Literature DB >> 7807428

Endoscopy: throat spray or sedation?

S Pereira1, S H Hussaini, P J Hanson, M L Wilkinson, G E Sladen.   

Abstract

Anxious patients tolerate endoscopy poorly. It was proposed that such patients might derive most benefit from sedation, while most non-anxious patients would prefer endoscopy with lignocaine throat spray alone. In a prospective study, 200 outpatients underwent diagnostic endoscopy after receiving one of two detailed information sheets which offered them either the choice between spray or sedation (n = 100) or the same choice but encouraged those who were anxious about endoscopy to choose sedation (n = 100). When given an informed choice, most non-anxious patients prefer not to be sedated most non-anxious patients prefer not to be sedated during diagnostic endoscopy. If patients who are anxious about the procedure are advised to choose sedation, those who nevertheless opt for topical throat spray alone find the endoscopy just as comfortable. If the endoscopy were to be repeated, 73% of the spray group and 77% of the sedation group would make the same choice again. Of 33 patients who chose spray but had been given only sedation for a previous endoscopy, 26 (79%) would choose spray again for a future endoscopy. The choice of spray or sedation should reflect the patient's view as well as that of the endoscopist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7807428      PMCID: PMC5401026     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond        ISSN: 0035-8819


  8 in total

Review 1.  Unsedated transnasal endoscopy: a safe and less costly alternative.

Authors:  Kia Saeian
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2002-06

Review 2.  Conscious sedation: pearls and perils.

Authors:  A Minocha; R Srinivasan
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Posterior lingual lidocaine: a novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Assaad M Soweid; Shadi R Yaghi; Faek R Jamali; Abdallah A Kobeissy; Michella E Mallat; Rola Hussein; Chakib M Ayoub
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: are preparatory interventions or conscious sedation effective? A randomized trial.

Authors:  Lucio Trevisani; Sergio Sartori; Piergiorgio Gaudenzi; Giuseppe Gilli; Giancarlo Matarese; Sergio Gullini; Vincenzo Abbasciano
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Safety of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination in gastroenterological practice.

Authors:  Tae Hee Lee; Joon Seong Lee
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  Informed consent for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  S P Pereira; S H Hussaini; M L Wilkinson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study.

Authors:  Chih-Wei Tseng; Malcolm Koo; Kuo-Chih Tseng; Yu-Hsi Hsieh
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  Glossopharyngeal Nerve Block versus Lidocaine Spray to Improve Tolerance in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  Moisés Ortega Ramírez; Benigno Linares Segovia; Marco Antonio García Cuevas; Jorge Luis Sánchez Romero; Illich Botello Buenrostro; Norma Amador Licona; Juan Manuel Guízar Mendoza; Jesús Francisco Guerrero Romero; Víctor Manuel Vázquez Zárate
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 2.260

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.