Exportação concluída — 

Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Fernandes, MG
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Santos, VF, Martins, N, Sucena, MC, Passos, MM, Marques, MM, Magalhães, AM, Bugalho, A
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039
Resumo: BACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction.
id RCAP_f03ee4a353a82807e618fca7f2c2f0ba
oai_identifier_str oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/25039
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General AnesthesiaAnestesia GeralEndossonografiaSedação ConscienteAnesthesia, GeneralEndosonographyConscious SedationBACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction.Repositório ComumFernandes, MGSantos, VFMartins, NSucena, MCPassos, MMMarques, MMMagalhães, AMBugalho, A2018-11-26T22:27:54Z2018-11-082018-11-08T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039eng10.3390/jcm7110421info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-05-15T10:53:51Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/25039Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T07:25:15.088059Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
title Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
spellingShingle Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
Fernandes, MG
Anestesia Geral
Endossonografia
Sedação Consciente
Anesthesia, General
Endosonography
Conscious Sedation
title_short Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
title_full Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
title_fullStr Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
title_full_unstemmed Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
title_sort Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
author Fernandes, MG
author_facet Fernandes, MG
Santos, VF
Martins, N
Sucena, MC
Passos, MM
Marques, MM
Magalhães, AM
Bugalho, A
author_role author
author2 Santos, VF
Martins, N
Sucena, MC
Passos, MM
Marques, MM
Magalhães, AM
Bugalho, A
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Comum
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Fernandes, MG
Santos, VF
Martins, N
Sucena, MC
Passos, MM
Marques, MM
Magalhães, AM
Bugalho, A
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anestesia Geral
Endossonografia
Sedação Consciente
Anesthesia, General
Endosonography
Conscious Sedation
topic Anestesia Geral
Endossonografia
Sedação Consciente
Anesthesia, General
Endosonography
Conscious Sedation
description BACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-11-26T22:27:54Z
2018-11-08
2018-11-08T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.3390/jcm7110421
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833602980006330368