BACKGROUNDPropofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.AIMTo compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.METHODSA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.RESULTSA total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I2: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of pr...
Early ERCP decreases local adverse events, shortening the time to pain relief, to a reduction in axillary temperature, hospital stays, and cost in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis.
Introduction Noninvasive ventilation is a safe and eff ective method to treat acute respiratory failure, minimizing the respiratory workload and oxygenation. Few studies compare the effi cacy of diff erent types of noninvasive ventilation interfaces and their adaptation. Objective To identify the most frequently noninvasive ventilation interfaces used and eventual problems related to their adaptation in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted an observational study, with patients older than 18 years old admitted to the intensive care and step-down units of the Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital that used noninvasive ventilation. We collected data such as reason to use noninvasive ventilation, interface used, scheme of noninvasive ventilation used (continuously, periods or nocturnal use), adaptation, and reasons for nonadaptation. Results We evaluated 245 patients with a median age of 82 years (range of 20 to 107 years). Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent cause of noninvasive ventilation used (71.3%), followed by pulmonary expansion (10.24%), after mechanical ventilation weaning (6.14%) and sleep obstructive apnea (8.6%). The most frequently used interface was total face masks (74.7%), followed by facial masks in 24.5% of the patients, and 0.8% used performax masks. The use of noninvasive ventilation for periods (82.4%) was the most common scheme of use, with 10.6% using it continuously and 6.9% during the nocturnal period only. Interface adaptation occurred in 76% of the patients; the 24% that did not adapt had their interface changed to improve adaptation afterwards. The total face mask had 75.5% of interface adaptation, the facial mask had 80% and no adaptation occurred in patients that used the performax mask. The face format was the most frequent cause of nonadaptation in 30.5% of the patients, followed by patient's related discomfort (28.8%), air leaking (27.7%), claustrophobia (18.6%), noncollaborative patient (10.1%), patient agitation (6.7%), facial trauma or lesion (1.7%), type of mask fi xation (1.7%), and 1.7% patients with other causes. Conclusion Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent reason for noninvasive ventilation use, with the total face mask being the most frequent interface used. The most common causes of interface nonadaptation were face format, patient-related discomfort and air leaking, showing improvement of adaptation after changing the interface used. P2 Exercise training reduces oxidative damage in skeletal muscle of septic rats
BACKGROUND Achalasia is a rare benign esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The treatment of achalasia is not curative, but rather is aimed at reducing LES pressure. In patients who have failed noninvasive therapy, surgery should be considered. Myotomy with partial fundoplication has been considered the first-line treatment for non-advanced achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), a technique that employs the principles of submucosal endoscopy to perform the equivalent of a surgical myotomy, has emerged as a promising minimally invasive technique for the management of this condition. AIM To compare POEM and laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication (LM-PF) regarding their efficacy and outcomes for the treatment of achalasia. METHODS Forty treatment-naive adult patients who had been diagnosed with achalasia based on clinical and manometric criteria (dysphagia score ≥ II and Eckardt score > 3) were randomized to undergo either LM-PF or POEM. The outcome measures were anesthesia time, procedure time, symptom improvement, reflux esophagitis (as determined with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire), barium column height at 1 and 5 min (on a barium esophagogram), pressure at the LES, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), length of stay (LOS), and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the LM-PF and POEM groups regarding symptom improvement at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up ( P = 0.192, P = 0.242, and P = 0.242, respectively). However, the rates of reflux esophagitis at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up were significantly higher in the POEM group ( P = 0.014, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively). There were also no statistical differences regarding the manometry values, the occurrence of AEs, or LOS. Anesthesia time and procedure time were significantly shorter in the POEM group than in the LM-PF group (185.00 ± 56.89 and 95.70 ± 30.47 min vs 296.75 ± 56.13 and 218.75 ± 50.88 min, respectively; P = 0.001 for both). In the POEM group, there were improvements in all domains of the QoL questionnaire, whereas there were improvements in only three domains in the LM-PF group. CONCLUSION POEM and LM-PF appear to be equally effective in controlling the symptoms of achalasia, shortening LOS, and minimizing AEs. Nevertheless, POEM has the advantage of improving all domains of QoL, and shortening anesthesia and procedure times but with a significantly higher rate of gastroesophageal reflux.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.