Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Abstract Background There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Methods...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hyun Lee, Yeong Hun Choe, Seungyong Park
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-12-01
Series:BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-1004-6
id doaj-0e747454950d4bffaec67b9417df72ff
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0e747454950d4bffaec67b9417df72ff2020-12-13T12:21:26ZengBMCBMC Pulmonary Medicine1471-24662019-12-011911710.1186/s12890-019-1004-6Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofolHyun Lee0Yeong Hun Choe1Seungyong Park2Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University HospitalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical SchoolDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical SchoolAbstract Background There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Methods A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. Results Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p <  0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p <  0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p <  0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. Conclusions Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-1004-6RemifentanilMidazolamPropofolBronchoscopyAnalgosedation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hyun Lee
Yeong Hun Choe
Seungyong Park
spellingShingle Hyun Lee
Yeong Hun Choe
Seungyong Park
Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
Remifentanil
Midazolam
Propofol
Bronchoscopy
Analgosedation
author_facet Hyun Lee
Yeong Hun Choe
Seungyong Park
author_sort Hyun Lee
title Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
title_short Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
title_full Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
title_fullStr Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
title_full_unstemmed Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
title_sort analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol
publisher BMC
series BMC Pulmonary Medicine
issn 1471-2466
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Abstract Background There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Methods A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. Results Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p <  0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p <  0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p <  0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. Conclusions Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.
topic Remifentanil
Midazolam
Propofol
Bronchoscopy
Analgosedation
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-1004-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hyunlee analgosedationduringflexiblefiberopticbronchoscopycomparingtheclinicaleffectivenessandsafetyofremifentanilversusmidazolampropofol
AT yeonghunchoe analgosedationduringflexiblefiberopticbronchoscopycomparingtheclinicaleffectivenessandsafetyofremifentanilversusmidazolampropofol
AT seungyongpark analgosedationduringflexiblefiberopticbronchoscopycomparingtheclinicaleffectivenessandsafetyofremifentanilversusmidazolampropofol
_version_ 1724384730488504320