Volume 26, Number 146 (3-2017)                   J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2017, 26(146): 109-117 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Musavi F, Shokoohi F, Taghvaei T, Maleki I, Bari Z, Fakheri H. Evaluation and Comparison of Physician’s Satisfaction from Adequacy of Sedation for Endoscopy after Choosing the Type of Sedation by Patient or the Doctor. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2017; 26 (146) :109-117
URL: http://jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-9680-en.html

Abstract:   (1126 Views)

Background and purpose: Suitable sedation during gastrointestinal (GI) tract endoscopy leads to the patient’s and the physician’s satisfaction and enhances the quality and the adequacy of the procedure.

Materials and methods: In a clinical trial, 140 patients were randomly assigned into two groups in order to compare the adequacy of upper GI tract endoscopy after choosing the type of sedation by either the physician or the patient who were provided with educational pamphlets.

Results: Among 70 patients for whom the type of sedation was chosen by the physician, 15.7% received just local Lidocaine spray, 65.7% received Lidocaine spray + intravenous (IV) Midazolam, and 18.5% received Lidocaine spray + I.V. Midazolam + I.V. Pethidine. No patient needed any change in the dose or type of sedation. From 70 patients in the second group 13 (18.5%) chose just Lidocaine spray, but almost half of these patients could not tolerate the procedure and received I.V. Midazolam. Also, 41 (58.5%) chose Lidocaine spray + I.V. Midazolam, but 2 of them received I.V. Pethidine due to intolerance. Furthermore, 16 patients (22.8%) chose Lidocaine + I.V. Midazolam + I.V. Pethidine, but one of them received I.V. Propofol due to intolerance.

Conclusion: Patient’s right to make decisions is an important issue in choosing the type of sedation for endoscopy, nevertheless, a considerable number of patients cannot make an appropriate decision independently.

(Clinical Trials Registry Number: IRCT201606062499N4)

Full-Text [PDF 715 kb]   (304 Downloads)    

Add your comments about this article : Your username or email:
Write the security code in the box

Send email to the article author


© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb