed, anesthesia time, adverse effects such as gag reflex, nausea, vomiting, cough, number of desaturation episodes (SpO(2) < 90%), oropharyngeal suctioning requirements, hemorrhage, perforation, and amount of anesthetic medications were recorded. There were 54 and 37 patients who were administered sedation (group S) and general anesthesia (group G), respectively. The demographics of the groups were similar. The calculated dissection speed was significantly high in group G (36.02 ± 20.96 mm(2)/min) compared with group S (26.04 ± 17.56 mm(2)/min; P = 0.010). The incidence of nausea, cough, number of oropharyngeal suctioning, and desaturation episodes were significantly high in group S compared with that in group G (P < 0.5). While there was no difference between the groups in terms of hemodynamic parameters, in group S the use of propofol and in group G the use of midazolam and fentanyl were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Anesthesia time, postoperative anesthesia care unit, and hospital stay durations were not significantly different between the groups. General anesthesia increased dissection speed and enhanced endoscopist performance when compared with propofol-based sedation technique. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4902416 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49024162016-06-23 Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Yurtlu, Derya Arslan Aslan, Fatih Ayvat, Pinar Isik, Yasemin Karakus, Nesli Ünsal, Belkis Kizilkaya, Mehmet Medicine (Baltimore) 3300 The main objective of this study is to evaluate general anesthesia or propofol-based sedation methods at gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. The anesthetic method administered to cases undergoing upper gastrointestinal ESD between 2013 and 2015 was retrospectively investigated. Procedure time, lesion size, dissection speed, anesthesia time, adverse effects such as gag reflex, nausea, vomiting, cough, number of desaturation episodes (SpO(2) < 90%), oropharyngeal suctioning requirements, hemorrhage, perforation, and amount of anesthetic medications were recorded. There were 54 and 37 patients who were administered sedation (group S) and general anesthesia (group G), respectively. The demographics of the groups were similar. The calculated dissection speed was significantly high in group G (36.02 ± 20.96 mm(2)/min) compared with group S (26.04 ± 17.56 mm(2)/min; P = 0.010). The incidence of nausea, cough, number of oropharyngeal suctioning, and desaturation episodes were significantly high in group S compared with that in group G (P < 0.5). While there was no difference between the groups in terms of hemodynamic parameters, in group S the use of propofol and in group G the use of midazolam and fentanyl were significantly higher (P < 0.05). Anesthesia time, postoperative anesthesia care unit, and hospital stay durations were not significantly different between the groups. General anesthesia increased dissection speed and enhanced endoscopist performance when compared with propofol-based sedation technique. Wolters Kluwer Health 2016-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4902416/ /pubmed/27196474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003680 Text en Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0 |
spellingShingle | 3300 Yurtlu, Derya Arslan Aslan, Fatih Ayvat, Pinar Isik, Yasemin Karakus, Nesli Ünsal, Belkis Kizilkaya, Mehmet Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title | Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_full | Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_fullStr | Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_full_unstemmed | Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_short | Propofol-Based Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection |
title_sort | propofol-based sedation versus general anesthesia for endoscopic submucosal dissection |
topic | 3300 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4902416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27196474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003680 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yurtluderyaarslan propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT aslanfatih propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT ayvatpinar propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT isikyasemin propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT karakusnesli propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT unsalbelkis propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection AT kizilkayamehmet propofolbasedsedationversusgeneralanesthesiaforendoscopicsubmucosaldissection |