eISSN: 1897-4317
ISSN: 1895-5770
Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors Ethical standards and procedures
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
3/2018
vol. 13
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Comparison of the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz

Eskandar Hajiani
,
Jalal Hashemi
,
Jalal Sayyah

Gastroenterology Rev 2018; 13 (3): 228–233
Online publish date: 2018/09/17
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
Gastrointestinal endoscopy is an invasive and diagnostic procedure that causes the patients considerable pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Therefore, various types of sedation and analgesia techniques have been used during the procedure.

Aim
To compare the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy.

Material and Methods
This is a randomised controlled double-blind clinical trial study conducted on 272 patients undergoing diagnostic and treatment endoscopy and colonoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz between 2017 and 2018. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the first group (n = 136) received propofol with midazolam and ketamine, and the second group (n = 136) received pethidine and midazolam. Study outcome measures included the recovery time, patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and adverse events.

Results
The occurrence of complications was higher in the propofol group (25% vs. 0%; p = 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed in the study groups. Overall patient satisfaction and quality of sedation assessment scores in the propofol group were significantly better than those seen in the pethidine-midazolam group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.001, respectively). Recovery time was statistically shorter in the propofol-midazolam group (6.05 ±1.62 min) compared to the pethidine-midazolam group (6.72 ±2.21 min) (p = 0.006).

Conclusions
Propofol-midazolam can provide better sedation, patient satisfaction, and recovery than pethidine-midazolam during endoscopy. Therefore, it can be recommended in patients scheduled for diagnostic and treatment endoscopy.

keywords:

endoscopy, propofol, midazolam, pethidine

Quick links
© 2020 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe