Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam

Yasushi Yamasaki, Ryu Ishihara, Noboru Hanaoka, Noriko Matsuura, Takashi Kanesaka, Tomofumi Akasaka, Minoru Kato, Kenta Hamada, Yusuke Tonai, Sachiko Yamamoto, Yoji Takeuchi, Koji Higashino, Noriya Uedo, Yuri Ito, Masahiko Yano, Hiroyasu Iishi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard surveillance methods for pharyngeal cancer have not been established. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the best sedation method for pharyngeal observation using transoral endoscopy.

METHODS: In total, 120 patients who underwent surveillance or diagnostic examinations for esophageal cancer were enrolled and divided equally into three groups (no sedation, midazolam, or pethidine hydrochloride). In the midazolam group, midazolam was given i.v. maintaining a Ramsay score of 3. In the pethidine group, pethidine hydrochloride (35 mg) given i.v. Seven sites in five pharyngeal regions were observed on insertion of the endoscope, and graded (0 = poor, 1 = good). After examination, the five pharyngeal regions were scored using a seven-point scale. Primary endpoint was the total score from the five pharyngeal regions. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of the perfect score using the seven-point scale, discomfort score, and adverse events.

RESULTS: Mean total scores for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 5.7, 5.5, and 6.8, respectively (P < 0.0001). Proportion of patients with a perfect score for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 53%, 35%, and 89%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The pethidine group had better results than the other two groups. Discomfort score and adverse events were low in the pethidine group.

CONCLUSION: Pethidine hydrochloride is a feasible and safe sedation method, and was superior to no sedation and midazolam regarding pharyngeal observation of esophageal cancer patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)39-48
Number of pages10
JournalDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meperidine
Midazolam
Endoscopy
Observation
Esophageal Neoplasms
Pharyngeal Neoplasms
Endoscopes
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Aged
  • Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage
  • Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage
  • Biopsy
  • Conscious Sedation/methods
  • Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
  • Endoscopes
  • Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis
  • Feasibility Studies
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Meperidine/administration & dosage
  • Midazolam/administration & dosage
  • Mouth Mucosa/diagnostic imaging
  • Pharynx/diagnostic imaging
  • Retrospective Studies

Cite this

Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam. / Yamasaki, Yasushi; Ishihara, Ryu; Hanaoka, Noboru; Matsuura, Noriko; Kanesaka, Takashi; Akasaka, Tomofumi; Kato, Minoru; Hamada, Kenta; Tonai, Yusuke; Yamamoto, Sachiko; Takeuchi, Yoji; Higashino, Koji; Uedo, Noriya; Ito, Yuri; Yano, Masahiko; Iishi, Hiroyasu.

In: Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.2017, p. 39-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yamasaki, Y, Ishihara, R, Hanaoka, N, Matsuura, N, Kanesaka, T, Akasaka, T, Kato, M, Hamada, K, Tonai, Y, Yamamoto, S, Takeuchi, Y, Higashino, K, Uedo, N, Ito, Y, Yano, M & Iishi, H 2017, 'Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam', Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12746
Yamasaki, Yasushi ; Ishihara, Ryu ; Hanaoka, Noboru ; Matsuura, Noriko ; Kanesaka, Takashi ; Akasaka, Tomofumi ; Kato, Minoru ; Hamada, Kenta ; Tonai, Yusuke ; Yamamoto, Sachiko ; Takeuchi, Yoji ; Higashino, Koji ; Uedo, Noriya ; Ito, Yuri ; Yano, Masahiko ; Iishi, Hiroyasu. / Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam. In: Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. 2017 ; Vol. 29, No. 1. pp. 39-48.
@article{b1653f049f2048ac9af0e39cc0a51373,
title = "Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard surveillance methods for pharyngeal cancer have not been established. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the best sedation method for pharyngeal observation using transoral endoscopy.METHODS: In total, 120 patients who underwent surveillance or diagnostic examinations for esophageal cancer were enrolled and divided equally into three groups (no sedation, midazolam, or pethidine hydrochloride). In the midazolam group, midazolam was given i.v. maintaining a Ramsay score of 3. In the pethidine group, pethidine hydrochloride (35 mg) given i.v. Seven sites in five pharyngeal regions were observed on insertion of the endoscope, and graded (0 = poor, 1 = good). After examination, the five pharyngeal regions were scored using a seven-point scale. Primary endpoint was the total score from the five pharyngeal regions. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of the perfect score using the seven-point scale, discomfort score, and adverse events.RESULTS: Mean total scores for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 5.7, 5.5, and 6.8, respectively (P < 0.0001). Proportion of patients with a perfect score for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 53{\%}, 35{\%}, and 89{\%}, respectively (P < 0.0001). The pethidine group had better results than the other two groups. Discomfort score and adverse events were low in the pethidine group.CONCLUSION: Pethidine hydrochloride is a feasible and safe sedation method, and was superior to no sedation and midazolam regarding pharyngeal observation of esophageal cancer patients.",
keywords = "Aged, Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage, Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage, Biopsy, Conscious Sedation/methods, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Endoscopes, Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Meperidine/administration & dosage, Midazolam/administration & dosage, Mouth Mucosa/diagnostic imaging, Pharynx/diagnostic imaging, Retrospective Studies",
author = "Yasushi Yamasaki and Ryu Ishihara and Noboru Hanaoka and Noriko Matsuura and Takashi Kanesaka and Tomofumi Akasaka and Minoru Kato and Kenta Hamada and Yusuke Tonai and Sachiko Yamamoto and Yoji Takeuchi and Koji Higashino and Noriya Uedo and Yuri Ito and Masahiko Yano and Hiroyasu Iishi",
note = "{\circledC} 2016 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/den.12746",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "39--48",
journal = "Digestive Endoscopy",
issn = "0915-5635",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pethidine hydrochloride is a better sedation method for pharyngeal observation by transoral endoscopy compared with no sedation and midazolam

AU - Yamasaki, Yasushi

AU - Ishihara, Ryu

AU - Hanaoka, Noboru

AU - Matsuura, Noriko

AU - Kanesaka, Takashi

AU - Akasaka, Tomofumi

AU - Kato, Minoru

AU - Hamada, Kenta

AU - Tonai, Yusuke

AU - Yamamoto, Sachiko

AU - Takeuchi, Yoji

AU - Higashino, Koji

AU - Uedo, Noriya

AU - Ito, Yuri

AU - Yano, Masahiko

AU - Iishi, Hiroyasu

N1 - © 2016 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.

PY - 2017/1

Y1 - 2017/1

N2 - BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard surveillance methods for pharyngeal cancer have not been established. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the best sedation method for pharyngeal observation using transoral endoscopy.METHODS: In total, 120 patients who underwent surveillance or diagnostic examinations for esophageal cancer were enrolled and divided equally into three groups (no sedation, midazolam, or pethidine hydrochloride). In the midazolam group, midazolam was given i.v. maintaining a Ramsay score of 3. In the pethidine group, pethidine hydrochloride (35 mg) given i.v. Seven sites in five pharyngeal regions were observed on insertion of the endoscope, and graded (0 = poor, 1 = good). After examination, the five pharyngeal regions were scored using a seven-point scale. Primary endpoint was the total score from the five pharyngeal regions. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of the perfect score using the seven-point scale, discomfort score, and adverse events.RESULTS: Mean total scores for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 5.7, 5.5, and 6.8, respectively (P < 0.0001). Proportion of patients with a perfect score for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 53%, 35%, and 89%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The pethidine group had better results than the other two groups. Discomfort score and adverse events were low in the pethidine group.CONCLUSION: Pethidine hydrochloride is a feasible and safe sedation method, and was superior to no sedation and midazolam regarding pharyngeal observation of esophageal cancer patients.

AB - BACKGROUND AND AIM: Standard surveillance methods for pharyngeal cancer have not been established. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the best sedation method for pharyngeal observation using transoral endoscopy.METHODS: In total, 120 patients who underwent surveillance or diagnostic examinations for esophageal cancer were enrolled and divided equally into three groups (no sedation, midazolam, or pethidine hydrochloride). In the midazolam group, midazolam was given i.v. maintaining a Ramsay score of 3. In the pethidine group, pethidine hydrochloride (35 mg) given i.v. Seven sites in five pharyngeal regions were observed on insertion of the endoscope, and graded (0 = poor, 1 = good). After examination, the five pharyngeal regions were scored using a seven-point scale. Primary endpoint was the total score from the five pharyngeal regions. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of the perfect score using the seven-point scale, discomfort score, and adverse events.RESULTS: Mean total scores for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 5.7, 5.5, and 6.8, respectively (P < 0.0001). Proportion of patients with a perfect score for the no sedation group, the midazolam group and the pethidine group were 53%, 35%, and 89%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The pethidine group had better results than the other two groups. Discomfort score and adverse events were low in the pethidine group.CONCLUSION: Pethidine hydrochloride is a feasible and safe sedation method, and was superior to no sedation and midazolam regarding pharyngeal observation of esophageal cancer patients.

KW - Aged

KW - Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage

KW - Anesthetics, Intravenous/administration & dosage

KW - Biopsy

KW - Conscious Sedation/methods

KW - Dose-Response Relationship, Drug

KW - Endoscopes

KW - Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis

KW - Feasibility Studies

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Meperidine/administration & dosage

KW - Midazolam/administration & dosage

KW - Mouth Mucosa/diagnostic imaging

KW - Pharynx/diagnostic imaging

KW - Retrospective Studies

U2 - 10.1111/den.12746

DO - 10.1111/den.12746

M3 - Article

C2 - 27696551

VL - 29

SP - 39

EP - 48

JO - Digestive Endoscopy

JF - Digestive Endoscopy

SN - 0915-5635

IS - 1

ER -