Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 14, 2017; 23(6): 1098-1105
Published online Feb 14, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i6.1098
Published online Feb 14, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i6.1098
Table 5 Patients’ satisfaction through active monitoring and intervention by endoscopist during colonoscopy
Active monitoring (n = 39) | Non-active monitoring (n = 128) | P value | |
Sex (Male, %) | 19 (48.7) | 70 (54.7) | 0.584 |
Age (mean ± SD) | 56.1 ± 13.0 | 57.7 ± 13.5 | 0.514 |
Proportion of EMR, n (%) | 32 (82.1) | 51 (39.8) | < 0.001 |
Satisfaction, n (%) | 0.968 | ||
Very satisfied | 12 (30.8) | 39 (30.5) | |
Satisfied | 20 (51.3) | 66 (51.6) | |
Fair | 5 (12.8) | 14 (10.9) | |
Unsatisfied | 2 (5.1) | 9 (7.0%) | |
Midazolam, first dose (mg, mean ± SD) | 4.5 ± 1.0 | 4.2 ± 0.9 | 0.159 |
Midazolam, total dose (mg, mean ± SD) | 5.8 ± 1.2 | 4.8 ± 1.5 | 0.002 |
Midazolam, No. of injections (mean ± SD) | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 1.4 ± 0.7 | 0.025 |
Procedure time (min, mean ± SD) | 28.8 ± 12.2 | 22.3 ± 12.2 | 0.005 |
- Citation: Jin EH, Hong KS, Lee Y, Seo JY, Choi JM, Chun J, Kim SG, Kim JS, Jung HC. How to improve patient satisfaction during midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy? World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(6): 1098-1105
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i6/1098.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i6.1098