Volume 35, Issue 5 (August 2024)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2024, 35(5): 418-424 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.UMSU.REC.1399.357
Clinical trials code: IRCT20201204049599N4
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pashaei M R, Hoseinlou S, Ayremlou P. EVALUATION OF THE PROMETHAZINE EFFECT ON SEDATION AND QUALITY OF THE UPPER ESOPHAGEAL GASTRO ENDOSCOPY. Studies in Medical Sciences 2024; 35 (5) :418-424
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5725-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-5725-en.html
Clinical Research Development Unit of Imam Khomeini Hospital, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran (Corresponding Author) , ayremlou.p@umsu.ac.ir
Abstract: (201 Views)
Background & Aim: Today, endoscopic procedures are considered as a key method in early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. However, the quality of performance and patient satisfaction is one of the most important issues in endoscopy. This study aimed to determine the effect of promethazine on sedation and quality of upper esophageal and gastro endoscopy.
Materials & Methods: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 22 patients were randomly divided into two groups: promethazine (intervention) and placebo. Patients in the intervention group received 30 cc of promethazine hydrochloride syrup dissolved in 70 cc of drinking water one hour and placebo group received 50 gr of glucose solution dissolved in 50 cc of drinking water before the procedure. The outcomes of the study including endoscopist and patient satisfaction, patient anxiety, and Wilson sedation scale were measured and compared between the two groups.
Results: The results showed that the endoscopist satisfaction in 3. 27% of patients in the intervention group and 1.9% in the placebo group were excellent and good and the average frequency of endoscopist satisfaction in the intervention and placebo groups was 5.54% and 7.27%, respectively. In the intervention group, 1.9% of patients were completely satisfied with the procedure. For the Wilson Sedation Scale, 100% of patients were aware in the placebo group, while 7. 27% were fully aware in the intervention group. The percentage of severe and high anxiety in the patient during endoscopy in the intervention and placebo groups were 7. 27% and 8.81%, respectively. None of the studied outcomes showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p <0.05).
Conclusion: The use of promethazine as a premedication compared with placebo did not have a significant effect on the quality of endoscopy and patient sedation.
Materials & Methods: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 22 patients were randomly divided into two groups: promethazine (intervention) and placebo. Patients in the intervention group received 30 cc of promethazine hydrochloride syrup dissolved in 70 cc of drinking water one hour and placebo group received 50 gr of glucose solution dissolved in 50 cc of drinking water before the procedure. The outcomes of the study including endoscopist and patient satisfaction, patient anxiety, and Wilson sedation scale were measured and compared between the two groups.
Results: The results showed that the endoscopist satisfaction in 3. 27% of patients in the intervention group and 1.9% in the placebo group were excellent and good and the average frequency of endoscopist satisfaction in the intervention and placebo groups was 5.54% and 7.27%, respectively. In the intervention group, 1.9% of patients were completely satisfied with the procedure. For the Wilson Sedation Scale, 100% of patients were aware in the placebo group, while 7. 27% were fully aware in the intervention group. The percentage of severe and high anxiety in the patient during endoscopy in the intervention and placebo groups were 7. 27% and 8.81%, respectively. None of the studied outcomes showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p <0.05).
Conclusion: The use of promethazine as a premedication compared with placebo did not have a significant effect on the quality of endoscopy and patient sedation.
Type of Study: Clinical trials |
Subject:
گوارش و کبد
References
1. Mak TK, Guan B, Peng J, Chong TH, Wang C, Huang S, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of gastric remnant cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg 2021;44(1): 11-7 [PMID: 32253109] [DOI:10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.03.012]
2. Babaee E, Roshandel G, Olfatifar M, Tehrani-Banihashemi A, Ashaari A, Nojomi M. Geo-epidemiological reporting and spatial clustering of the 10 most prevalent cancers in Iran. Geospat Health 2021;16(1) [PMID: 34000792] [DOI:10.4081/gh.2021.904]
3. Yoon JY, Cha JM, Kwak MS, Jeon JW, Shin HP, Joo KR, et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire is a valid tool to measure patient satisfaction in Asian country. Medicine 2018;97(29) [PMID: 30024523] [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000011477] [PMCID: PMC6086541]
4. D BURTEA AD, Maloș A, Cherciu I, Săftoiu A. Assessment of the quality of outpatient endoscopic procedures by using a patient satisfaction questionnaire. Curr Health Sci J 2019;45(1): 52 [PMID: 31297263] [PMCID: PMC6592669]
5. Januszewicz W, Kaminski MF. Quality indicators in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Ther Adv Gastroenterol 2020;13: 1756284820916693 [PMID: 32477426] [DOI:10.1177/1756284820916693] [PMCID: PMC7232050]
6. Pujitha K, Sana R, Saleem SA, Satish PV, Njoku AP, Farenga DA, et al. Patient Satisfaction and Understanding of Moderate Sedation During Endoscopy. Cureus 2020;12(4) [PMID: 32431972] [PMCID: PMC7233512]
7. Ghanouni A, Plumb A, Hewitson P, Nickerson C, Rees CJ, von Wagner C. Patients' experience of colonoscopy in the English bowel cancer screening programme. Endoscopy 2016;48(03): 232-40 [PMID: 26841268] [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-100613]
8. Kayaaltı S, Kayaaltı Ö. Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy. World J Clin Cases 2018;6(16): 1146 [PMID: 30613673] [DOI:10.12998/wjcc.v6.i16.1146] [PMCID: PMC6306640]
9. Lin OS. Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction. Intest Res 2017;15(4): 456 [PMID: 29142513] [DOI:10.5217/ir.2017.15.4.456] [PMCID: PMC5683976]
10. Jin EH, Hong KS, Lee Y, Seo JY, Choi JM, Chun J, et al. How to improve patient satisfaction during midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy? World J Gastroenterol 2017;23(6): 1098 [PMID: 28246484] [DOI:10.3748/wjg.v23.i6.1098] [PMCID: PMC5311099]
11. Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G, Minoli G, Gastroenterologists IAoH. Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103(5): 1122-30 [PMID: 18445096] [DOI:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01778.x]
12. Childers RE, Williams JL, Sonnenberg A. Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82(3): 503-11 [PMID: 25851159] [DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.041] [PMCID: PMC4540687]
13. Hassan C, Rex D, Cooper G, Benamouzig R. Endoscopist-directed propofol administration versus anesthesiologist assistance for colorectal cancer screening: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Endoscopy 2012;44(05): 456-64 [PMID: 22531982] [DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1308936]
14. Lalfamkima F, Debnath SC, Adhyapok A. A Study of Promethazine Hydrochloride and Pentazocine Intramuscular Sedation Along with 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride and Adrenaline and Comparison to Placebo Along with 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride and Adrenaline for Surgical Extraction of Mandibular Third Molar. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2015;14(1): 90-100 [PMID: 25729232] [DOI:10.1007/s12663-013-0595-3] [PMCID: PMC4339336]
15. Sharma VK, Nguyen CC, Crowell MD, Lieberman DA. Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96(3): 550-4 [URL:] [DOI:10.1016/S0002-9270(01)02644-2]
16. Patel S, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Trolli P, Dumot JA. Beneficial effects of adjunct diphenhydramine administration in propofol conscious sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70(2): 235-43 [URL:]
17. Sachar H, Pichetshote N, Nandigam K, Vaidya K, Laine L. Continued midazolam versus diphenhydramine in difficult-to-sedate patients: a randomized double-blind trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018 May;87(5): 1297-303 [PMID: 28159539] [DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.028] [PMCID: PMC5537051]
18. Fallah R, Jalili S, Golestan M, Karbasi SA, Jarahzadeh M-H. Efficacy of chloral hydrate and promethazine for sedation during electroencephalography in children; a randomised clinical trial. Iran J Pediatr 2013;23(1): 27 [PMID: 23550099] [PMCID: PMC3574988]
19. Ferreira AFA, Lobato LS, Sousa MF, Galdez NMADO. CAPÍTULO 29 - SEDAÇÃO MÍNIMA EM ODONTOPEDIATRIA: EMPREGO DE BENZODIAZEPÍNICOS E N2 O/O2. 1.: 1 [URL:]
20. Lobb D, MiriMoghaddam M, Macalister D, Chrisp D, Shaw G, Lai H. Safety and efficacy of target controlled infusion administration of propofol and remifentanil for moderate sedation in non-hospital dental practice. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2023 Feb;23(1): 19 [PMID: 36819604] [DOI:10.17245/jdapm.2023.23.1.19] [PMCID: PMC9911961]
21. Motamed C, Servin F, Billard V. Adding Low-Dose Propofol to Limit Anxiety during Target-Controlled Infusion of Remifentanil for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Respiratory Issues and Safety Recommendations. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022 Sep 15;58(9): 1285 [PMID: 36143961] [DOI:10.3390/medicina58091285] [PMCID: PMC9502783]
22. Moerman AT, Struys MMRF, Vereecke HE, Herregods LL, De Vos MM, Mortier EP. Remifentanil used to supplement propofol does not improve quality of sedation during spontaneous respiration. J Clin Anesth 2004 Jun 1;16(4): 237-43 [PMID: 15261312] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.08.005]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
