Abstract
One hundred and eighty-five patients were allocated at random to receive pethidine with diazepam (in an emulsion), or pethidine with midazolam i.v. as sedation for upper gastrointestinal endpscopy. Sedation and conditions for examination were comparablè and satisfactory in both groups. Midazolam produced more amnmia (P= <0.001), and scored higher in patients' opinion (P= <0.001); it was associated with a slightly greater frequency of venous sequelae, but the difference in thrombophlebitis was not statistically significant. Recovery of sensory - motor performance, as assessed by Trieger test, was still incomplete 2 h after endoscopy with, both drug regimens.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1095-1101 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | British Journal of Anaesthesia |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 1983 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
- Applied Mathematics
- Mathematics(all)
- Statistics and Probability
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Cite this
A randomized comparison of midazolam and diazepam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. / Magni, V. C.; Frost, R. A.; Leung, Joseph; Cotton, P. B.
In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 55, No. 11, 11.1983, p. 1095-1101.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A randomized comparison of midazolam and diazepam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy
AU - Magni, V. C.
AU - Frost, R. A.
AU - Leung, Joseph
AU - Cotton, P. B.
PY - 1983/11
Y1 - 1983/11
N2 - One hundred and eighty-five patients were allocated at random to receive pethidine with diazepam (in an emulsion), or pethidine with midazolam i.v. as sedation for upper gastrointestinal endpscopy. Sedation and conditions for examination were comparablè and satisfactory in both groups. Midazolam produced more amnmia (P= <0.001), and scored higher in patients' opinion (P= <0.001); it was associated with a slightly greater frequency of venous sequelae, but the difference in thrombophlebitis was not statistically significant. Recovery of sensory - motor performance, as assessed by Trieger test, was still incomplete 2 h after endoscopy with, both drug regimens.
AB - One hundred and eighty-five patients were allocated at random to receive pethidine with diazepam (in an emulsion), or pethidine with midazolam i.v. as sedation for upper gastrointestinal endpscopy. Sedation and conditions for examination were comparablè and satisfactory in both groups. Midazolam produced more amnmia (P= <0.001), and scored higher in patients' opinion (P= <0.001); it was associated with a slightly greater frequency of venous sequelae, but the difference in thrombophlebitis was not statistically significant. Recovery of sensory - motor performance, as assessed by Trieger test, was still incomplete 2 h after endoscopy with, both drug regimens.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021062937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021062937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/bja/55.11.1095
DO - 10.1093/bja/55.11.1095
M3 - Article
VL - 55
SP - 1095
EP - 1101
JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia
JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia
SN - 0007-0912
IS - 11
ER -