Comparing Sedation Methods for Endoscopic Ultrasound
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
This study aimed to examine the safety and complications of sedation with pentazocine or pethidine hydrochloride for outpatient diagnostic EUS.
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
- Sedation-related adverse events during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different between the groups.
- The median time spent in the recovery room after EUS was significantly shorter in the pethidine hydrochloride group than in the pentazocine group.
- The frequency of nausea or vomiting after EUS was significantly lower in the pethidine hydrochloride group than in the pentazocine group.
- The frequency of readmission to the recovery room after discharge was significantly lower in the pethidine group than in the pentazocine group.
Takeaway
Doctors compared two types of medicine used to help patients relax during a special ultrasound. They found that one medicine caused less nausea and helped patients recover faster.
Methodology
The study reviewed 1302 cases of outpatient diagnostic EUS and used propensity score matching to compare outcomes between two sedation groups.
Potential Biases
Operator and patient satisfaction were not assessed, making it difficult to evaluate whether the appropriate level of sedation was maintained.
Limitations
The study is a retrospective single-center observational study that 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 and female patients.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.001
Confidence Interval
95% CI, 6.066–51.542
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website