RESUMEN

Antecedentes y objetivos: propofol y midazolam son dos de los fármacos más utilizados en la endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA). El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar dos protocolos de sedación utilizando estos fármacos en pacientes sometidos a una EDA en términos de seguridad, eficiencia, calidad de la exploración y aceptación del paciente. Pacientes y métodos: estudio prospectivo, randomizado y a doble ciego, en el que se incluyó a 83 pacientes de 18-80 años, de bajo riesgo anestésico (ASA I-II) sometidos a EDA diagnóstica, aleatorizados a recibir propofol más placebo (grupo A) o midazolam más propofol (grupo B). Resultados: en el grupo A, 42 pacientes recibieron un bolo de placebo (suero salino) y propofol en bolos de 20 mg hasta una media de 115 mg; en el grupo B, 41 pacientes recibieron 3 mg de midazolam y bolos de 20 mg de propofol hasta una media 83 mg. No hubo diferencias significativas en los efectos adversos en ambos grupos y los que se presentaron se trataron de forma conservadora. Los pacientes en el grupo B (midazolam más propofol) alcanzaron de forma más rápida la sedación deseada sin variar el tiempo global de la exploración. La calidad en la evaluación endoscópica fue similar en ambos grupos y los pacientes se sintieron igualmente satisfechos con ambos regímenes de sedación. Conclusiones: la sedación con midazolam más propofol no afecta al tiempo global de la exploración, utiliza menos dosis de propofol, es tan segura como la administración del propofol en monoterapia, proporciona igual calidad de exploración y similar aceptación por los pacientes

Background and objectives: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. Patients and methods: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). Results: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. Conclusions: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). RESULTS: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. CONCLUSIONS: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Infections are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients because of treatment with immunosuppressive agents. Infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are infrequent but may be a major cause of morbidity. Treatment is associated with therapeutic limitations due to drug interactions with immunosuppressive agents and enhanced toxicity. Treatment of NTM infection most commonly involves surgery, reducing the doses of immunosuppressive medications and/or therapy with antimycobacterial medications The American Thoracic Society recommends isoniazid, rifampicin, and ethambutol. The current duration for treatment of pulmonary disease caused by Mycobacterium kansasii is 18 months. We describe the case of an immunosuppressed liver transplant recipient with poor outcome due to acute cholangitis who also developed concomitant infection with an uncommon organism, M. kansasii, in the late posttransplantation period.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Las infecciones son una de las principales causas de morbilidad y mortalidad en pacientes trasplantados, dado el tratamiento con terapia inmunosupresora. Las infecciones por micobacterias no tuberculosas (MNT) son infrecuentes, pero pueden causar una gran morbilidad. El tratamiento está asociado a limitaciones terapéuticas debido al aumento de toxicidad y a las interacciones con el tratamiento inmunosupresor. Las infecciones por MNT pueden tratarse con cirugía, reduciendo la dosis de inmunosupresores y/o con antimicobacterianos. La American Thoracic Society (ATS) recomienda tratamiento con isoniazida, rifampicina y etambutol, que debe mantenerse durante 18 meses en el caso de infección pulmonar por Mycobacterium kansasii. Presentamos a continuación el caso clínico de un paciente inmunodeprimido a causa de un trasplante hepático, con evolución infausta debido a una colangitis aguda, que presentó además una infección respiratoria concomitante por un microorganismo poco frecuente, M. kansasii, en el período tardío postrasplante (AU)

Infections are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients because of treatment with immunosuppressive agents. Infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are infrequent but may be a major cause of morbidity. Treatment is associated with therapeutic limitations due to drug interactions with immunosuppressive agents and enhanced toxicity. Treatment of NTM infection most commonly involves surgery, reducing the doses of immunosuppressive medications and/or therapy with antimycobacterial medications The American Thoracic Society recommends isoniazid, rifampicin, and ethambutol. The current duration for treatment of pulmonary disease caused by Mycobacterium kansasii is 18 months. We describe the case of an immunosuppressed liver transplant recipient with poor outcome due to acute cholangitis who also developed concomitant infection with an uncommon organism, M. kansasii, in the late posttransplantation period (AU)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

No disponible

No disponible

Asunto(s)