BACKGROUND: Adequate comfort is essential to patients undergoing invasive procedures. This study was designed to evaluate whether patient-controlled analgesia could improve sedation for ERCP. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive standard sedation (n = 31) or patient-controlled analgesia (n = 31). The patients were blinded to the randomization. After the procedure the patient, physician, and nurse each rated their satisfaction with sedation using a verbal rating scale. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the patient's mean satisfaction score for the conventional and patient-controlled analgesia groups (9.3 and 9.6, respectively, p = 0.5). The physicians rated sedation higher in the conventional group compared with the patient-controlled analgesia group (8.6 and 8.2, respectively, p = 0.02). Physicians and nurses' scores correlated (r = 0.53, p = 0.0001), but there was no correlation between scores reported by either physicians or nurses and the patients' scores (r = 0.2 and r = 0.05, respectively). Oxygen saturation less than 90% occurred for more than 1 minute in three patients who received standard sedation but in none who used patient-controlled analgesia. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates that patient-controlled analgesia during ERCP is as effective as standard sedation with respect to patient satisfaction. Physicians and nurses, however, are not good proxies for assessing patient satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Adequate comfort is essential to patients undergoing invasive procedures. This study was designed to evaluate whether patient-controlled analgesia could improve sedation for ERCP. METHODS:Patients were randomized to receive standard sedation (n = 31) or patient-controlled analgesia (n = 31). The patients were blinded to the randomization. After the procedure the patient, physician, and nurse each rated their satisfaction with sedation using a verbal rating scale. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the patient's mean satisfaction score for the conventional and patient-controlled analgesia groups (9.3 and 9.6, respectively, p = 0.5). The physicians rated sedation higher in the conventional group compared with the patient-controlled analgesia group (8.6 and 8.2, respectively, p = 0.02). Physicians and nurses' scores correlated (r = 0.53, p = 0.0001), but there was no correlation between scores reported by either physicians or nurses and the patients' scores (r = 0.2 and r = 0.05, respectively). Oxygen saturation less than 90% occurred for more than 1 minute in three patients who received standard sedation but in none who used patient-controlled analgesia. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates that patient-controlled analgesia during ERCP is as effective as standard sedation with respect to patient satisfaction. Physicians and nurses, however, are not good proxies for assessing patient satisfaction.