Cargando…
Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injecti...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32126750 http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2018.233 |
_version_ | 1783607737810157568 |
---|---|
author | Lee, Jae Gon Yoo, Kyo-Sang Byun, Young Jae |
author_facet | Lee, Jae Gon Yoo, Kyo-Sang Byun, Young Jae |
author_sort | Lee, Jae Gon |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP. METHODS: In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7652665 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | The Korean Association of Internal Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76526652020-11-18 Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Lee, Jae Gon Yoo, Kyo-Sang Byun, Young Jae Korean J Intern Med Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP. METHODS: In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time. The Korean Association of Internal Medicine 2020-11 2020-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7652665/ /pubmed/32126750 http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2018.233 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Korean Association of Internal Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Lee, Jae Gon Yoo, Kyo-Sang Byun, Young Jae Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title | Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_full | Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_fullStr | Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_full_unstemmed | Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_short | Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_sort | continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32126750 http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2018.233 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leejaegon continuousinfusionversusintermittentbolusinjectionofpropofolduringendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography AT yookyosang continuousinfusionversusintermittentbolusinjectionofpropofolduringendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography AT byunyoungjae continuousinfusionversusintermittentbolusinjectionofpropofolduringendoscopicretrogradecholangiopancreatography |