Trial reportTherapeutics and clinical risk management2024
The Efficacy and Safety Profile of Balanced Propofol Sedation for Bronchoscopy.
Trial report in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We conducted a prospective, real-world study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of balanced propofol sedation (BPS) in bronchoscopy and identify an advantageous sedation regimen for such procedures. Patients and Methods: The participants were placed in four groups based on their sedation regimen (exposure factor): the M-S group (midazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), R-S group (remimazolam + sufentanil for traditional sedation), M-S-P group (midazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS), and R-S-P group (remimazolam + sufentanil + propofol for BPS). The primary outcomes included satisfaction metrics (satisfaction of the patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses) and follow-up questionnaires. The secondary outcomes included time metrics (induction time, recovery time, and discharge time), dosage metrics (induction dose, maintenance dose, and total dose of each sedative), completion rate of sedation, intraprocedural dose, and frequency of lidocaine spray in the airway, and incidence of adverse reactions. Results: In total, 418 subjects were included in this study. Compared to traditional sedation, both BPS groups significantly increased the satisfaction of patients, endoscopic physicians, and nurses (P < 0.05) and reduced the incidence of intraprocedural wakefulness (P < 0.05). Additionally, induction and recovery of the BPS group were rapid, with high sedation completion rates and no increase in the incidence of intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse reactions (P < 0.05). The RSP group was better than the MSP group in terms of various time metrics and postprocedural adverse reactions. Conclusion: BPS can be safely and effectively applied during bronchoscopy, with remimazolam and sufentanil combined with a small dose of propofol being an optimal medication regimen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.