论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
丙泊酚平衡镇静用于支气管镜检查的有效性和安全性
Authors Wu X, Zhang L, Zhou Z, Qi L, Liu Y, Du X, Ma L, Ji X
Received 8 September 2024
Accepted for publication 3 December 2024
Published 12 December 2024 Volume 2024:20 Pages 849—860
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S495253
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Deyun Wang
Xinyu Wu,1 Lina Zhang,2 Zangong Zhou,1 Lijie Qi,1 Yinhuan Liu,1 Xuebin Du,1 Lixia Ma,1 Xiangyu Ji1
1Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Xiangyu Ji, Department of Anesthesiology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Shandong, People’s Republic of China, Email jixiangyu@qdu.edu.cn
Purpose: We conducted a prospective, real-world study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) in bronchoscopy and identify an advantageous sedation regimen for such procedures.
Patients and Methods: The participants were placed in four groups based on their sedation regimen (exposure factor): the M-S group (midazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), R-S group (remimazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), M-S-P group (midazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS), and R-S-P group (remimazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS). The primary outcomes included satisfaction metrics (satisfaction of the patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses) and follow-up questionnaires. The secondary outcomes included time metrics (induction time, recovery time, and discharge time), dosage metrics (induction dose, maintenance dose, and total dose of each sedative), completion rate of sedation, intraprocedural dose, and frequency of lidocaine spray in the airway, and incidence of adverse reactions.
Results: In total, 418 subjects were included in this study. Compared to traditional sedation, both BPS groups significantly increased the satisfaction of patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses (P < 0.05) and reduced the incidence of intraprocedural wakefulness (P < 0.05). Additionally, induction and recovery of the BPS group were rapid, with high sedation completion rates and no increase in the incidence of intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse reactions (P < 0.05). The RSP group was better than the MSP group in terms of various time metrics and postprocedural adverse reactions.
Conclusion: BPS can be safely and effectively applied during bronchoscopy, with remimazolam and sufentanil combined with a small dose of propofol being an optimal medication regimen.
Keywords: balanced propofol sedation, bronchoscopy, remimazolam, midazolam, procedural sedation