Publication
Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia
| dc.contributor.author | Fernandes, MG | |
| dc.contributor.author | Santos, VF | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martins, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sucena, MC | |
| dc.contributor.author | Passos, MM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Marques, MM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Magalhães, AM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bugalho, A | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-11-26T22:27:54Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-11-26T22:27:54Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-11-08 | |
| dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators' difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients' comfort and satisfaction. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 8;7(11). pii: E421. | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.3390/jcm7110421 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/25039 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Anestesia Geral | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Endossonografia | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Sedação Consciente | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Anesthesia, General | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Endosonography | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Conscious Sedation | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 11 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 421 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 7 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |