FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2563268172> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2563268172 endingPage "A88" @default.
• W2563268172 startingPage "A88.1" @default.
• W2563268172 abstract "<h3>Introduction</h3> Propofol is being increasingly used for sedation in endoscopic procedures in the US and across Europe, but experience within UK centres remains limited. Over the last few years there has been an anaesthetist covered dedicated propofol sedation endoscopy list at the Leicester General Hospital. The aim was to evaluate the propofol sedation service with respect to current practice and complication rates, with a view to expanding the service and developing appropriate guidelines for more effective use. <h3>Methods</h3> Review of all endoscopic procedures using propofol for sedation over 8-months at the Leicester General Hospital. Data were collected for all relevant procedures from August 2008 to March 2009. Indication for propofol use was examined, type of procedure, dose of propofol, and significant complications evaluated. <h3>Result</h3> 48 procedures were done using propofol sedation during Aug 2008–March 2009: 54% OGD; 33% Colonoscopy; 8% PEG; 4% FOS. The patients9 age ranged from 21–78 years (mean 52), with 52% female and 48% male. Of these procedures 45% had no clear indication for the use of propofol, 35% had previously failed the procedure under “standard sedation”, 13% required therapeutic procedures, 8% had other relevant indications for propofol sedation as opposed to standard endoscopic sedation. Dose was documented in 31% of cases, with dose ranging from 120–600 mg propofol (mean 324 mg). 2/48 (4%) had respiratory compromise requiring airway support with bag and mask ventilation for a few minutes. There were 15 pending requests at the time of evaluation: 60% COL; 13% OGD+COL; 13% banding/dilatation; 7% OGD; 7% PEG. Patients9 age range was 25–65 years (mean 49), 67% female and 33% male. In 60% requests there was no reason identified for rationale behind use of propofol, 27% had previously failed procedure under standard sedation, 7% were therapeutic, and 7% were for surveillance purposes. <h3>Conclusion</h3> There is increasing demand for the use of propofol for sedation in endoscopic procedures within UHL NHS Trust. In our centre there has been effective use of anaesthetist led propofol endoscopy lists with minimal complications and a good level of patient satisfaction. With increasing patient popularity and a greater drive for surveillance and screening procedures in patients, perhaps a formal anaesthetist supported propofol endoscopy service should be established in all endoscopy units. Until more information is available on the safety of use of propofol for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy, clear guidelines need to be in place in centres developing a propofol endoscopy service to ensure safe and appropriate use." @default.
• W2563268172 created "2017-01-06" @default.
• W2563268172 creator A5031707629 @default.
• W2563268172 creator A5074229622 @default.
• W2563268172 date "2010-04-01" @default.
• W2563268172 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2563268172 title "PWE-007 A single-centre 8-month experience of propofol sedation for endoscopic procedures" @default.
• W2563268172 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.208942c" @default.
• W2563268172 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2563268172 type Work @default.
• W2563268172 sameAs 2563268172 @default.
• W2563268172 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2563268172 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2563268172 hasAuthorship W2563268172A5031707629 @default.
• W2563268172 hasAuthorship W2563268172A5074229622 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C105922876 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C2776277131 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C2776814716 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C2778435480 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C105922876 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C121608353 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C126322002 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C141071460 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C2776277131 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C2776814716 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C2778435480 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C2778451229 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C42219234 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C526805850 @default.
• W2563268172 hasConceptScore W2563268172C71924100 @default.
• W2563268172 hasIssue "Suppl 1" @default.
• W2563268172 hasLocation W25632681721 @default.
• W2563268172 hasOpenAccess W2563268172 @default.
• W2563268172 hasPrimaryLocation W25632681721 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W1927106260 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W2025702513 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W2036489846 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W2056983530 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W2263160176 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W2588917084 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W3089058398 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W35839191 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W4285351704 @default.
• W2563268172 hasRelatedWork W4317693805 @default.
• W2563268172 hasVolume "59" @default.
• W2563268172 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2563268172 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2563268172 magId "2563268172" @default.
• W2563268172 workType "article" @default.