OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of @entity1875 and @entity6882 plus @entity1363 for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in @entity1 . METHODS: Data were collected prospectively and retrospectively from neurologically intact @entity1 (0.2-17.7 years of age) who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during a 4-year period. Data were included from 155 consecutive @entity1 receiving @entity1875 with or without premedication with @entity1363 (PM group). One hundred five consecutive @entity1 who received sedation with a @entity1363 plus @entity6882 combination served as a comparison (MM group). Outcome variables were: time required for induction of sedation, length of procedure, time for recovery, need for additional supportive measures, and need for physical restraint. RESULTS: The onset of sedation was faster and the length of procedure and recovery were significantly shorter in the PM group as compared with the MM group (P < 0.01). @entity1 in the MM group required restraint more often than in the PM group. A higher dose of @entity6882 and @entity1363 was used in the prospective study. This led to deeper sedation but increased need for additional support. CONCLUSIONS: @entity1875 is safe and effective for facilitating EGD in @entity1 .

@entity1875 versus XXXX plus @entity6882 for sedation during ambulatory esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['children', 'Patients', 'patients'] @entity6882 :: ('MESH:D008614', 'Chemical') :: ['meperidine'] @entity1363 :: ('MESH:D008874', 'Chemical') :: ['midazolam'] @entity1875 :: ('MESH:D015742', 'Chemical') :: ['propofol', 'Propofol']
@entity1363 :: (MESH:D008874,Chemical) :: ['midazolam']
