S Maslekar
Randomized clinical trial of Entonox versus midazolam-fentanyl sedation for colonoscopy
Maslekar, S; Gardiner, Anji; Duthie, Graeme
Authors
Anji Gardiner
Graeme Duthie
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intravenous sedation for colonoscopy is associated with cardiorespiratory complications and delayed recovery. The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of Entonox (50 per cent nitrous oxide and 50 per cent oxygen) and intravenous sedation using midazolam-fentanyl for colonoscopy. METHODS Some 131 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were included. Patients completed a Hospital Anxiety and Depression questionnaire, letter cancellation tests and pain scores on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before, immediately after the procedure and at discharge. They also completed a satisfaction survey at discharge and 24 h after the procedure. RESULTS Sixty-five patients were randomized to receive Entonox and 66 to midazolam-fentanyl. Completion rates were similar (94 versus 92 per cent respectively; P = 0.513). Patients receiving Entonox had a shorter time to discharge. They reported significantly less pain (mean score 16.7 versus 40.1; P < 0.001), and showed better recovery of psychomotor function immediately after the procedure and at discharge. Patient satisfaction was higher among patients who received Entonox (median score 96 versus 89; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION Entonox provides better pain relief and faster recovery than midazolam-fentanyl and so is more effective for colonoscopy.
Citation
Maslekar, S., Gardiner, A., & Duthie, G. (2009). Randomized clinical trial of Entonox versus midazolam-fentanyl sedation for colonoscopy. British journal of surgery, 96(4), 361 - 368. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6467
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Apr 30, 2009 |
Publication Date | Apr 30, 2009 |
Journal | The British journal of surgery |
Print ISSN | 0007-1323 |
Electronic ISSN | 1365-2168 |
Publisher | Wiley |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 96 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 361 - 368 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6467 |
Public URL | https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/428925 |
PMID | 19283736 |
You might also like
Can artificial neural networks predict which patients need a colonoscopy?
(2006)
Presentation / Conference Contribution
Neural network analysis of anal sphincter repair
(2004)
Journal Article
Rectoanal reflex parameters in incontinence and constipation
(2002)
Journal Article
Anal sphincter injury, fecal and urinary incontinence
(2003)
Journal Article
Physiology of the gastrointestinal tract
(2004)
Book
Downloadable Citations
About Repository@Hull
Administrator e-mail: repository@hull.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2025
Advanced Search