S. Maslekar
Randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: Entonox vs modified patient-maintained target-controlled propofol
Maslekar, S.; Balaji, P.; Gardiner, Anji; Culbert, B.; Monson, J. R.T.; Duthie, G. S.
Authors
P. Balaji
Anji Gardiner
B. Culbert
J. R.T. Monson
G. S. Duthie
Abstract
Aim Propofol sedation is often associated with deep sedation and decreased manoeuvrability. Patient-maintained sedation has been used in such patients with minimal side-effects. We aimed to compare novel modified patient-maintained target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol with patient-controlled Entonox inhalation for colonoscopy in terms of analgesic efficacy (primary outcome), depth of sedation, manoeuvrability and patient and endoscopist satisfaction (secondary outcomes). Method One hundred patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive either TCI propofol or Entonox. Patients in the propofol group were administered propofol initially to achieve a target concentration of 1.2 μ g/ml and then allowed to self-administer a bolus of propofol (200 μ g/kg/ml) using a patient-controlled analgesia pump with a handset. Entonox group patients inhaled the gas through a mouthpiece until caecum was reached and then as required. Sedation was initially given by an anaesthetist to achieve a score of 4 (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale), and colonoscopy was then started. Patients completed an anxiety score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression questionnaire), a baseline letter cancellation test and a pain score on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before and after the procedure. All patients completed a satisfaction survey at discharge and 24 h postprocedure. Results The median dose of propofol was 174 mg, and the median number of propofol boluses was four. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of pain recorded (95% confidence interval of the difference -0.809, 5.02) and patient/endoscopist satisfaction. There was no difference between the two groups in either depth of sedation or manoeuvrability. Conclusion Both Entonox and the modified TCI propofol provide equally effective sedation and pain relief, simultaneously allowing patients to be easily manoeuvred during the procedures. © 2010 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2010 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Citation
Maslekar, S., Balaji, P., Gardiner, A., Culbert, B., Monson, J. R., & Duthie, G. S. (2011). Randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: Entonox vs modified patient-maintained target-controlled propofol. Colorectal Disease, 13(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01988.x
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | May 16, 2009 |
Online Publication Date | Jul 3, 2009 |
Publication Date | 2011-01 |
Deposit Date | Nov 13, 2014 |
Publicly Available Date | Nov 13, 2014 |
Journal | Colorectal Disease |
Print ISSN | 1462-8910 |
Publisher | Wiley |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 13 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 48-57 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01988.x |
Keywords | Propofol; Entonox; Sedation; Colonoscopy |
Public URL | https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/462645 |
Publisher URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01988.x |
Contract Date | Nov 13, 2014 |
Files
Colorectal dis 2011 Jan 13(1) 48.pdf
(89 Kb)
PDF
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 © 2024
Advanced Search