Single use of fentanyl in colonoscopy is safe and effective and significantly shortens recovery time

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Feasibility of a transmucosal sublingual fentanyl tablet as a procedural pain treatment in colonoscopy patients: a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study

Since patients often experience pain and unpleasantness during a colonoscopy, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingually administered fentanyl tablets for pain treatment. Furthermore, since the use of intravenous drugs significantly increases colonoscopy costs, sublingual tablets could be a cost-effective alternative to intravenous sedation. We conducted a prospective placebo-controlled randomized study of 158 patients to evaluate the analgesic effect of a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl administered before a colonoscopy. Pain, sedation, nausea, and satisfaction were assessed during the colonoscopy by the patients as well as the endoscopists and nurses. Respiratory rate and peripheral arteriolar oxygen saturation were monitored throughout the procedure. There were no differences between the fentanyl and placebo groups in any of the measured variables. The median pain intensity values, as measured using a numerical rating scale, were 4.5 in the fentanyl group and 5 in the placebo group. The sedation and oxygen saturation levels and the respiratory rate did not differ between the groups. The majority of the colonoscopies were completed.Our results indicate that a 100 µg dose of sublingual fentanyl is not beneficial compared to the placebo in the treatment of procedural pain during a colonoscopy.

Tolerability of Midazolam to treat acute agitation in elderly demented patients: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Behavioural disorders are difficult to manage in elderly demented patients because of the lack of appropriate drugs or difficulties surrounding the route of administration. The tolerability of Midazolam is well described in the emergency management of agitation for young patients, when administered intramuscularly or intravenously. However, very little data are available on the use of oral Midazolam for this indication and in the elderly population.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted, and studies were included if involving adults, receiving Midazolam, alone or in combination, whatever the route, dosage or indication and if they reported adverse events related to the use of Midazolam.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-one articles were included. Eleven different adverse events were identified from the studies. Hypotension and desaturation were the two most frequent adverse events reported. Adverse reactions appear to be more common in older patients but also when Midazolam was used in combination with other drugs. The frequency of these adverse effects was lower than those reported for neuroleptic drugs.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The oral route appears to be appropriate to provide a rapid and well-tolerated response. Further studies will be needed to confirm the good tolerance of oral Midazolam in the management of acute agitation in elderly demented patients.

Analysis of factors associated with extended recovery time after colonoscopy

Background & aims

A common limiting factor in the throughput of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is the availability of space for patients to recover post-procedure. This study sought to identify predictors of abnormally long recovery time after colonoscopy performed with procedural sedation. In clinical research, this type of study would be performed using only one regression modeling approach. A goal of this study was to apply various “machine learning” techniques to see if better prediction could be achieved.

Methods

Procedural data for 31,442 colonoscopies performed on 29,905 adult patients at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2011 to 2015 were analyzed to identify potential predictors of long recovery times. These data included the identities of hospital personnel, and the initial statistical analysis focused on the impact of these personnel on recovery time via multivariate logistic regression. Secondary analyses included more information on patient vitals both to identify secondary predictors and to predict long recoveries using more complex techniques.

Results

In univariate analysis, the endoscopist, procedure room nurse, recovery room nurse, and surgical technician all showed a statistically significant relationship to long recovery times, with p-value below 0.0001 in all cases. In the multivariate logistic regression, the most significant predictor of a long recovery time was the identity of the recovery room nurse, with the endoscopist also showing a statistically significant relationship with a weaker effect. Complex techniques led to a negligible improvement over simple techniques in prediction of long recovery periods.

Conclusion

The hospital personnel involved in performing a colonoscopy show a strong association with the likelihood of a patient spending an abnormally long time recovering from the procedure, with the most pronounced effect for the nurse in the recovery room. The application of more advanced approaches to improve prediction in this clinical data set only yielded modest improvements.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

[Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam]

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

Does a fitted abdominal corset makes colonoscopy more tolerable?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

  The present study evaluated the usefulness of a fitted abdominal corset for colonoscopy, enabling proper compression of the abdomen during the entire examination.

METHODS

  Patients undergoing colonoscopy were subjected to either traditional methods or to using a fitted abdominal corset. Two hundred and sixteen patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (conventional colonoscopy) and group 2 (colonoscopy with abdominal corset). Cecal intubation rate and time need for manual compression and change of position were recorded. At the end of each colonoscopic examination, the patient evaluated pain by an 11-point visual analog scale from 0 to 10 (0: no pain, 10: worst pain).

RESULTS

  Cecal intubation time was shorter, the need for extra manual compression and change of position decreased and patients felt less pain during the procedure as denoted by lower visual analog scale scores in the group using a fitted abdominal corset, when compared to the group without a corset, in a statistically proven manner.

CONCLUSION

  Our data confirm the usefulness of the abdominal corset in decreasing the degree of patient pain and it makes colonoscopy easier and quicker with less manipulation, so we propose using a fitted abdominal corset during routine colonoscopic procedures.

Development of an Automatic Adjustable Colonoscope

Colonoscopy can be associated with many problems, such as mechanical trauma due to the distal tip contacting the colon wall or health issues due to the extended use of anesthesia. In order to eliminate these complications, an automatic adjustable colonoscope was designed. This device uses sensors, actuators, and a control system to automatically position the distal tip in the center of the colon lumen. The sensors were tested to determine their ability to accurately sense the distance from the tip to the surface. The actuators were tested to determine the correlation between motor rotation and displacement of the distal tip. The control system was tested to assess the ability of the device to position the tip in the center of the test tube and the ability to navigate through a flat test course. It was determined that the sensors could accurately determine distances from 0 to 15 mm from the test surface in all test conditions. The motors for up-down movement and left-right movement of the colonoscope had response times of 0.57 s and 0.69 s, respectively, when the motors were rotated from 0 deg to 90 deg. The control system was able to safely move the colonoscope tip away from all walls of the test apparatus. It was also able to navigate through the flat test course without coming in contact with the walls. The automatic adjustable colonoscope has demonstrated that it can safely and effectively position the distal tip to avoid contact with the walls of the test surface.

Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy can be uncomfortable. To increase safety, there is a trend, in the UK, towards reduced sedative use. We aimed to determine factors predictive of discomfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Prospectively recruited patients were asked to grade anticipated discomfort on a Numeric Rating Scale ranging from 0 to 10. Discomfort scores were recorded every 2 min during the procedure and during peaks of discomfort. An overall discomfort score was recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients [44 male, 65 female; median 61.5 (21-80) years] were recruited. One hundred and three procedures were completed. Forty-five patients received midazolam [median 2 (1.5-5) mg]. Mean overall Numeric Rating Scale score was 4.7 (men 4.0; women 5.2; P<0.01) and median peak score 7. Discomfort was usually greatest at the beginning of the procedure, while in the sigmoid colon. Discomfort scores were higher in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (P = 0.03); diverticular disease (P<0.01); midazolam (P = 0.02), buscopan (P<0.001) or nitrous oxide (P<0.001) use; endoscope tracker use (P = 0.01); incomplete procedures (P<0.001) or a preceding gastroscopy (P = 0.02), but were not correlated with discomfort during venous cannulation or digital rectal examination. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, high anxiety, anticipation of high discomfort, longer intubation time and higher endoscopist's grade of procedural difficulty were independent factors significantly related to overall discomfort scores. Recollected discomfort scores 2-3 months later were lower (P<0.01). Low-dose midazolam had no appreciable amnesic effect.

CONCLUSION

Factors indicative of difficult colonoscopy, and preceding gastroscopy, are associated with greater discomfort, as are the presence of female sex, irritable bowel, anxiety and anticipated discomfort. Low-dose midazolam neither relieves discomfort nor makes patients forget it. Selected patients may benefit from increased analgesia.

Anesthesia outside the operating room in the office-based setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The majority of anesthesia services provided outside the operating room or ambulatory surgery center is in the office-based setting. This review will focus on three areas that are critical to office-based anesthesia: safety, quality of care and patient satisfaction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data obtained from the State of Florida office-based surgery adverse event data repository indicate that, even with The American Society of Anesthesiology I patients, there remains opportunity to improve outcomes. Careful patient selection remains critical, especially the patient with a history of sleep apnea. While general anesthesia remains the gold standard, expanded use of local anesthesia, regional blocks and variation on sedation techniques offer alternatives that may reduce risks but still maintain a high quality of care. While there is limited office-based anesthesia satisfaction data, limiting postoperative nausea and vomiting remains a major patient satisfier of which an occurrence rate of zero may be possible.

SUMMARY

There is rapid growth for the need of safe and high quality office-based anesthesia. To meet these needs, a special set of skills is required, which may require expanded exposure and experience during training. An office-based anesthesia central data repository is needed for benchmarking and identifying areas for improvement. Finally, with advances in surgical technology, there is a need for focused research in office-based anesthetic techniques and modalities and patient satisfaction.