Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages
Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/mid-azolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to inv...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gut and liver 2019-11, Vol.13 (6), p.649 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | kor |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/mid-azolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmo-nary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomi-date and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the oc-currence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. Results: Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomi-date group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multi-variate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007). Conclusions: Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/mid-azolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonosco-pies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. (Gut Liver 2019;13:649-657) |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1976-2283 |