FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2058741517> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2058741517 endingPage "159" @default.
• W2058741517 startingPage "153" @default.
• W2058741517 abstract "To compare the quality between 2 commonly used sedation practices for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) by using expert observational analysis of the sedation practice.After institutional review board approval, 50 adults undergoing EUS had videotape observation of the procedural sedation: 25 received benzodiazepine/opiate administered by the endoscopy team as per the standard protocol at our institution, and 25 received propofol administered by a dedicated anesthesiologist. Quantitative analysis of the video was performed using the Dartmouth Operative Conditions Scale (DOCS). The DOCS is a tool previously developed to quantify the adequacy of procedural sedation through an objective measurement of the patient state during the sedation process. In this study, the DOCS was used in a novel way to compare the quality of sedation provided by different sedation protocols. Data were collected on patient demographics, patient and provider satisfaction, efficiency, side effects, and safety measures.Videotape analysis using the DOCS revealed that 52% (13/25) of the standard group exhibited an uncontrolled patient state (significant undersedation and/or oversedation) on 1 or more occasion during their EUS procedure compared with 28% (7/25) of the propofol group. Patients in the standard group spent 7.1% of the procedure in an uncontrolled patient state, whereas patients in the propofol group experienced an uncontrolled state approximately 1.0% of the procedure time. Overall efficiency as measured by time in both the procedure room and in recovery was superior in the propofol group. These patients spent 12 less minutes on average in the procedure room and were ready for discharge in about half the time (56 minutes versus 109 minutes). The propofol group experienced significantly less in-hospital and at-home nausea and vomiting and felt back to baseline status more quickly. Finally, patient satisfaction was improved in the propofol group: 60% felt the procedure was better than anticipated versus 21% in the standard group.Expert videotape analysis of the patient state during procedural sedation allows direct comparison of sedation methodologies using small numbers of patients. In our institution, endoscopist-directed sedation using a midazolam/narcotic combination for EUS proved inferior to sedation using propofol given by an anesthesiologist. Specifically, a midazolam/narcotic combination provided less effective intraprocedural conditions, was less efficient both before and after the procedure, and was less satisfactory to patients as compared with propofol. Results of this type of analysis can be used to drive appropriate system redesign and improve patient care." @default.
• W2058741517 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2058741517 creator A5021354001 @default.
• W2058741517 creator A5023587327 @default.
• W2058741517 creator A5063286307 @default.
• W2058741517 creator A5066002657 @default.
• W2058741517 creator A5069911459 @default.
• W2058741517 date "2009-09-01" @default.
• W2058741517 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2058741517 title "Comparison of Differing Sedation Practice for Upper Endoscopic Ultrasound Using Expert Observational Analysis of the Procedural Sedation" @default.
• W2058741517 cites W1975994132 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W1976988975 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W1978381685 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W1979694637 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2000123949 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2006219782 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2016675321 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2017324792 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2018035633 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2029626883 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2036933397 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2044200618 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2045226646 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2056669999 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2088243994 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2096529757 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2101010608 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2134602189 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2149873887 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2154639860 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W2520894846 @default.
• W2058741517 cites W4239313105 @default.
• W2058741517 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0b013e3181b53f80" @default.
• W2058741517 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19927048" @default.
• W2058741517 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2058741517 type Work @default.
• W2058741517 sameAs 2058741517 @default.
• W2058741517 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172012 @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172014 @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172015 @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172016 @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172017 @default.
• W2058741517 countsByYear W20587415172021 @default.
• W2058741517 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2058741517 hasAuthorship W2058741517A5021354001 @default.
• W2058741517 hasAuthorship W2058741517A5023587327 @default.
• W2058741517 hasAuthorship W2058741517A5063286307 @default.
• W2058741517 hasAuthorship W2058741517A5066002657 @default.
• W2058741517 hasAuthorship W2058741517A5069911459 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C2775944032 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C2776277131 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C2776814716 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C2780084366 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C126322002 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C141071460 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C144024400 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C149923435 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C23131810 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C2775944032 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C2776277131 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C2776814716 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C2780084366 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C42219234 @default.
• W2058741517 hasConceptScore W2058741517C71924100 @default.
• W2058741517 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2058741517 hasLocation W20587415171 @default.
• W2058741517 hasLocation W20587415172 @default.
• W2058741517 hasOpenAccess W2058741517 @default.
• W2058741517 hasPrimaryLocation W20587415171 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W163357817 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W1985198936 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2001683931 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W20440739 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2046685379 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2361468386 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2373888550 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2377505480 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W67055460 @default.
• W2058741517 hasRelatedWork W2184511288 @default.
• W2058741517 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W2058741517 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2058741517 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2058741517 magId "2058741517" @default.
• W2058741517 workType "article" @default.