Sedación con propofol y remifentanilo para la ultrasonografía endobronquial con punción-aspiración en tiempo real / Sedation with propofol and remifentanil for real-time endobronchial ultrasound needle aspiration

Introducción: Para la óptima realización de la ultrasonografía endobronquial (USEB) lineal es imprescindible que el paciente esté sedado para que se mantenga tranquilo, no tosa ni se mueva y el endoscopista trabaje cómodamente con un buen rendimiento de la exploración. Actualmente la técnica anestésica no está estandarizada y varía desde una anestesia general a una sedación. El objetivo del presente trabajo es conocer la dosificación, la seguridad y la satisfacción de la sedación endovenosa con propofol y remifentanilo e identificar los posibles factores predictivos de tos durante el procedimiento. Pacientes y métodos: Se estudió prospectivamente a los pacientes a quienes se realizó la USEB bajo sedación en un hospital de tercer nivel. Resultados: Se realizó la USEB a 90pacientes bajo sedación con remifentanilo y propofol, a una velocidad de infusión de 0,13 (0,09-0,17) ixgkg-¹ min^¹ y 2,34 (1,5-3,6) mgkg-¹ h_1, respectivamente. El 81% de los pacientes tosieron en algún momento de la exploración. En el 8% de los pacientes se interrumpió el procedimiento puntualmente por tos y desaturación. No se registraron complicaciones graves directamente relacionadas con la sedación. El nivel de satisfacción del neumólogo y del paciente con el procedimiento fue excelente o bueno en la mayoría de casos. No se observó relación estadísticamente significativa entre el número de episodios de tos durante la ecobroncoscopia y las variables test de la tos, ser tosedor habitual, hábito tabáquico o grado de severidad de la EPOC. Conclusiones: La sedación con remifentanilo y propofol realizada por un anestesiólogo permite realizar la USEB lineal en ventilación espontánea aunque con una elevada incidencia de tos y desaturación, siendo esta última la complicación más frecuente. No se encontraron factores predictivos de la tos durante el procedimiento.

Introduction: Optimal linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) outcomes require sedation to ensure that the patient remains calm, immobile, and does not cough, and so that the bronchoscopist can work comfortably. The choice of anesthesia techniques, on a spectrum ranging from general anesthesia to sedation, is not standardized. The aims of this study were to determine doses, safety and satisfaction for intravenous sedation with propofol and remifentanil, and identify potential predictors of coughing during the procedure, and determine patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction with the procedure. Patients and methods: The prospective study included patients undergoing EBUS under sedation in a tertiary hospital. Results: A total of 90 patients underwent EBUS under sedation with remifentanil and propofol, at infusion rates of 0,13 (0,09-0,17) g kg-¹ min^¹ and 2.34 (1.5-3.6) mg kg-¹ Lr¹, respectively. Just over four fifths of the patients (81%) coughed at some point during the ultrasound procedure. In 8% of patients the procedure was promptly discontinued due to coughing and desaturation. There were no major complications directly related to sedation. Bronchoscopists and patients rated their satisfaction with the procedure as excellent or good in most cases. There was no statistically significant relationship between the number of coughing episodes during the procedure and any of the following variables: positive cough test, a habitual cough, tobacco dependence, or severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conclusions: Remifentanil and propofol administered by an anesthesiologist enabled spontaneously breathing patients to undergo linear EBUS, although with a high incidence of coughing and particularly desaturation. No predictors for coughing during EBUS were identified.

SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of invasive bladder cancer.

The purpose of this article is to provide updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of muscle- invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. The diagnosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer is made by transurethral resection and following histopathologic evaluation. Invasive bladder cancer should be staged according to the UICC system. Patients with confirmed muscle-invasive bladder cancer should be staged by computed tomography scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. Radical cystectomy is the treatment of choice for both sexes and lymph node dissection should be an integral part of cystectomy. In muscle- invasive bladder cancer (cT2-4aN0M0) patients with good performance status (PS 0-1) and correct renal function, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be recommended. Adjuvant chemotherapy is widely used in high-risk patients with pathologic stage T3 or T4 and/or positive nodes and within clinical trials. Multimodality bladder-preserving treatment in localised disease is currently regarded only as an alternative in selected, well informed and compliant patients for whom cystectomy is not considered for clinical or personal reasons. In metastatic disease, the first-line treatment for patients is cisplatin-containing combination chemotherapy. Recently, vinflunine has been approved in Europe for second-line treatment and is an option for second-line therapy in patients progressing to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

Feasiblity study of gemcitabine and cisplatin administered every two weeks in patients with advanced urothelial tumors and impaired renal function.

OBJECTIVES: Cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for advanced bladder cancer. However, full doses of cisplatin cannot be delivered in patients with impaired renal function. Our aim was to prove the feasibility of a gemcitabine and low-dose cisplatin regimen, delivered every two weeks in patients with impaired renal function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer with creatinine clearance between 35-60 ml/min received gemcitabine 2500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 35 mg/m2 on day 1, every 14 days. RESULTS: Between January 2004 and March 2005, 17 patients were treated. Mean creatinine clearance was 47.8 ml/min (range: 37-59 ml/min). Four patients had previously received chemotherapy with gemcitabine and/ or platinum. Median number of cycles per patient was 5 (1-13). No patient developed renal toxicity or worsening of renal function. Main toxicities were (grade 3/4): Anemia 2/1; leucopenia: 1/2; trombopenia 1/1. There was one toxic death related to metabolic acidosis, secondary to vomiting. Among 16 patients evaluable for response, we observed one complete response, 7 partial responses (ORR: 53.3%; IC 95%: 28.1-78.5%), 6 stabilizations (37.5%) and 2 progressions (12.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and low-dose cisplatin is a safe and feasible combination in patients with poor renal function. Response rates seem similar to those previously described with standard schedules of this combination.