Assessment of perianesthesic data in subjects undergoing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration

9Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transbronchial needle aspiration using endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUSTBNA), a new minimally invasive diagnostic procedure, has been used to evaluate intrathoracic lymph nodes. It has been reported that EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely under sedation and provides a high level of patient satisfaction. We aimed to describe perianesthetic data, and compare results regarding the agents of subjects undergoing EBUS-TBNA under deep sedation. METHODS: After ethics committee approval, perianesthetic data of 571 subjects undergoing EBUS-TBNA were analyzed retrospectively. Data were collected from anesthesia evaluation and observation forms. Four groups received anesthesia in the operating room as follows: propofol-midazolam (group PM), propofol-ketamine (group PK), propofol-ketamine-midazolam (group PKM), or propofol (group P). Dosage, number of anesthetic injection, hemodynamic variables, recovery time, complications, and patient satisfaction were also recorded. RESULTS: Propofol consumption was higher in groups P and PM compared with groups PK and PKM. Midazolam requirement was higher in group PM than in group PKM. Recovery time was shorter in group P compared with groups PK, PM, and PKM. It was also shorter in groups PK and PM compared with group PKM. All of these differences were statistically significant. Temporary desaturation (n = 41; 7%) and increased blood pressure (n = 78; 14%) were predominant complications. In groups PK and PKM, risk of developing hypertension was higher than in groups PM and P (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sazak, H., Tunç, M., Alagöz, A., Pehlivanoğ Lu, P., Demirci, N. Y., Alıcı, İ. O., & Yılmaz, A. (2015). Assessment of perianesthesic data in subjects undergoing endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. Respiratory Care, 60(4), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03547

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free