No abstract available.
Conscious Sedation* ; Porifera*

No abstract available.
Conscious Sedation* ; Endoscopy*

No abstract available.
Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy*

Conscious Sedation ; Humans ; Intubation, Intratracheal ; instrumentation ; methods

Anesthesia ; Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Humans

Anesthesia ; Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal ; Humans ; Singapore

Esophageal submucosal dissection is a rare condition, resulting in the separation of the submucosa and muscle layer by mucosal laceration and bleeding. Possible causes are external trauma, foreign body entrapment, endoscopic instrumentation and even spontaneous dissection. Typical endoscopic findings show a false lumen from the torn mucosa and a muscle layer in the false lumen. Esophagography shows a "double barrelled" appearance. A dissection can be resolved with conservative management. We experienced a case of a submucosal dissection of the esophagus with perforation, an unusual complication of conscious sedation endoscopy.
Conscious Sedation* ; Endoscopy* ; Esophagus ; Foreign Bodies ; Hemorrhage ; Lacerations ; Mucous Membrane

BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is increasing interest in the use of propofol as a sedative agent for colonoscopy. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the synergistic sedation with midazolam combined with low-dose propofol versus that of midazolam alone. METHODS: A total of 56 patients from among those who underwent total colonoscopy between August 2004 and October 2004 were randomly assigned to one of three medication treatment groups. Group A (n=18) received low-dose midazolam (0.03 mg/kg IV) plus propofol, group B (n=19) received high-dose midazolam (0.07 mg/kg IV) plus propofol, and group C (n=19) received high-dose midazolam alone. The patients' vital signs were monitored throughout the course of the study. The recovery time and quality as well as the patients' comfort level were also assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the treatment groups. There were also no differences in the duration and insertion time of the colonoscopy among the three groups. The patients' comfort level and cardiorespiratory parameters during colonoscopy were similar among the three groups. The sedation efficacy and recovery times were also similar among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam combined with low-dose propofol as a sedative for colonoscopy exhibits similar effects on safety, patient' comfort level and recovery time to those of midazolam alone.
Colonoscopy* ; Conscious Sedation* ; Humans ; Midazolam* ; Propofol* ; Vital Signs

BACKGROUND: The technique using target-controlled infusion (TCI) with propofol produces safe intraoperative sedation during regional anesthesia with rapid recovery and high patient satisfaction. The objective of this study was to define the blood propofol concentration necessary for conscious sedation in regional anesthesia patients according to age. METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled to undergo regional anesthesia were allocated into one of three groups according to age, such as group 1 (n = 20): 16 24 yr, group 2 (n = 20): 30 39 yr, group 3 (n = 20): 40 55 yr. Thirty minutes after performing regional anesthesia, TCI of propofol started at a target plasma level of 1 microgram/ml adjusted in steps of 0.2 microgram/ml to maintain a sedation level 3 on a 5-point sedation scale. RESULTS: The mean target concentration was 0.9 microgram/ml (group 1), 0.8 microgram/ml (group 2), 0.7 microgram/ml (group 3). The mean propofol consumption was 38.5 microgram/kg/min (group 1), 34.3 microgram/kg/min (group 2), and 30.8 microgram/kg/min (group 3). The recovery time was significantly delayed in group 3 (2.8 min) compared to group 1 (1.5 min) and group 2 (1.8 min). CONCLUSIONS: TCI of propofol within at 0.7 0.9 microgram/ml blood concentration range produces safe intraoperative sedation during regional anesthesia with rapid induction, rapid recovery and high patient satisfaction without severe complications in 16 55 yr old patients.
Anesthesia, Conduction* ; Conscious Sedation* ; Humans ; Patient Satisfaction ; Plasma ; Propofol*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sedative use is common in endoscopic examinations. The anxiety regarding sedative use may be different between doctors and nonmedical individuals. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted by a research company (DOOIT Survey), and responses were collected from 649 doctors and 1,738 individuals who perform typical jobs in nonmedical fields. In this study, these ordinary workers are considered to represent nonmedical individuals. Anxiety was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The nonmedical individuals exhibited more anxiety regarding the sedative use than the doctors. Age <40 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; p<0.001), female sex (OR, 1.62; p=0.002), experience of an adverse event (OR, 1.79; p=0.049), and insufficient explanation (OR, 2.05; p<0.001) were the significant factors that increased the anxiety of the nonmedical individuals. The doctors who experienced a sedative-related adverse event reported increased anxiety compared with the doctors who did not report this experience (OR, 1.73; p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety regarding sedative use during an endoscopic examination was significantly different between doctors and non-medical individuals. A younger age, female sex, an adverse event, and insufficient explanation affect the anxiety of nonmedical individuals. An adverse event also affects the anxiety of doctors.
Anxiety* ; Conscious Sedation ; Endoscopy ; Female ; Humans ; Seoul* ; Surveys and Questionnaires