Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Endoscopes”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 451 records · Page 25Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Endoscopic studies of nabumetone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A comparative endoscopic and histologic evaluation.

Gastric tolerance to 1 g of nabumetone administered in a single nightly dose was assessed in two trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Gastroscopy and histology of mucosal biopsy specimens were performed before and after the end of treatment in both trials. Trial 1 was an open study that compared the effects of 1 g of nabumetone at night with those of naproxen (dose, 500 mg twice daily) and indomethacin (dose, 50 mg three times daily) in 41 hospitalized patients. After three weeks of treatment, nabumetone was significantly better tolerated than naproxen or indomethacin. Trial 2 was a randomized trial with 24 patients per group that compared 1 g of nabumetone given at night with 250 mg of naproxen given in the morning and 500 mg given at night for a period of three months. This single-blind study revealed that the number of patients with microscopic or macroscopic mucosal lesions was significantly smaller following intake of nabumetone. Concerning efficacy, as judged clinically by a rheumatologist, treatment with nabumetone was superior as well.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Conscious sedation for endoscopic and non-endoscopic interventional gastrointestinal procedures: meeting patients' expectations, missing the standard.

AIM: To assess the level of sedation, patient satisfaction and frequency of unplanned events with conscious sedation for interventional procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventeen patients were assessed prospectively before, during and after procedures. Blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation and sedation level were monitored and patients followed up after 24 h. Sedation was scored after drugs were given in accordance with an established protocol. Doses were recorded, as were patients' weight, age and ASA grade and any unplanned events and their management. RESULTS: Seventy-six of the 117 patients (65%) had no unplanned event, 20 (17.1%) became agitated, 15 (12.8%) hypotensive, three (2.6%) hypoxic and three (2.6%) had more than one response. Twelve patients required active management. Fifty-two (44.4%) had a sedation level of </=3 (responsive to verbal commands), but 39 (33.3%) reached level 6. Median doses were midazolam 6 mg (1-20 mg) and pethidine 50 mg (12.5-100 mg). Ninety-three percent were satisfied with their sedation. No adverse effects were observed after 24 h. CONCLUSION: Despite using a sedation protocol, unplanned events occurred in 35% (95% CI=27-44%) of patients, although not all required active management. The sedation levels reached in some exceeded guidelines. Unplanned events were commoner with increased sedation level. Patient satisfaction was high and no permanent damage was observed.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy compared with endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP is not feasible or fails in the palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are viable alternatives. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of the 2 techniques for the palliation of MDBO. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched through November 2025 for studies that reported outcomes of EUS-CDS and EUS-GDB in patients with MDBO. A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. We compared the rates of technical and clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), and lumen-apposing metal stent dysfunction. A random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 (%) statistics. RESULTS: Five studies (352 patients; EUS-CDS: 193 and EUS-GBD: 159) were included. Technical success was 93.3% (95% CI, 70.6-98.8) for EUS-CDS and 95.9% (95% CI, 90.0-98.4) for EUS-GBD (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P = .6). Clinical success was 90.1% (95% CI, 84.7-93.7) versus 86.6% (95% CI, 80.3-91.0) (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P = .4). There were no significant differences in overall AEs (19.7% vs 17.6%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.58-1.48; P = .8), severe AEs (11.0% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.33-1.44; P = .3), or stent dysfunction (15.0% vs 14.5%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.35-2.58; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD appears comparable to EUS-CDS in terms of technical and clinical success, AEs, and stent dysfunction. Further prospective studies are warranted to corroborate our findings.

Humans↗