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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yurtlu, Derya Arslan, Aslan, Fatih, Ayvat, Pinar, Isik, Yasemin, Karakus, Nesli, Ünsal, Belkis, Kizilkaya, Mehmet
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