Is "really conscious" sedation with solely an opioid an alternative to every day used sedation regimes for colonoscopies in a teaching hospital? Midazolam/fentanyl, propofol/alfentanil, or alfentanil only for colonoscopy: a randomized trial

Effects of single-use alfentanil versus propofol on cognitive functions after colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Colonoscopy is often accompanied by short-term postoperative cognitive decline. We aimed to explore whether single-use alfentanil for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy could reduce cognitive impairment at discharge compared with propofol.

Patients and methods

172 adult patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous propofol at 2 mg/kg (group P) or alfentanil at 10 μg/kg (group A); 40 healthy volunteers were included in the blank group. Cognitive function was considered the primary outcome and was measured using five neuropsychological tests before sedation and discharge. The z-score method was used to determine cognitive dysfunction according to z-score >1.96 in two types of neuropsychological tests. Other outcomes included discharge time, vital signs, associated adverse events during colonoscopy, and the satisfaction level of patients and endoscopic physicians.

Results

164 patients (78 in group A and 86 in group P) completed the study protocol. At discharge, the incidence of cognitive dysfunction in group P was 23% and was significantly lower in the alfentanil group (2.5%), with a relative risk of 0.11 (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.46, P < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension in group A was lower than that in group P (3.8% vs 22.1%, relative risk = 0.17 [95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.46, P = 0.001]), and the discharge time in group A was shorter than that in group P (5 [(Rutter and et al., 2016; Zhang and et al., 2013; Hirsh and et al., 2006; Zhou and et al., 2021; Singh and et al., 2008; Ko and et al., 2010; Sargin et al., 2019) 3-93-9 vs 13 [(Ekmekci and et al., 2017; Eberl and et al., 2012; Eberl and et al., 2014; N'Kaoua and et al., 2002; Chung et al., 1995; Berger and et al., 2019; Quan and et al., 2019; Deng and et al., 2021; Gualtieri and Johnson, 2006) 10-1810-18 min, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

For patients undergoing colonoscopy, single-use alfentanil causes less damage to postoperative cognitive function, less risk of hypotension, and shorter discharge time than propofol.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate Combined with Alfentanil in Painless Gastroscopy: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel Controlled Study

Background

The efficacy and adverse reactions of remimazolam besylate (RB) in combination with alfentanil in patients with painless gastroscopy remain unclear.

Objective

The aim of the study is to observe the efficacy and adverse reactions of RB in combination with alfentanil in patients with painless gastroscopy RB.

Methods

All patients were randomly divided into two groups: RB combined with the alfentanil group (research group) and propofol combined with the alfentanil group (control group). After full oxygen inhalation and electrocardiographic monitoring, the research group was given 10 μg/Kg alfentanil + RB 0.2 mg/kg intravenously, and the control group was given 10 μg/Kg alfentanil + propofol 1.5 mg/kg. If there is a clinical need, the research group was given 2.5 mg/additional RB, whereas the control group was treated with an additional 0.5 mg/kg propofol. Main outcome measures were as follows: The vital endpoints including diachronic changes in heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiratory rate (RR), blood oxygen saturation (SPO₂), end-expiratory carbon dioxide (etCO₂), IPI, modified observer's assessment of alert/sedation (MOAA/S), time-related endpoints, perioperative adverse events, endoscopy, and anesthesiologist satisfaction, and 24-hour follow-up of adverse reactions, IPI scores, and satisfaction were recorded.

Results

The HR and BP of the patients in the research group and the control group decreased, with a greater decrease in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The values of RR, PETCO₂, and IPI in the research group and the control group decreased to the lowest at 2-3 min but the decrease in the control group was more significant. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the time from the completion of administration to 4 minutes of IPI and the total examination time, but the awakening time in the research group was slightly longer than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The incidences of respiratory depression and hypotension during the operation were shown to be markedly smaller in the investigation relative to the control team, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), whereas the occurrence of cough, movements, and singultus was more common in the investigations, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The results of the 24-hour follow-up showed that the adverse reactions such as nausea, dizziness, fatigue, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension were much less frequent in the study team, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and the patient satisfaction was higher than in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The regression results showed that age, sedative, and total dose of analgesia had significant effects on the results, and the covariance coefficient of sedative was 1.57 of IPI score in the research group higher than that of the control group.

Conclusions

RB combined with alfentanil can provide safe and effective sedation for patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Compared with propofol, RB and alfentanil for injection can avoid large hemodynamic fluctuations and deep sedation, and have fewer adverse reactions. However, the cases involved in this study are all from a single-center data, which requires further multicenter research and conformation.

Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative and postoperative hypotension occur commonly and are associated with organ injury and poor outcomes. Changes in arterial blood pressure (BP) during procedural sedation are not well described.

METHODS

Individual patient data from five trials of propofol sedation for colonoscopy and a clinical database were pooled and explored with logistic and linear regression. A literature search and focused meta-analysis compared the incidence of hypotension with propofol and alternative forms of procedural sedation. Hypotensive episodes were characterised by the original authors' definitions (typically systolic BP <90 mm Hg).

RESULTS

In pooled individual patient data (n=939), 36% of procedures were associated with episodes of hypotension. Longer periods of propofol sedation and larger propofol doses were associated with longer-lasting and more-profound hypotension. Amongst 380 patients for whom individual BP measurements were available, 107 (28%) experienced systolic BP <90 mm Hg for >5 min, and in 89 (23%) the episodes exceeded 10 min. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs identified an increased risk ratio for the development of hypotension in procedures where propofol was used compared with the use of etomidate (two studies; n=260; risk ratio [RR] 2.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.37-2.92]; P=0.0003), remimazolam (one study; n=384; RR 2.15 [1.61-2.87]; P=0.0001), midazolam (14 studies; n=2218; RR 1.46 [1.18-1.79]; P=0.0004), or all benzodiazepines (15 studies; n=2602; 1.67 [1.41-1.98]; P<0.00001). Hypotension was less likely with propofol than with dexmedetomidine (one study; n=60; RR 0.24 [0.09-0.62]; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypotension is common during propofol sedation for colonoscopy and of a magnitude and duration associated with harm in surgical patients.

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).

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Effect of electroacupuncture on sedation requirements during colonoscopy: a prospective placebo-controlled randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Propofol provides excellent sedation during colonoscopy. However, its application, namely when used together with an opioid, is associated with cardiopulmonary depression. Acupuncture is used nowadays for the treatment of pain and anxiety, and also to induce sedation. We hypothesised that electroacupuncture (EA) during colonoscopy would have sedative effects, thereby reducing propofol requirements to achieve an adequate level of sedation.

METHOD

The study was designed and conducted as a single centre, patient and observer blinded, sham- and placebo-controlled randomised trial. Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy under deep propofol/alfentanil sedation were randomly assigned to receive unilateral EA, sham-acupuncture (SA) or placebo-acupuncture (PA) at ST36, PC6 and LI4. The primary outcome parameter was the total dosage of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction levels evaluated by questionnaires.

RESULTS

The dosage of propofol required (median [IQR]) was not significantly different between the three groups (EA group 147 μg/kg/min [109-193] vs SA group 141 μg/kg/min [123- 180] vs PA group 141 μg/kg/min [112-182]; P=0.776). There was also no significant difference in alfentanil consumption (P=0.634). Global satisfaction (median [IQR]) among patients (EA group 6.6 [6.0-7.0] vs SA group 6.8 [6.0-7.0] vs PA group 6.5 [6.0-7.0]; P=0.481) and endoscopists (6.0 [5.0-6.0] for all groups; P=0.773) did not significantly differ between the three groups. There was no significant difference in the number of cardiorespiratory events.

CONCLUSION

For colonoscopy, the applied mode of EA did not show any propofol-sparing sedative effect compared with sham or placebo acupuncture.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered in the Netherland's Trial Registry (NTR4325).

Doxapram alleviates low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely applied in the clinical scenario. Despite the good sedation and elimination of anxiety that propofol provides, low SpO2 may also result. Doxapram is a respiratory stimulant with a short half-life. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of doxapram on alleviating low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients scheduled for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to group D or S with 55 patients per group. Initially, both groups received a combination of propofol and fentanyl. Patients in group D received 50 mg doxapram after propofol injection, while patients in group S received an equal volume of saline. Vital signs of the patients, propofol dose, examination duration, and incidences of low SpO2 were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in propofol consumption and examination duration between the two groups. Twenty-six patients in group S experienced low SpO2 versus 10 in group D (P = 0.001). Nineteen patients in group S underwent oxygenation with a face mask in contrast to 8 in group D (P = 0.015). Eighteen patients in group S were treated with jaw lifting compared to 5 in group D (P = 0.002). Four patients in group S underwent assisted respiration compared to 2 in group D (without statistical difference). The average oxygen saturation in group S was significantly lower than that in group D at 1, 2 and 3 min after propofol injection (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were no statistical differences in oxygen saturation at other time points. There were no statistical differences in MAP and HR (except for the time point of 1 min after the induction) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of doxapram can effectively alleviate low SpO2 in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous propofol, without affecting propofol consumption, examination duration, MAP, or HR.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Clinical and New Technology of Wuxi People's Hospital on 20th July, 2018 (KYLLH2018029) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 16th August, 2018 (ChiCTR1800017832).

The Importance of Conscious Sedation for Life-Saving Valve Procedures in Patients With Rheumatic Heart Disease From Low- to Middle-Income Countries

BACKGROUND

Severe valve disease, which requires intervention, remains strongly associated with mortality in patients with rheumatic heart disease. Percutaneous mitral commissurotomy (PMC) is the procedure of choice for the treatment of patients with isolated or predominantly rheumatic mitral stenosis. This procedure has been performed under sedation to avoid the potential effects of general anesthesia on intracardiac pressure measurements. However, there are limited data on sedation during PMC, especially using easily available medications in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and hemodynamic effects of conscious sedation during PMC in patients with significant mitral stenosis.

METHODS

This study prospectively enrolled 23 patients who underwent PMC with the Inoue balloon technique for hemodynamically significant mitral stenosis. For conscious sedation, midazolam 25 μg/kg and fentanyl 1 μg/kg were administered, and 5 min after the infusion, the level of sedation was evaluated by Ramsay sedation scale. A range of invasive hemodynamic measurements, including cardiac output and pulmonary artery pressures, were recorded before and immediately after sedation.

RESULTS

The mean age was 44.9 ± 10.8 years, and 19 patients (83%) were women. After sedation, the majority of patients were in categories 2 and 3 of the Ramsay sedation scale (cooperative, orientated, tranquil, and responding to commands). Oxygen saturation dropped from an average of 98.5% to 96.0% without supplementary oxygen. Left ventricular systolic pressure and central aortic pressures decreased after sedation. However, none of the other parameters changed significantly after sedation, including pulmonary artery pressures, pulmonary vascular resistance, and cardiac index.

CONCLUSIONS

This simple model of conscious sedation was able to promote anxiolysis, analgesia, and comfort for the procedure without serious hemodynamic effects, which can be a reasonable choice in developing countries.

Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The standard investigation in colorectal cancer screening (optical colonoscopy [OC]) has a less invasive alternative with the colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The experiences of screening individuals are needed to support a decision aid (DA) and to provide a patient view in future health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to explore the experiences of CCE at home and OC in an outpatient clinic by screening participants who experienced both investigations on the same bowel preparation.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, Danish screening individuals with a positive immunological fecal occult blood test (FIT) were consecutively included and underwent both CCE and OC in the same bowel preparation. They answered questionnaires about discomfort during CCE, delivered at home, and during a following OC in the outpatient clinic. Data were calculated in percentages and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparisons. Among the 253 included patients, 10 participants were selected for a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the two examinations. The analysis and interpretation of the transcribed data were inspired by Ricoeur.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data were received from 239 participants and revealed significant less discomfort during the CCE than the OC. Interview data included explained discomfort elements in two categories: 'The examination' and 'The setting'. Compared to OC, the CCE was experienced with less pain, embarrassment and invasiveness, but presented challenges and disadvantages as well, i.e., a large camera capsule to swallow, a longer waiting time for test results after CCE and an additional OC, if pathologies were found. The home setting for CCE delivery made the participants feel less like they were ill or patients less restricted and that they received more personal care, but could induce technical challenges.

CONCLUSION

In screening individuals, CCE at home was associated with significantly less discomfort compared to OC at a hospital, and multiple reasons for this was identified.

Practice Guidelines for Moderate Procedural Sedation and Analgesia 2018

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Alfentanil versus ketamine combined with propofol for sedation during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy in morbidly obese patients

Objectives:

To observe the effects of both propofol/alfentanil and propofol/ketamine on sedation during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy in morbidly obese patients (UGSEMOP).

Methods:

In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical study, 52 patients scheduled for UGSEMOP were assigned to either group A (n=26; 10 µg/kg intravenous [IV] alfentanil) or group K (n=26; 0.5 mg/kg IV ketamine). Each patient was administered 0.7 mg/kg propofol for induction. If it was needed, the patients were administered an additional dose of IV propofol. This study was performed in Sehitkamil State Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey, between January 2014-2015. Total propofol consumption, time to achieve Modified Aldrete Scores (MAS) of 5 and 10 following the procedure, physician and patient satisfaction scores, and instances of side effects, such as bradycardia and hypotension were recorded.

Results:

Time to onset of sedation and duration of sedation were both significantly shorter in group A. Patients in group A also required less time to achieve an MAS of 5. Total propofol consumption was significantly lower in group A.

Conclusion:

Both propofol/alfentanil and propofol/ketamine combinations provided appropriate hypnosis and analgesia during UGSEMOP. However, propofol consumption was significantly higher using the propofol/ketamine combination.

Considerable Variability of Procedural Sedation and Analgesia Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures in Europe

Background/Aims:

The use of moderate to deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased in Europe considerably. Because this level of sedation is a risky medical procedure, a number of international guidelines have been developed. This survey aims to review if, and if so which, quality aspects have been included in new sedation practices when compared to traditional uncontrolled sedation practices.

Methods:

A questionnaire was sent to the National Associations of Nurse Anesthetists in Europe and the National Delegates of the European Section and Board of Anaesthesiology from January 2012 to August 2012.

Results:

Huge variation in practices for moderate to deep sedation were identified between and within European countries in terms of safety, type of practitioners, responsibilities, monitoring, informed consent, patient satisfaction, complication registration, and training requirements. Seventy-five percent of respondents were not familiar with international sedation guidelines. Safe sedation practices (mainly propofol-based moderate to deep sedation) are rapidly gaining popularity.

Conclusions:

The risky medical procedure of moderate to deep sedation has become common practice for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Safe sedation practices requiring adequate selection of patients, adequate monitoring, training of sedation practitioners, and adequate after-care, are gaining attention in a field that is in transition from uncontrolled sedation care to controlled sedation care.

A randomised controlled trial: can acupuncture reduce drug requirement during analgosedation with propofol and alfentanil for colonoscopy? A study protocol

BACKGROUND

The number of colonoscopies tremendously increased in recent years and will further rise in the near future. Because of patients' growing expectation on comfort during medical procedures, it is not surprising that the demand for sedation also expands. Propofol in combination with alfentanil is known to provide excellent analgosedation, however, its use is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular depression. Acupuncture could be a technique to reduce drug requirement while providing the same level of sedation and analgesia.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study will be performed as a single centre, randomised, placebo controlled trial. 153 patients scheduled for propofol/alfentanil sedation during colonoscopy will be randomly assigned to receive electroacupuncture (P6, ST36, LI4), sham acupuncture, or placebo acupuncture. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SpO2, ECG, NIBP, exCO2, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. The primary outcome parameter is the dosage of propofol necessary for an adequate level of sedation to tolerate the procedure (OAA/S < 4). Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels measured by questionnaires is the secondary outcome parameter.

DISCUSSION

Moderate to deep sedation using propofol is increasingly applied during colonoscopies with a high satisfaction level among patients despite well-known hemodynamic and respiratory side effects of this hypnotic agent. Acupuncture is known to attenuate gastrointestinal discomfort and pain. We hypothesize that the combination of conventional sedation techniques with acupuncture may result in equally satisfied patients with a lower risk of respiratory and hemodynamic events during colonoscopies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Nederland's Trial Register NTR 4325 . The first patient was randomized on 13 February 2014.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with remifentanil-propofol mixture for colonoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with remifentanil-propofol mixture for colonoscopy.

METHODS: Eighty patients were randomly allocated into either a PCAS group or a total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) group. In the PCAS group, remifentanil-propofol mixture was pumped at 0.01 mL/(kg•min) after an initial bolus of 3 mL of the mixture (1 mL mixture containing propofol 3 mg and remifentanil 10 μg). The amount of each bolus delivered was 1 mL and the lockout time was 1 min. In the TIVA group, patients received fentanyl 1 μg/kg, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg and propofol (dosage titrated). Cardiorespiratory parameters and auditory evoked response index (AAI) were continuously monitored during the procedure. Recovery from anesthesia was assessed with the Aldrete scale and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS: No statistical differences were observed in the VAS score of patients (9.58 vs 9.50) or satisfaction of endoscopists (9.43 vs 9.30) between the two groups. A significant decline in mean arterial blood pressure and AAI was recorded in the TIVA group (P < 0.05). Recovery time was significantly shorter in the PCAS group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: PCAS with remifentanil-propofol mixture provides better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation and faster recovery compared with TIVA.