BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study are: (1) to prospectively evaluate clinically relevant outcomes including sedation-related complications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures performed with the use of propofol deep sedation administered by monitored anesthesia care (MAC), and (2) to compare these results with a historical case-control cohort of EUS procedures performed using moderate sedation provided by the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for EUS between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002 were enrolled. Complication rates for EUS using MAC sedation were observed and also compared with a historical case-control cohort of EUS patients who received meperidine/midazolam for moderate sedation, administered by the GI endoscopist. Logistic regression analysis was used to isolate possible predictors of complications. RESULTS: A total of 1,000 patients underwent EUS with propofol sedation during the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002 (mean age 64 years, 53% female). The distribution of EUS indications based on the primary area of interest was: 170 gastroduodenal, 92 anorectal, 508 pancreaticohepatobiliary, 183 esophageal, and 47 mediastinal. The primary endpoint of the study was development of sedation-related complications occurring during a performed procedure. A total of six patients experienced complications: duodenal perforation (one), hypotension (one), aspiration pneumonia (one), and apnea requiring endotracheal intubation (three). The complication rate with propofol was 0.60%, compared with 1% for the historical case-control (meperidine/midazolam moderate sedation) group. CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be a significant difference between complication rates for propofol deep sedation with MAC and meperidine/midazolam administered for moderate sedation.
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study are: (1) to prospectively evaluate clinically relevant outcomes including sedation-related complications for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures performed with the use of propofol deep sedation administered by monitored anesthesia care (MAC), and (2) to compare these results with a historical case-control cohort of EUS procedures performed using moderate sedation provided by the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopist. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients referred for EUS between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2002 were enrolled. Complication rates for EUS using MAC sedation were observed and also compared with a historical case-control cohort of EUS patients who received meperidine/midazolam for moderate sedation, administered by the GI endoscopist. Logistic regression analysis was used to isolate possible predictors of complications. RESULTS: A total of 1,000 patients underwent EUS with propofol sedation during the period from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002 (mean age 64 years, 53% female). The distribution of EUS indications based on the primary area of interest was: 170 gastroduodenal, 92 anorectal, 508 pancreaticohepatobiliary, 183 esophageal, and 47 mediastinal. The primary endpoint of the study was development of sedation-related complications occurring during a performed procedure. A total of six patients experienced complications: duodenal perforation (one), hypotension (one), aspiration pneumonia (one), and apnea requiring endotracheal intubation (three). The complication rate with propofol was 0.60%, compared with 1% for the historical case-control (meperidine/midazolam moderate sedation) group. CONCLUSIONS: There does not appear to be a significant difference between complication rates for propofol deep sedation with MAC and meperidine/midazolam administered for moderate sedation.
Authors: D B Nelson; A N Barkun; K P Block; J S Burdick; G G Ginsberg; D A Greenwald; P B Kelsey; N L Nakao; A Slivka; P Smith; N Vakil Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas O Faigel; Glenn M Eisen; Todd H Baron; Jason A Dominitz; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathan A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Hareth M Raddawi; John J Vargo; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbough Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Douglas O Faigel; Todd H Baron; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathon A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Kathryn A Peterson; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbaugh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Robert M Hovis; Michael A Ansstas; Lawrence Waldbaum; Riad R Azar; Dayna S Early; Steven A Edmundowicz; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: John J Vargo; Gregory Zuccaro; John A Dumot; Kenneth M Shermock; J Brad Morrow; Darwin L Conwell; Patricia A Trolli; Walter G Maurer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Chan Hyuk Park; Hyunzu Kim; Young Ae Kang; In Rae Cho; Bun Kim; Su Jin Heo; Suji Shin; Hyuk Lee; Jun Chul Park; Sung Kwan Shin; Yong Chan Lee; Sang Kil Lee Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: John K Triantafillidis; Emmanuel Merikas; Dimitrios Nikolakis; Apostolos E Papalois Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Maria Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Bertrand Napoléon; Siegbert Faiss Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: N Pagano; M Arosio; F Romeo; G Rando; G Del Conte; A Carlino; G Strangio; E Vitetta; A Malesci; A Repici Journal: Diagn Ther Endosc Date: 2011-07-12
Authors: Bunyamin Gurbulak; Sinan Uzman; Esin Kabul Gurbulak; Yasar Gokhan Gul; Mehmet Toptas; Sevim Baltali; Osman Anil Savas Journal: Iran Red Crescent Med J Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 0.611