Abstract：Objective: To analyze the clinical effect and safety of propofol for painless gastroscopy. Methods: 100 patients undergoing colonoscopy were selected and simple random divided into observation group and control group equally. The observation group was treated with painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. Before gastrointestinal endoscopy and treatment, propofol was given to patients for anesthesia and analgesia; the control group patients directly for gastrointestinal endoscopy examination and treatment. The vital signs, including blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and heart rate (HR), were compared and analyzed, and the postoperative effects of the two groups were compared. Results: For the observation group, HR and SpO2 did not change significantly before and after diagnostic examination, and there was no difference between two groups (P>0.05); in control group, HR fluctuated significantly before and after enteroscopy, but the change of SpO2 was more stable, with significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05). The total effective rate in the observation group (98%) was higher than in the control group(76%);12% of the patients in the observation group were very nervous before gastrointestinal endoscopy treatment, which was significantly lower than that in the control group. Compared with the control group, the psychological state of the observation group was relatively better; compared with the control group, the patients in the observation group appeared bad after the examination. Compared with the control group, the observation group had a relatively low adverse reaction rate (P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with conventional gastrointestinal endoscopy, painless gastrointestinal endoscopy has obvious advantages. It not only can effectively alleviate the pain of patients, but also has a better adaptability, and has the advantage of fewer adverse reactions. It has no significant impact on HR, SpO2 and other patients in the course of examination, and has high safety. The satisfaction degree of operation is high, which is worthy of wide application in clinic. But its price is high, and it has certain limitations in clinical popularization.
2019, Vol. 25 
冀公网安备13080202000677号