Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039 |
Resumo: | BACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction. |
id |
RCAP_f03ee4a353a82807e618fca7f2c2f0ba |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/25039 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General AnesthesiaAnestesia GeralEndossonografiaSedação ConscienteAnesthesia, GeneralEndosonographyConscious SedationBACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction.Repositório ComumFernandes, MGSantos, VFMartins, NSucena, MCPassos, MMMarques, MMMagalhães, AMBugalho, A2018-11-26T22:27:54Z2018-11-082018-11-08T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039engJ Clin Med. 2018 Nov 8;7(11). pii: E421.10.3390/jcm7110421info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2022-12-20T14:25:15Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/25039Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:22:52.034496Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
title |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
spellingShingle |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia Fernandes, MG Anestesia Geral Endossonografia Sedação Consciente Anesthesia, General Endosonography Conscious Sedation |
title_short |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
title_full |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
title_fullStr |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
title_full_unstemmed |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
title_sort |
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia |
author |
Fernandes, MG |
author_facet |
Fernandes, MG Santos, VF Martins, N Sucena, MC Passos, MM Marques, MM Magalhães, AM Bugalho, A |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Santos, VF Martins, N Sucena, MC Passos, MM Marques, MM Magalhães, AM Bugalho, A |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Comum |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Fernandes, MG Santos, VF Martins, N Sucena, MC Passos, MM Marques, MM Magalhães, AM Bugalho, A |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Anestesia Geral Endossonografia Sedação Consciente Anesthesia, General Endosonography Conscious Sedation |
topic |
Anestesia Geral Endossonografia Sedação Consciente Anesthesia, General Endosonography Conscious Sedation |
description |
BACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-11-26T22:27:54Z 2018-11-08 2018-11-08T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 8;7(11). pii: E421. 10.3390/jcm7110421 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799130673762533376 |