Sedation for transesophageal echocardiography: Comparison of propofol, midazolam and midazolam-alfentanil combination

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorToman, Huseyin
dc.contributor.authorErkılınc, Atakan
dc.contributor.authorKocak, Tuncer
dc.contributor.authorGuzelmeric, Fusun
dc.contributor.authorSavluk, Omer Faruk
dc.contributor.authorDogukan, Mevlut
dc.contributor.authorAcar, Goksel
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T18:58:50Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T18:58:50Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractAim The administration of trans esophageal echocardiography (TEE) may cause nausea, shortness of breath, agitation, emotional distress and pain in patients due to pharyngo-esophageal intubation, which may be partially relieved by sedoanalgesia. The aim of this study was to compare clinical effects of midazolam, midazolam-alfentanil combination and propofol sedation given for sedation and sedoanalgesia to patients with planned diagnostic TEE interventions. Methods This study was prospectively completed with 90 randomized adult patients in ASA risk groups I-II-III. Group M were given 2.5 mg midazolam, group MA were given 1 mg midazolam and 5 ?g/kg alfentanil and group P were given 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous bolus. If necessary, additional doses were administered. Patients administered with TEE were evaluated in terms of additional dose requirements, Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS), modified Aldrete Scoring (MAS), recovery time and duration of stay in the hospital. Results In the group P additional dose requirements were greater (p<0.05), as well as the duration of stay in the recovery unit and hospital were shorter (p<0.05). On insertion of the TEE probe, the RSS in the group P was clearly higher than in other groups M and MA (p<0.05). Conclusion During the TEE intervention, the use of propofol, contrary to requirements for additional dose and observation of apnea, appears to be advantageous due to providing more rapid and effective sedation depth without a need of expensive antagonist agents, and allowing early discharge of patients. Additionally, it seems that the use of midazolam combined with alfentanil, is more advantageous comparing to midazolam alone. © 2016, Medical Association of Zenica-Doboj Canton. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.17392/825-16
dc.identifier.endpage24
dc.identifier.issn1840-0132
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid26299550
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84957066309
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage18
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.17392/825-16
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/13027
dc.identifier.volume13
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMedical Association of Zenica-Doboj Canton
dc.relation.ispartofMedicinski Glasnik
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_Scopus_20250125
dc.subjectAlfentanil; Midazolam; Outpatient; Propofol
dc.titleSedation for transesophageal echocardiography: Comparison of propofol, midazolam and midazolam-alfentanil combination
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu