Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31818268›Full record

Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2019

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol.

Hyun Lee, Yeong Hun Choe, Seungyong Park

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Foreign body aspirations in dental clinics: a narrative review.Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with COVID-19: analysis of 33 cases].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyun LeeDivision of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yeong Hun ChoeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Seungyong ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Chonbuk National University Hospital-Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Republic of Korea. cough@jbnu.ac.kr.
Jeonbuk National University Hospital · KRHanyang University Seoul Hospital · KR

Funding

Chonbuk National University (KR) Fund of Biomedical Research Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol.

methodsA retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy.

resultsOf the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p <  0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p <  0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p <  0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia.

conclusionsDespite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBronchoscopyFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesLogistic ModelsMaleMidazolamMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProcedural SedationPropofolRemifentanilRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesHypnotics and SedativesMidazolamPropofolRemifentanilAnalgosedationBronchoscopyMidazolamPropofolRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID31818268
PMCPMC6902590
OpenAlexW2992004372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.