Background: Colonoscopy is essential for diagnosing colon lesions but is often associated with discomfort. Painless colonoscopy techniques are being increasingly used to improve the patient experience." However, in the case of painless colonoscopy, anesthesia is performed outside the operating room, which requires more significant peri-examination of hemodynamic changes and adverse postoperative reactions. This requires a more careful selection of narcotic analgesics, and there needs to be optimal analgesic drug guidance in clinical practice. This study compared the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine and hydromorphone in improving patient comfort and maintaining hemodynamic stability during elective colonoscopy.
Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial included 72 adult patients (aged 18-65) who underwent sedation colonoscopy. The 72 patients were randomly divided into two groups using a computer-generated random sequence. Body mass index 18.5-28.0 kg/m2; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I to II. Then, the nalbuphine group was given 0.13 mg/kg nalbuphine, the hydromorphone group was given 0.016 mg/kg hydromorphone, and during the operation, 10-20 mg/time propofol could be appropriately injected according to the patient's examination and cooperation. All patients were continuously monitored for oxygen saturation, heart rate, and noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure. The colonoscopy time and anesthesia time were recorded. Adverse reactions such as hypotension, decreased oxygen saturation, nausea, and vomiting were recorded. Anesthesiologist satisfaction, gastroenterologist (operator), and patient satisfaction were recorded.
Results: Both nalbuphine and hydromorphone effectively maintained hemodynamic stability, with no significant differences in vital signs observed between the groups (P > 0.05). However, nalbuphine significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headache compared to hydromorphone (P < 0.05). The reduced side effects of nalbuphine were marked, suggesting a better postoperative comfort profile.
Conclusions: While nalbuphine and hydromorphone effectively maintain intraoperative vital signs, nalbuphine offers superior postoperative comfort. This makes nalbuphine a preferable analgesic choice in outpatient colonoscopy settings. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal dosages for both drugs and to explore their mechanisms of action in procedural pain management.
Register Number: ChiCTR2300077446