Fulya DURAN YILMAZ, Murat Yaşar ÖZKALKANLI, Fevzi CENGİZ

Gastrointestinal endoskopi uygulamalarında sedasyon uygulama farklılıkları: anestezistler ve anestezist olmayanlar

Amaç: Endoskopi uygulamalarnda anestezist ve anestezist olmayanlar tarafından sedoanaljezi uygulamaları gerçekleştirilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, anestezist ve anestezist olmayanların endoskopi/kolonoskopi sırasında uyguladığı sedoanaljezi rejimlerinin farklarını ve oluşan major hemodinamik yan etkileri karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Cerrahi Endoskopi Ünitesinde anestezist (Grup A) ve anestezist olmayanların (Grup B) endoskopi sırasında uyguladığı sedoanaljezik ilaçlar, dozları, işlem süreleri ve major hemodinamik yan etkiler retrospektif olarak araştırıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması Grup Ada 54.82±17.02, Grup Bde 52.00±15.47dir (p

Implementatıon dıfferences ın the gastroıntestınal endoscopy sedatıon applıcatıons: anesthesıologısts and non-anesthesıologısts

Objectives: Sedoanalgesia is performed in endoscopic surgeries by anesthesiologists or non- anaesthesiologists. The objective of this study was to compare the differences in sedoanalgesia regimens applied by anaesthesiologists or non-anaesthesiologists during gastroscopy/ colonoscopy and the consequent hemodynamic side effects. Method: The sedoanalgesic drugs administered, their doses, surgical times and hemodynamic side effects during endoscopy were compared retrospectively between anaesthesiologists (Group A) and non-anaesthesiologists (Group B) in Surgical Endoscopy Unit. Results: Mean age of patients in Group A or Group B was 54.82±17.02 years and 52.00±15.47 years (p<0.05), respectively. Additional procedure was performed in patients in Group A and 178 patienst in Group B (p=0.239). Mean surgical time was 14.42±8.5 min and 15.21±8.6 min (p=0.265) in Group A and Group B, respectively. Mean dose of midazolam in Group A or Group B was 1.4±0.68 mg and 2.8±0.87 mg (p<0.05), respectively. Conclusion: Non-anaesthesiologists prefer using benzodiazepine combinations during endoscopy and perform flumazenil antagonism for recovery. On the other hand, anaesthesiologists generally prefer propofol which does not require antagonism. Close monitorization is recommended for hemodynamic side effects. Although additional procedure was performed in sedoanalgesia performed by anaesthesiologists, mean surgical time was statistically shortened.

PDF

___

1.Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27: 1016- 1030.
2. Erden İ.A, Tütüncü R. Patients knowledge and attitudes about the role of anesthesiologists in a military hospital. J Clin Exp Invest 2012; 3 (3): 313-317.
3.Fanti L, Testoni PA. Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: whats new? World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 2451- 2457.
4.Van der Linden P. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: an anesthesiologists perspective. Digestion 2010; 82: 102-105.
5.Wehrmann T, Triantafyllou K. Propofol sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a gastroenterologists perspective. Digestion 2010; 82: 106-109.
6.Wang D, Chen C, Chen J, et al. The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. PloS One 2013; 8: e53311.
7.Poulos JE, Kalogerinis PT, Caudle JN. Propofol compared with combination propofol or midazolam/fentanyl for endoscopy in a community setting. AANA J 2013; 81: 31-36.
8.Lera dos Santos ME, Maluf-Filho F, Chaves DM, et al. Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens.. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 3439-3446.
9.McKeage K, Perry CM. Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults. CNS Drugs 2003; 17: 235-272.
10.Candiotti KA, Bergese SD, Bokesch PM, et al. Monitored anesthesia care with dexmedetomidine: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Anesth Analg 2010; 110: 47-56.