Abstract
s / Pancreatology 14 (2014) S1eS129 S25 Aims: This study was conducted to compare sedation efficiency, safety and satisfaction by endoscopist and assistants between CI and IB of propofol for deep sedation during ERCP. Patients & methods: A total of 212 patients undergone ERCP were randomly assigned to either CI of propofol (n1⁄4106, continuous group (CG)) or midazolam plus IB of propofol (n1⁄4106, intermittent group (IG)). In the CG, propofol was continuously administered via infusion pump and the doses were determined by sedation assistants. In the IG, a loading dose of 2 mg of midazolam and 0.4 mg/kg of propofol was initially injected and repeated bolus injection of 20 mg of propofol was followed. Total dose of propofol, induction/recovery time, patients’ cooperation and adverse events during the procedure were evaluated. Satisfaction scores by patients/endoscopist and difficulty scores of maintaining the sedation by assistants were graded. Results: Induction time and recovery time showed no statistically significant differences between two groups. Satisfaction score by endoscopist was significantly higher in the CG than IG (9.62 vs. 8.06, p Conclusion: Continuous infusion of propofol was more efficient to maintain the constant level of sedation and more comfortable to endoscopist and sedation assistants for deep sedation during ERCP.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
