Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol.
Lee, Hyun; Choe, Yeong Hun; Park, Seungyong.
Afiliación
  • Lee H; Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Choe YH; Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
  • Park S; Department of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea. cough@jbnu.ac.kr.
BMC Pulm Med ; 19(1): 240, 2019 Dec 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31818268
BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. METHODS: A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. RESULTS: Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p <  0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p <  0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p <  0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Broncoscopía / Sedación Consciente / Hipnóticos y Sedantes Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: BMC Pulm Med Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Broncoscopía / Sedación Consciente / Hipnóticos y Sedantes Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Asia Idioma: En Revista: BMC Pulm Med Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido