7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Conscious sedation for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been standardized, and there are no studies of sedation for colorectal ESD.

          Methods

          We conducted a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to clarify the usefulness of DEX during colorectal ESD. In total 80 patients with colorectal ESD from April 2016 to May 2017 were assigned to the placebo group or the DEX group (40 cases each). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction (visual analogue scale: VAS). Secondary outcomes were evaluated for 13 factors, including patient pain level (VAS), endoscopist satisfaction (VAS), objective patient pain level viewed from the endoscopist’s perspective (VAS), rate of patient response, rate of side effects, etc., from the patient’s and endoscopist’s perspectives.

          Results

          Patient satisfaction was 8.4 and 9.1 ( P = 0.018) in the placebo group and the DEX group, respectively. Secondary outcomes of patient pain level, endoscopist satisfaction, objective patient pain level from the endoscopist’s perspective for the placebo and DEX groups were 1.2 and 0.4 ( P = 0.045), 8.2 and 9.3 ( P < 0.001), and 1.2 and 0.5 ( P = 0.002), respectively. All of these were significantly positive results (more comfortable and less pain) in the DEX group. The rate of a patient response was 100% in all cases. The side effects (hypoxia/bradycardia/hypotension) were 0%/0%/0% and 7.5%/7.5%/5% ( P = 0.030). However, these rates were less than the reported side effect occurrence rate, and no additional medication was needed.

          Conclusion

          DEX enables conscious sedation, and is useful not only for patient and endoscopist satisfaction but also for pain relief. DEX is an effective sedation method for colorectal ESD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

          Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer

            Colorectal cancer is a major cause of death in Japan, where it accounts for the largest number of deaths from malignant neoplasms among women and the third largest number among men. Many new methods of treatment have been developed during recent decades. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer (JSCCR Guidelines 2014) have been prepared as standard treatment strategies for colorectal cancer, to eliminate treatment disparities among institutions, to eliminate unnecessary treatment and insufficient treatment, and to deepen mutual understanding among health-care professionals and patients by making these guidelines available to the general public. These guidelines have been prepared as a result of consensuses reached by the JSCCR Guideline Committee on the basis of careful review of evidence retrieved by literature searches and taking into consideration the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice in Japan. They can, therefore, be used as a guide for treating colorectal cancer in clinical practice. More specifically, they can be used as a guide to obtaining informed consent from patients and choosing the method of treatment for each patient. As a result of the discussions of the Guideline Committee, controversial issues were selected as clinical questions, and recommendations were made. Each recommendation is accompanied by a classification of the evidence and a classification of recommendation categories, on the basis of consensus reached by Guideline Committee members. Here we present the English version of the JSCCR Guidelines 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An introduction to bispectral analysis for the electroencephalogram.

              The goal of much effort in recent years has been to provide a simplified interpretation of the electroencephalogram (EEG) for a variety of applications, including the diagnosis of neurological disorders and the intraoperative monitoring of anesthetic efficacy and cerebral ischemia. Although processed EEG variables have enjoyed limited success for specific applications, few acceptable standards have emerged. In part, this may be attributed to the fact that commonly used signal processing tools do not quantify all of the information available in the EEG. Power spectral analysis, for example, quantifies only power distribution as a function of frequency, ignoring phase information. It also makes the assumption that the signal arises from a linear process, thereby ignoring potential interaction between components of the signal that are manifested as phase coupling, a common phenomenon in signals generated from nonlinear sources such as the central nervous system (CNS). This tutorial describes bispectral analysis, a method of signal processing that quantifies the degree of phase coupling between the components of a signal such as the EEG. The basic theory underlying bispectral analysis is explained in detail, and information obtained from bispectral analysis is compared with that available from the power spectrum. The concept of a bispectral index is introduced. Finally, several model signals, as well as a representative clinical case, are analyzed using bispectral analysis, and the results are interpreted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +81-82-221-2291 , gyacy14@yahoo.co.jp
                Journal
                Clin Transl Gastroenterol
                Clin Transl Gastroenterol
                Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology
                Nature Publishing Group US (New York )
                2155-384X
                4 July 2018
                July 2018
                : 9
                : 7
                : 167
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hiroshima City Hiroshima Citizens Hospital, Hiroshima, 730-8518 Japan
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 1302 4472, GRID grid.261356.5, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, , Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, ; Okayama, 700-8558 Japan
                Article
                32
                10.1038/s41424-018-0032-5
                6030068
                29970896
                177b33bd-48ce-4fb1-9525-a1663d93b7c9
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 February 2018
                : 23 April 2018
                : 15 May 2018
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                Gastroenterology & Hepatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article