4.5 Article

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: conventional versus target controlled infusion techniques-a randomized controlled study

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 268, 期 3, 页码 457-462

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-010-1376-y

关键词

Sleep endoscopy; Obstructive sleep-apnea-hypopnea syndrome; Target-controlled infusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the sites of pharyngeal collapse is mandatory for surgical treatment decision-making in obstructive sleep-apnea-hypopnea syndrome patients. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) allows for the direct observation of the upper airway during sedative-induced sleep. In order to re-create snoring and apnea patterns related to a spontaneous sleep situation, the authors used a target-controlled infusion (TCI) sleep endoscopy (DISE-TCI), comparing this technique to conventional DISE, in which sedation was reached by a manual bolus injection. The authors conducted a prospective, randomized, unicenter study. The apneic event observation and its correlation with pharyngeal collapse patterns is the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints are defined as stability and safety of sedation plans of DISE-TCI technique. From January 2009 to June 2009, 40 OSAHS patients were included in the study and randomized allocated in two groups: the bolus injection conventional DISE group and the DISE-TCI group. We recorded the complete apnea event at the oropharynx and hypopharynx levels in 4 patients of the conventional DISE group (20%) and in 17 patients of the DISE-TCI group (85%) (P < 0.0001). Two patients needed oxygen in the conventional DISE group because of severe desaturation that resulted from the first bolus of propofol (1 mg/kg) (P = 0.4872 ns). We recorded the instability of the sedation plan in 13 patients from the conventional DISE group (65%) and 1 patient from the DISE-TCI group (5%) (P = 0.0001). Our results suggest that the DISE-TCI technique should be the first choice in performing sleep endoscopy because of its increased accuracy, stability and safety.

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

4.5
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