Dexmedetomidine plus sufentanil for pediatric flexible bronchoscopy: A retrospective clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5522299 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.
| S-EPMC7231242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The recommended conscious sedation for bronchoscopy is still lacking. The safety and efficacy of sufentanil combined with midazolam in bronchoscopy under conscious sedation is not well elucidated. Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who received bronchoscopy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from September 2013 to July 2017. Sufentanil and midazolam were administrated for conscious sedation. The drug dosage, sedating effect and adverse event were collected and analyzed. Results:Totally, 7,089 males and 4,069 females aged 54±16 years (ranged from 4 to 94 years) were enrolled in this study. The dosage of sufentanil and midazolam were 5.25±1.28 mcg (2-13 mcg) and 2.03±0.51 mg (0.5-4.5 mg), respectively. Ninety-eight point six percent (10,998/11,158) of bronchoscopies were successfully completed, while 68.7% (7,670/11,158) procedures were performed with initial dose of 5 mcg sufentanil and 2 mg midazolam. Endobronchial biopsy, transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB), transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), therapeutic procedure and asthma were predictors of giving incremental doses of sufentanil and midazolam (all OR >1, P<0.05), whereas, the age was associated with lower incidence of adding dose of sufentanil and midazolam (both OR <1, P<0.05). Patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) had lower incidence of adding dose of midazolam alone (OR =0.597, P=0.003). Whereas, female and pulmonary infection were predictors of adding dose of sufentanil alone (OR >1, P<0.05). The conscious sedation related adverse events were not observed. Conclusions:Sufentanil combined with midazolam was safe and effective for bronchoscopy under conscious sedation.
| S-EPMC6837946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: Persistent wheezing (PW) is defined as prolonged or recurrent episodes of wheezing despite regular treatment. Flexible bronchoscopy (FB) is recommended to determine the etiology of PW in children. This study aimed to determine the etiology of PW based on FB findings in a national pediatric center. Materials and Methods: Children presenting with PW that underwent flexible bronchoscopy from April 2016 to August 2019 at the Mother and Child Health Institute of Serbia were included in this observational study. After endoscopic evaluation, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples were taken and further analyzed. Quantitative microbiology, cytological analysis and oil-red staining of specimens were performed to determine cellular constituents and presence of lipid laden macrophages (LLM). Upper gastrointestinal series were performed to exclude gastroesophageal reflux disease, swallowing dysfunction and vascular ring. Results: Pathological findings were revealed in 151 of 172 study participants, with bacterial lower airway infection (BLAI) (48.3%) and primary bronchomalacia (20.4%) as the most common. Younger participants were hospitalized for significantly longer periods (? = -0.366, p < 0.001). Study participants with BLAI and associated mucus plugging were notably younger (p < 0.001). Presence of LLM in BALF was not associated with findings of upper gastrointestinal series. All patients with confirmed BLAI were treated with oral antibiotics. Although FB is considered to be invasive, there were no complications associated with the procedure. Conclusions: Flexible bronchoscopy has an exceptional diagnostic value in evaluation of PW. In younger patients with BLAI, presence of mucus plugs may complicate the clinical course, so significant benefits can be achieved with therapeutic lavage during bronchoscopy.
| S-EPMC7404471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of using a spray nozzle to deliver lidocaine for superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation flexible bronchoscopy (FB) remains a topic of uncertainty when compared with conventional methods.MethodsPatients referred for FB were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine anaesthesia via the bronchoscope's working channel (classical spray (CS) group) or through a washing pipe equipped with a spray nozzle (SN group). The primary outcome was cough rate, defined as the total number of coughs per minute. Secondary outcomes included subjective perceptions of both the patient and operator regarding the FB process. These perceptions were rated on a visual analogue scale, with numerical ratings ranging from 0 to 10.ResultsOur study enrolled a total of 126 (61 CS group; 65 SN group) patients. The SN group exhibited a significantly lower median cough rate compared with the CS group (4.5 versus 7.1 counts·min-1; p=0.021). Patients in the SN group also reported less oropharyngeal discomfort (4.5±2.7 versus 5.6±2.9; p=0.039), better tolerance of the procedure (6.8±2.2 versus 5.7±2.7; p=0.011) and a greater willingness to undergo a repeat FB procedure (7.2±2.7 versus 5.8±3.4; p=0.015) compared with those in the CS group. From the operator's perspective, patient discomfort (2.7±1.7 versus 3.4±2.3; p=0.040) and cough scores (2.3±1.5 versus 3.2±2.4; p=0.013) were lower in the SN group compared with the CS group, with less disruption due to coughing observed among those in the SN group (1.6±1.4 versus 2.3±2.3; p=0.029).ConclusionsThis study illustrates that employing a spray nozzle for the delivery of lidocaine provides superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation FB compared with the traditional method.
| S-EPMC10926006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccording to current guidelines flexible bronchoscopy is usually performed under sedation. Previously it has been demonstrated that combined sedation with e. g. the combination of midazolam and propofol or an opioid might have several advantages over sedation with just one sedative drug. However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of combined sedation with midazolam, fentanyl and propofol (MFP) compared to sedation with midazolam and fentanyl (MF) or midazolam and propofol (MP).MethodsWe carried out a retrospective analysis of bronchoscopies performed under triple (MFP) or double sedation (MF and MP) in an academic hospital. 1392 procedures were analyzed (MFP: n = 824; MF: n = 272; MP: n = 296). In particular, we compared the occurrence of complications and the dosage of administered sedative drugs between the groups.ResultsThe occurrence of adverse events (MFP vs. MF: odds ratio (OR) 1.116 [95% CI 0.7741 to 1.604]; MFP vs. MP: OR 0.8296 [95% CI 0.5939 to 1.16] and severe adverse events (MFP vs. MF: OR 1.581 [95% CI 0.5594 to 4.336]; MFP vs. MP: OR 3.47 [95% CI 0.908 to 15.15]; all p>0.05) was similar in all groups. The dosage of midazolam was lower in the MFP compared to the MF or MP group (MFP vs. MF: Cohen's d 0.075; MFP vs. MP: Cohen's d 0.225; all p<0.001). In addition patients in the MFP group received significantly less propofol compared to the MP group (Cohen's d 1.22; p<0.001).ConclusionsIn summary we were able to demonstrate that triple sedation can safely be administered during flexible bronchoscopy and is associated with a reduced dosage of midazolam and propofol.
| S-EPMC5389664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Combining venetoclax, a selective BCL-2 inhibitor, with low-dose navitoclax, a BCL-XL/BCL-2 inhibitor, may potentiate therapeutic BCL-2 and BCL XL inhibition without dose-limiting thrombocytopenia associated with navitoclax monotherapy. The safety and preliminary efficacy of venetoclax with low-dose navitoclax and chemotherapy was assessed in this phase 1 dose escalation study (NCT03181126) in pediatric and adult patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoblastic lymphoma. Forty-seven patients received treatment. A recommended phase 2 dose of 50 mg navitoclax for adults and 25 mg for patients <45 kg with 400 mg adult-equivalent venetoclax was identified. Delayed hematopoietic recovery was the primary safety finding. The complete remission rate was 60%, including responses in patients who had previously received hematopoietic cell transplantation or immunotherapy. Thirteen (28%) patients proceeded to transplantation or CAR T-cell therapy on study. Venetoclax with navitoclax and chemotherapy was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in this heavily pretreated patient population.
2021-02-17 | GSE162894 | GEO
Project description:Background and objectivesDay-case pediatric sedation is challenging. Dexmedetomidine is a sedative analgesic that does not induce respiratory depression. We compared dexmedetomidine to propofol when it was added to ketamine for sedation during pediatric endoscopy, regarding recovery time and hemodynamic changes.MethodsWe enrolled 120 patients (2-7 years in age) and randomly assigned them into two groups. Each patient received intravenous (IV) ketamine at a dose of 1 mg.kg-1 in addition to either propofol (1 mg.kg-1) or dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg.kg-1). The recovery time was compared. Hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, need for additional doses, postoperative complications and endoscopist satisfaction were monitored.ResultsThere was no significant difference in hemodynamics between the groups. The Propofol-Ketamine (P-K) group showed significantly shorter recovery times than the Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine (D-K) group (21.25 and 29.75 minutes respectively, p <0.001). The P-K group showed more oxygen desaturation. Eleven and six patients experienced SpO2 <92% in groups P-K and D-K, respectively. A significant difference was noted regarding the need for additional doses; 10% of patients in the D-K group needed one extra dose, and 5% needed two extra doses, compared to 25% and 20% in the P-K group, respectively (p=0.001). The P-K group showed less post-procedure nausea and vomiting. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding endoscopist satisfaction.ConclusionsThe P-K combination was associated with a shorter recovery time in pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, while the D-K combination showed less need for additional doses.Registration numberClinical trials.gov (NCT02863861).
| S-EPMC9373339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p?=?0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p?=?0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p?=?0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00789815.
| S-EPMC3223212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sustained pharyngeal inflation (SPI) with pharyngeal oxygen flow and nasal closure (PhO2-NC) technique create positive inflation pressure in the airway. This study measured the peak inflation pressure (PIP) levels and image changes with SPI-assisted flexible bronchoscopy (SPI-FB) and compared the effects in the pharyngeal space and mid-tracheal lumen. This prospective study enrolled 20 participants aged 6 months to 3 years. Each participant underwent sequential SPI-FB of four different durations (0, 1s, 3s, and 5s) for three cycles. We used a 3.8 mm OD flexible bronchoscope to measure and analyze PIP levels, images, and lumen dimension scores. A total of 480 data were collected. The mean (SD) age and body weight were 12.0 (11.5) months and 7.8 (7.5) kg, respectively. The mean (IQR) PIPs were 4.2 (2.0), 18.5 (6.1), 30.6 (13.5), and 46.1 (25.0) cmH2O in the pharynx and 5.0 (1.6), 17.5 (6.5), 28.0 (12.3), 46.0 (28.5) cmH2O in the mid-trachea at SPI durations of 0, 1s, 3s, and 5s, respectively. The PIP levels had a positive correlation (p <0.001) with different SPI durations in both pharynx and trachea, and were nearly identical (p = 0.695, 0.787, and 0.725 at 1s, 3s, and 5s, respectively) at the same duration except the 0 s (p = 0.015). Lumen dimension scores also significantly increased with increasing SPI durations (p <0.05) in both locations. The identified lesions significantly increased as PIP levels increased (p <0.001). Conclusion: SPI-FB using PhO2-NC with durations up to 3s is safe and informative technique that provides controllable PIP, dilates airway lumens, and benefits lesion detection in the pharyngeal space and mid-tracheal lumen.
| S-EPMC10664907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endobronchial administration of lidocaine is commonly used for cough suppression during diagnostic bronchoscopy. Recently, nebulization of lidocaine during bronchoscopies under deep sedation with fiberoptic intubation using a distinct spray catheter has been shown to have several advantages over conventional lidocaine administration via syringe. However, there are no data about this approach in bronchoscopies performed under moderate sedation. Therefore, this study compared the tolerability and safety of nebulized lidocaine with conventional lidocaine administration via syringe in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS:Patients requiring diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety. RESULTS:Sixty patients were included in the study (n?=?30 in each group). Patients required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine when given via nebulizer versus syringe (164.7?±?20.8 mg vs. 250.4?±?42.38 mg; p?<?0.0001) whereas no differences in the dosage of sedative drugs were observed between the two groups (all p?>?0.05). Patients in the nebulizer group had higher mean oxygen saturation (96.19?±?2.45% vs. 94.21?±?3.02%; p?=?0.0072) and a lower complication rate (0.3?±?0.79 vs. 1.17?±?1.62 per procedure; p?=?0.0121) compared with those in the syringe group. CONCLUSIONS:Endobronchial lidocaine administration via nebulizer was well-tolerated during bronchoscopies under moderate sedation and was associated with reduced lidocaine consumption, a lower complication rate and better oxygenation compared with lidocaine administration via syringe. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02262442 ; 13th October 2014).
| S-EPMC6249909 | biostudies-literature