558 181

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author박찬혁-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-28T01:48:50Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-28T01:48:50Z-
dc.date.issued2015-03-
dc.identifier.citationPLOS ONE, v. 10, Page. 1-10en_US
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203-
dc.identifier.urihttp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120529-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/23478-
dc.description.abstractBackground Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods. Methods One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient’s pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications. Results Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups. Conclusion Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research (http://hpylori.or.kr/) Author who received the funding: JCP. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCEen_US
dc.subjectPROPOFOL SEDATIONen_US
dc.subjectGASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPYen_US
dc.subjectRISK-FACTORSen_US
dc.subjectGASTRIC NEOPLASIAen_US
dc.subjectDEEP SEDATIONen_US
dc.subjectPERFORATIONen_US
dc.subjectMEPERIDINEen_US
dc.subjectANESTHESIAen_US
dc.subjectMIDAZOLAMen_US
dc.subjectLESIONSen_US
dc.titleAssessing the Stability and Safety of Procedure during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection According to Sedation Methods: A Randomized Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.relation.volume10-
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0120529-
dc.relation.page1-10-
dc.relation.journalPLOS ONE-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPark, Chan Hyuk-
dc.contributor.googleauthorShin, Seokyung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Sang kil-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Hyuk-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Yong chan-
dc.contributor.googleauthorPark, Jun Chul-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYoo, Young Chul-
dc.relation.code2015008685-
dc.sector.campusS-
dc.sector.daehakCOLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S]-
dc.sector.departmentDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE-
dc.identifier.pidchan100-


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE