2017Digestive EndoscopyOpen access

Comparison of procedural sequences in same‐day painless bidirectional endoscopy: Single‐center, prospective, randomized study

Yan Cao, Jun Yang, Jiao Li, Xin Ao, Kaiyuan Zhang, Xiaochun Shen, Dongfeng Chen, Chunhui Lan

Open full text 21 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation. METHODS: A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation. METHODS: A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 21 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation. METHODS: A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

Key concepts: Medicine, Colonoscopy, Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, Sedation, Endoscopy, Propofol, Remifentanil, Adverse effect

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of procedural sequences in same‐day painless bidirectional endoscopy: Single‐center, prospective, randomized study — Research Paper | ScholarLens