Safety and Effectiveness of Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Sedation during Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Table 2
Characteristics of gastric lesions and outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection.
M group
MP group
value
Number of lesions
83
126
Location, n (%)
0.429
Upper third
4 (3.8)
12 (9.5)
Middle third
17 (20.5)
27 (21.4)
Lower third
62 (74.7)
87 (69.1)
Histology, n (%)
0.595
Adenoma
55 (66.3)
82 (65.1)
Differentiated cancer
26 (31.3)
43 (34.1)
Undifferentiated cancer
2 (2.4)
1 (0.8)
Macroscopic appearance, n (%)
0.131
Elevated
64 (77.1)
85 (67.5)
Flat or depressed
19 (22.9)
41 (32.5)
Ulcer findings of lesions, n (%)
0 (0.0)
3 (2.4)
0.157
Specimen size, mm, mean ± SD
30.9 ± 8.1
34.2 ± 10.3
0.01
Outcome of ESD, n (%)
En bloc resection
81 (97.6)
122 (96.8)
0.746
Complete resection
79 (95.2)
115 (91.3)
0.284
Procedure time (min)
31.7 ± 15.9
44.7 ± 32
<0.001
Adverse events of ESD, n (%)
Post-ESD bleeding
1 (1.2)
5 (4.0)
0.406
Perforation
0 (0.0)
1 (0.8)
1.00
Pneumonia
0 (0.0)
1 (0.8)
1.00
Patients’ pain (VAS 0–10), n (%)
After 2 hr (VAS > 3)
4 (4.8)
23 (18.3)
0.005
Values are mean ± SD or n (%) of patients. SD: standard deviation; M: sedation with midazolam; MP: sedation with midazolam plus intermittent propofol injection; ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; VAS: visual analog scale.
