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

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

  • 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 worked better and caused fewer problems.

Methodology

The study reviewed 1302 cases of outpatient diagnostic EUS and used propensity score matching to compare outcomes between two sedation groups.

Potential Biases

The study did not assess operator and patient satisfaction, making it difficult to evaluate whether the appropriate level of sedation was maintained.

Limitations

This 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)

10.1002/deo2.70048

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication