Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy


Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse Articles > Author index
Dong Kee Jang 4 Articles
Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam
Ji Hyung Nam, Dong Kee Jang, Jun Kyu Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Byung-Wook Kim, Byung Ik Jang, the Committees of Quality Management and Conscious Sedation of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Clin Endosc 2022;55(2):234-239.   Published online October 12, 2021
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
/Aims: The efficacy of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients with midazolam-induced paradoxical reactions remains unclarified. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol-based sedation in patients who previously experienced paradoxical reactions.
This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with a history of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during a previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to group I (propofol monosedation) or group II (combination of propofol and midazolam). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a paradoxical reaction.
A total of 30 participants (mean age, 54.7±12.6 years; male, 19/30) were randomly assigned to group I (n=16) or group II (n=14). There were no paradoxical reactions in group I, but there were two in group II, without a significant difference (p=0.209). The mean dose of propofol was higher in group I than in group II (p=0.002). Meanwhile, the procedure and recovery times did not differ between groups.
Propofol-based sedation was safe and effective for patients who experienced paradoxical reactions to midazolam. However, caution is needed because few cases of paradoxical reaction again can happen in group II in which midazolam was readministered.


Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Efficacy and safety of remimazolam-based sedation for intensive care unit patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a cohort study
    Yuan-rui Zhao, Ke-sheng Huang, Guo Hou, Lan Yao, Li-ping Lu, Song Xu, Ying-tao Lian, Zhun Yao, Zhui Yu
    World Journal of Emergency Medicine.2023; 14(1): 31.     CrossRef
  • Effective dose of propofol combined with a low-dose esketamine for gastroscopy in elderly patients: A dose finding study using dixon’s up-and-down method
    Yuling Zheng, Yafei Xu, Bixin Huang, Ying Mai, Yiwen Zhang, Zhongqi Zhang
    Frontiers in Pharmacology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Drugs used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Jun Kyu Lee
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(11): 735.     CrossRef
  • 4,081 View
  • 273 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
Close layer
Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections
Chi Hyuk Oh, Jun Kyu Lee, Tae Jun Song, Jin-Seok Park, Jae Min Lee, Jun Hyuk Son, Dong Kee Jang, Miyoung Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, In Seok Lee, Soo Teik Lee, Ho Soon Choi, Ho Gak Kim, Hoon Jai Chun, Chan Guk Park, Joo Young Cho
Clin Endosc 2021;54(4):505-521.   Published online July 27, 2021
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.


Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Pancreatic Pseudocyst after Fully Covered Self-expandable Metallic Stent Placement: A Case Report
    Mitsuhito Koizumi, Sho Ishikawa, Kaori Marui, Masahito Kokubu, Yusuke Okujima, Yuki Numata, Yoshiki Imamura, Teru Kumagi, Yoichi Hiasa
    Internal Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin for the Differentiation of Mucinous Pancreatic Cystic Lesions
    Miruna Patricia Olar, Maria Iacobescu, Sorana D. Bolboacă, Cristina Pojoga, Ofelia Moșteanu, Radu Seicean, Ioana Rusu, Oana Banc, Cristina Adela Iuga, Andrada Seicean
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2024; 25(6): 3224.     CrossRef
  • Comparative outcome of single versus two double-pigtail stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with minimal necrosis: a retrospective analysis
    S Giri, S Bhrugumalla, S Gangadhar, S Angadi
    Acta Gastro Enterologica Belgica.2024; 87(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Use of an endoscopic powered debridement device for treatment of post-surgical fatty pancreatic necrosis
    Judy Daboul, Shiab Mussad, Anna Cecilia Amaral, Waleed K. Hussain, Peter J. Lee, Samuel Han
    Clinical Endoscopy.2024; 57(3): 412.     CrossRef
  • Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage for local complications related to pancreatitis
    Hyung Ku Chon, Seong-Hun Kim
    International Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention.2023; 12(1): 7.     CrossRef
  • A preferable modality for the differentiation of peripancreatic fluid collections: Endoscopic ultrasound
    Ning Xu, Longsong Li, Danqi Zhao, Zixin Wang, Xueting Wang, Runzi Wang, Yanbo Zeng, Lei Zhang, Ning Zhong, Ying Lv, Enqiang Linghu, Ningli Chai
    Endoscopic Ultrasound.2022; 11(4): 291.     CrossRef
  • Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome in acute pancreatitis
    A.V. Fedorov, V.N. Ektov, M.A. Khodorkovsky
    Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova.2022; (8): 83.     CrossRef
  • Single balloon enteroscopy-guided endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the treatment of a symptomatic pancreatic pseudocyst complicated by pancreaticojejunostomy stricture: A case report
    Eunae Cho, Chang-Hwan Park, Seo Yeon Cho
    Medicine.2022; 101(43): e31293.     CrossRef
  • 4,984 View
  • 221 Download
  • 7 Web of Science
  • 8 Crossref
Close layer
Comparison of Fentanyl versus Meperidine in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Colonoscopy in Korea
Gwan Woo Hong, Jun Kyu Lee, Jung Hyeon Lee, Ji Hun Bong, Sung Hun Choi, Hyeki Cho, Ji Hyung Nam, Dong Kee Jang, Hyoun Woo Kang, Jae Hak Kim, Yun Jeong Lim, Moon Soo Koh, Jin Ho Lee
Clin Endosc 2020;53(5):562-567.   Published online July 3, 2020
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
/Aims: Combination of midazolam and opioids is used widely for endoscopic sedation. Compared with meperidine, fentanyl is reportedly associated with rapid recovery, turnover rate of endoscopy room, and quality of endoscopy. We compared fentanyl with meperidine when combined with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy.
A retrospective, cross-sectional, 1:2 matching study was conducted. Induction and recovery time were compared as the primary outcomes. Moreover, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time of colonoscopy, paradoxical reaction, adenoma detection rate, and adverse effect of midazolam or opioids were assessed as the secondary outcomes.
A total of 129 subjects (43 fentanyl vs. 86 meperidine) were included in the analysis. The fentanyl group showed significantly more rapid induction time (4.5±2.7 min vs. 7.5±4.7 min, p<0.001), but longer recovery time (59.5±25.6 min vs. 50.3±10.9 min, p=0.030) than the meperidine group. In multivariate analysis, the induction time of the fentanyl group was 3.40 min faster (p<0.001), but the recovery time was 6.38 min longer (p=0.046) than that of the meperidine group. There was no difference in withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate between the two groups.
The fentanyl group had more rapid sedation induction time but longer recovery time than the meperidine group.


Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Efficacy and safety of EBUS‐TBNA under conscious sedation with meperidine and midazolam
    Roberto Piro, Eleonora Casalini, Matteo Fontana, Carla Galeone, Patrizia Ruggiero, Sofia Taddei, Giulia Ghidoni, Giulia Patricelli, Nicola Facciolongo
    Thoracic Cancer.2022; 13(4): 533.     CrossRef
  • Propofol Alone versus Propofol in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Endoscopy in Patients with Paradoxical Reactions to Midazolam
    Ji Hyung Nam, Dong Kee Jang, Jun Kyu Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Byung-Wook Kim, Byung Ik Jang
    Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(2): 234.     CrossRef
  • Efficacy of Analgesic Propofol/Esketamine and Propofol/Fentanyl for Painless Induced Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial
    Naixing Xin, Wei Yan, Shuangfen Jin, Min Tang
    BioMed Research International.2022; 2022: 1.     CrossRef
  • Endoscopist-Driven Sedation Practices in South Korea: Re-evaluation Considering the Nationwide Survey in 2019
    Seon-Young Park, Jun Kyu Lee, Chang-Hwan Park, Byung-Wook Kim, Chang Kyun Lee, Hong Jun Park, Byung Ik Jang, Dong Uk Kim, Jin Myung Park, Jae Min Lee, Young Sin Cho, Hyung Ku Chon, Seung Young Seo, Woo Hyun Paik
    Gut and Liver.2022; 16(6): 899.     CrossRef
  • Drugs used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Jun Kyu Lee
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2022; 65(11): 735.     CrossRef
  • Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stay after Endoscopy
    Toshihiro Nishizawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Osamu Toyoshima, Tatsuya Matsuno, Masataka Irokawa, Toru Arano, Hirotoshi Ebinuma, Hidekazu Suzuki, Takanori Kanai, Kazuhiko Koike
    Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(6): 851.     CrossRef
  • 7,860 View
  • 128 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref
Close layer
Advances in self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions
Dong Kee Jang, Dong Wook Lee, Seong-Hun Kim, Kwang Bum Cho, Sundeep Lakhtakia
Received July 2, 2023  Accepted August 20, 2023  Published online July 9, 2024  
DOI:    [Epub ahead of print]
AbstractAbstract PDFPubReaderePub
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions have evolved rapidly in recent years, with dedicated metal stents playing a crucial role in this process. Specifically, the invention of biflanged short metal-covered stents, including lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), and modifications in a variety of tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), have led to innovations in EUS-guided interventions. LAMS or non-LAMS stents are commonly used in the EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, especially in cases of walled-off necrosis. Additionally, LAMS is commonly considered for drainage of the EUS-guided gallbladder or dilated common bile duct and EUS-guided gastroenterostomy. Fully or partially covered tubular SEMS with several new designs are being considered for EUS-guided biliary drainage. This review focuses on advances in SEMS for EUS-guided interventions and discusses related research results.
  • 904 View
  • 28 Download
Close layer

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
Close layer