Comparison of sedation with pentazocine or pethidine hydrochloride for endoscopic ultrasonography in outpatients: A single‐center retrospective study
2024

Comparing Sedation Methods for Endoscopic Ultrasound

Sample size: 486 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Urabe Makiko, Ikezawa Kenji, Seiki Yusuke, Watsuji Ko, Kawamoto Yasuharu, Hirao Takeru, Kai Yugo, Takada Ryoji, Yamai Takuo, Mukai Kaori, Nakabori Tasuku, Uehara Hiroyuki, Ohkawa Kazuyoshi

Primary Institution: Osaka International Cancer Institute

Hypothesis

Is sedation with pethidine hydrochloride safer and more effective than sedation with pentazocine for outpatient diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography?

Conclusion

The combination of midazolam and pethidine hydrochloride is a more favorable anesthetic than the combination of midazolam and pentazocine for diagnostic EUS in outpatients.

Supporting Evidence

  • The median recovery time was shorter in the pethidine group (69 min) compared to the pentazocine group (77 min).
  • The frequency of nausea or vomiting was significantly lower in the pethidine group (0%) compared to the pentazocine group (6.2%).
  • The readmission rate to the recovery room was lower in the pethidine group (0%) compared to the pentazocine group (3.7%).

Takeaway

This study found that using pethidine hydrochloride for sedation during an ultrasound of the digestive system is better than using pentazocine because it leads to less nausea and a quicker recovery.

Methodology

A retrospective review of 1302 outpatient diagnostic EUS cases was conducted, comparing sedation with pentazocine and pethidine hydrochloride using propensity score matching.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the retrospective nature of the study and lack of assessment of operator and patient satisfaction.

Limitations

The study is a single-center observational study and does not include data on patient comorbidities or detailed patient backgrounds.

Participant Demographics

The median age of participants was 69 years, with a mix of male (61.7%) and female (38.3%) patients after matching.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI, 6.066–51.542

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/deo2.70048

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication