A comparison of propofol–midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a retrospective cohort study. (24th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Öztaş, Selahattin; Aka Aktürk, Ülkü; Alpay, Levent A.; Meydan, Burhan; Ogün, Hamza; Taylan, Mahşuk; Yalçınsoy, Murat; Çalışır, Haluk C.; Görgüner, Ali Metin; Ernam, Dilek
• Is Part Of: Clinical respiratory journal. Volume 11:Number 6(2017)
• Page Start: 935
• Page End: 941
• Publication Date: 2016-02-24
• Subjects: EBUS‐TBNA -- sedation -- propofol -- midazolam; Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiratory organs -- Periodicals; 616.24
• DOI: 10.1111/crj.12442
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1752-6981

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) is a new, minimally invasive, bronchoscopic technique used in the evaluation of inthrathoracic lymph nodes.Use of sedation drugs before the procedure differs among centres. There is no standardization about sedation before EBUS‐TBNA.We used a policy decision to shift from use of propofol with midazolam vs midazolam alone in a large tertiary hospital to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of EBUS‐TBNA procedure. Methods: Files of all the patients who were performed EBUS‐TBNA between the dates of September 2010 and May 2014 were surveyed. All the EBUS‐TBNA cases were performed under sedation of propofol and midazolam with an accompanying anesthesiologist in the beginning, however, sedation is applied with midazolam without an accompanying anesthesiologist after April 2013 due to changes in sedation policy. The diagnostic yield and complication rates were compared by chi‐squared analysis between two groups. Results: The files of 340 EBUS‐TBNA performed patients were evaluated. Of the patients 274 eligible patients were analysed. 152 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analysed in propofol‐midazolam (P) sedated group and 122 patients were analysed in midazolam (M) group. There is no statistically significant difference between two different sedated groups in terms of age and gender. Diagnostic value was detected as 77.6% in P group and 85.7% in M group and the difference was not statistically significant. No difference between complication rates of both groups was observed. Conclusion: Both sedation‐types for performing EBUS‐TBNA showed similar diagnostic value and complication rates in our study. Propofol with midazolam application requires with an accompanying anaesthesiologist, therefore, it increases cost. EBUS‐TBNA procedures had been performed in safe with no decrease in diagnostic yield under moderate sedation.