title: Propofol-Based Sedation Does Not Increase Rate of Complication during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Procedure.
abstract: Objectives. To evaluate and compare the complication rate of sedation with or without propofol regimen for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in a hospital in Thailand. Subjects and Methods. A total of 198 patients underwent PEG procedures by using intravenous sedation (IVS) from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand from August 2006 to January 2009. The primary outcome variable was the overall complication rate. The secondary outcome variables were sedation and procedure related complications, and mortality rate. Results. After matching ASA physical status and indications of procedure, there were 92 PEG procedures in propofol based sedation group (A) and 20 PEG procedures in non-propofol based sedation group (B). All sedation was given by residents or anesthetic nurses directly supervised by staff anesthesiologist in the endoscopy room. There were no significant differences in patients' characteristics, sedation time, indication, complications, anesthetic personnel and mortality rate between the two groups. All complications were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae. Mean dose of fentanyl and midazolam in group A was significantly lower than in group B. Conclusion. Propofol-based sedation does not increase rate of complication during PEG procedure. Additionally, IVS of PEG procedure is relatively safe and effective when performed by physicians in training. Serious complications are none.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesiology, Siriraj GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
authors.forename: Somchai
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Amornyotin
authors.forename: Wiyada
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Chalayonnavin
authors.forename: Siriporn
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kongphlay
references.citation: Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Nov;58(5):739-51
references.pmid: 14595312
references.citation: Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jun;55(7):901-8
references.pmid: 12024148
references.citation: J Trauma. 1996 Sep;41(3):530-2
references.pmid: 8810976
references.citation: World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jan 14;12(2):327-30
references.pmid: 16482639
references.citation: Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jan;59(1):54-7
references.pmid: 14722548
references.citation: Digestion. 2004;69(1):20-6
references.pmid: 14755149
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 1987 Jul;93(1):48-52
references.pmid: 3108063
references.citation: Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Jan;95(1):128-32
references.pmid: 10638570
references.citation: QJM. 1997 Aug;90(8):495-6
references.pmid: 9327026
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2007 Aug;133(2):675-701
references.pmid: 17681185
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1992 Jan;101(1):46-50
references.pmid: 1728885
references.citation: J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Feb;90(2):301-6
references.pmid: 17375635
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 1995 Apr;108(4):1282-301
references.pmid: 7698596
references.citation: Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Aug;60(2):167-72
references.pmid: 15278039
references.citation: Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 May;97(5):1273-4
references.pmid: 12014751
references.citation: Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;96(3):936-7
references.pmid: 11280597
references.citation: Surg Endosc. 1997 Jul;11(7):741-4
references.pmid: 9214323
references.citation: J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007 Dec;16(4):407-18
references.pmid: 18193123
references.citation: Endoscopy. 1999 Oct;31(8):684-6
references.pmid: 10571143
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 2002 Apr;96(4):1004-17
references.pmid: 11964611
references.citation: Ear Nose Throat J. 1995 Nov;74(11):760-2
references.pmid: 8536563