|
 
 |
| EURO EUS MEETING |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 3
| Issue : 5 | Page : 14-15 |
|
Safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide for endoscopic ultrasound procedures that need irrigation
C Wang, S Sun, X liu, J Guo, S Wang, G Wang
Endoscopy center, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| Date of Web Publication | 27-Mar-2014 |
Correspondence Address:
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
How to cite this article:
Wang C, Sun S, liu X, Guo J, Wang S, Wang G. Safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide for endoscopic ultrasound procedures that need irrigation. Endosc Ultrasound 2014;3, Suppl S1:14-5 |
How to cite this URL:
Wang C, Sun S, liu X, Guo J, Wang S, Wang G. Safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide for endoscopic ultrasound procedures that need irrigation. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2014 [cited 2021 Jan 16];3, Suppl S1:14-5. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2014/3/5/14/129522 |
Objective: Echo-endoscopes are much stiffer and thicker than regular endoscopes. During the procedure of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedure, water irrigation is a very useful for imaging but very dangerous if the patient receive the procedure under anesthesia without intubation. In this study, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) (≤70%) for EUS.
Methods: Among 4230 patients who underwent EUS from December 2012 to December 2013, 347 out patients who need irrigation during the procedure were enrolled and divided into Group A. Group A (N 2 O sedation group, n = 162) and Group B (no sedative group, n = 185). For Group A, patients received N 2 O by inhalation during the procedure. The mixture rate of N 2 O and O 2 was 45-65% and controlled by nurses according to individual effect. The cardiorespiratory functions, procedure duration, complications, and visual analog scale (VAS) of the patient and examiner satisfaction were compared.
Results: Both group had comparable diagnostic accuracy, but VAS of the patients who received N 2 O sedation was higher than that in Group B (7.5 vs. 4.5, P < 0.05) and the examiner procedural satisfaction ratings of Group A was also better than that of Group B (8.1 vs. 5.1, P < 0.05); Most patients in Group A reported willingness to reconsider N 2 O for a future EUS. No pulmonary aspiration occurred in this study.
Conclusions: N 2 O for EUS is comfortable, safe and feasible, especially for the procedures that need irrigation.
Status of the presenting author: Chief resident
The authors declare: No significant relationship.
|
Search Pubmed for