4.7 Article

Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 503-511

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.041

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK [UO1 CA 89389-01, U01 DK057132, R33-DK61778-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sedative and analgesic medications have been used routinely for decades to provide patient comfort, reduce procedure time, and improve examination quality during colonoscopy. Objective: To evaluate trends of sedation during colonoscopy in the United States. Setting: Endoscopic data repository of U.S. gastroenterology practices (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, CORI database from 2000 until 2013). Patients: The study population was made up of patients undergoing a total of 1,385,436 colonoscopies. Interventions: Colonoscopy without any intervention or with mucosal biopsy, polypectomy, various means of hemostasis, luminal dilation, stent placement, or ablation. Main Outcome Measurements: Dose of midazolam, diazepam, fentanyl, meperidine, diphenhydramine, promethazine, and propofol used for sedation during colonoscopy. Results: During the past 14 years, midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol have become the most commonly used sedatives for colonoscopy. Except for benzodiazepines, which were dosed higher in women than men, equal doses of sedation were given to female and male patients. White patients were given higher doses than other ethnic groups undergoing sedation for colonoscopy. Except for histamine-1 receptor antagonists, all sedative medications were given at lower doses to patients with increasing age. The dose of sedatives was higher in colonoscopies associated with procedural interventions or of long duration. Limitations: Potential for incomplete or incorrect documentation in the database. Conclusion: The findings reflect on colonoscopy practice in the United States during the last 14 years and provide an incentive for future research on how sex and ethnicity influence sedation practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据