Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

Patient-Controlled Sedation Versus Clinician-Administered Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been explored as a sedation method in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), yet a comprehensive review article on this topic is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare PCS against clinician-administered sedation. The primary objectives are to compare the sedative dosage used and the sedation depth, while secondary objectives are to compare sedation failure rates, clinician intervention rates, and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Database using the terms "ERCP," "Sedation," "Patient-controlled," and related terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCS against clinician-administered sedation in adults undergoing ERCP were included. Articles without English full texts were excluded. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment of individual included trials. This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020198647). A total of 2619 articles were identified from the literature search. A total of 2615 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Four articles (comprised of 4 independent trials involving 425 patients) were included in analysis. When compared with clinician-administered sedation, PCS in ERCP may lead to lower propofol dosage used and lower sedation depth. The sedation failure rates appear to be higher in PCS, whereas lower rates of airway maneuvers are required. No significant difference was observable for patient satisfaction rates between PCS and clinician-administered sedation. The included studies demonstrated unclear to high risk of bias, particularly in randomization, incomplete outcome data, and outcome measurement. PCS appears to be a feasible option for sedation in ERCP. Nonetheless, large-scale, high-quality trials will be required before PCS can be regularly implemented in ERCP.

Randomized Trial to Compare Plasma Glucose Trends in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Supratentorial Gliomas under Maintenance of Sevoflurane, Desflurane, and Propofol

Background

Anesthetic agents influence the glycemic response by affecting the neuroendocrine surgical response or directly modifying pancreatic insulin release. Due to chances of neuronal damage, intraoperative hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia both are detrimental for patients undergoing neurosurgeries. Inhalational (sevoflurane and desflurane) and intravenous (propofol) agents have been found to raise intraoperative glucose levels in nonneurological surgeries.

Aim

We aimed to compare the intraoperative glucose levels in supratentorial glioma surgeries under the maintenance of three anesthetic agents such as sevoflurane, desflurane, and propofol.

Materials and Methods

This randomized trial was conducted with 90 nondiabetic adults with supratentorial glioma. Thirty patients were allocated randomly to the three groups receiving sevoflurane, desflurane, and propofol. Baseline and hourly plasma glucose levels were recorded. Postoperatively, the time required to achieve an Aldrete score of 9 and complications were assessed.

Results

Baseline plasma glucose levels were 111.23 ± 11.67, 109.47 ± 19.75, and 111.7 ± 13.88 mg/dL (P = 0.84) in sevoflurance, desflurane, and propofol group, respectively. All of them showed an elevation of plasma glucose in relation to the time of surgery with variable trends. In the 4^th and 5^th h, the elevations in the inhalational groups (sevoflurane and desflurane) were significantly higher than the propofol group (P = 0.003 and 0.002, respectively). The time for achieving Aldrete's score of 9 was higher in the propofol group (P < 0.0001). No differences were observed in the duration of hospital stay or complications.

Conclusions

Maintenance of anesthesia in nondiabetic patients showed clinically modest rise of plasma glucose which is higher in patients under sevoflurane and desflurane than under propofol. However, the immediate recovery was faster with inhalational agents compared to propofol-based anesthesia.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time.

Comparison of the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is an invasive and diagnostic procedure that causes the patients considerable pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Therefore, various types of sedation and analgesia techniques have been used during the procedure.

AIM

To compare the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a randomised controlled double-blind clinical trial study conducted on 272 patients undergoing diagnostic and treatment endoscopy and colonoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz between 2017 and 2018. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the first group (n = 136) received propofol with midazolam and ketamine, and the second group (n = 136) received pethidine and midazolam. Study outcome measures included the recovery time, patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The occurrence of complications was higher in the propofol group (25% vs. 0%; p = 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed in the study groups. Overall patient satisfaction and quality of sedation assessment scores in the propofol group were significantly better than those seen in the pethidine-midazolam group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.001, respectively). Recovery time was statistically shorter in the propofol-midazolam group (6.05 ±1.62 min) compared to the pethidine-midazolam group (6.72 ±2.21 min) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-midazolam can provide better sedation, patient satisfaction, and recovery than pethidine-midazolam during endoscopy. Therefore, it can be recommended in patients scheduled for diagnostic and treatment endoscopy.

The Role of Conventional Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Antrum Wall Thickness in Obese Patients

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility of conventional ultrasonography (USG) in the evaluation of the stomach antrum and distal corpus lesions.

METHODS

A prospective evaluation was made of 69 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. Preoperative USG was applied to the patients and measurements were taken and recorded of the stomach antrum full layer wall thickness (USGFT) and of mucosal thickness (USGMT). Postoperatively, same parameters were again measured histopathologically and the pathological full thickness (PFT) and pathological mucosal thickness (PMT) values were compared.

RESULTS

When evaluation was made in respect of USG and pathological measurements, the USGFT was 8.51 ± 3.07 (range 4.5-15.8) and USGMT was 5.80 ± 2.15 (range 2.36-10.5). The PFT was determined as 8.13 ± 2.24 (range 4-14) and PMT as 5.53 ± 1.86 (range 2-10.5). In the histopathological examination, gastritis was seen in 53 (76.8 %) patients and Helicobacter pylori (HP) positivity was determined in 32 (46.4 %) patients. When the patients were grouped as obese (BMI ≤ 49.9 kg/m²) (group 1, n = 50) and super obese (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²) (group 2, n = 19), no difference was determined between the groups ultrasonographically or histopathologically (p > 0.05). The antrum wall thickness was seen to be significantly greater in the patients with gastritis and HP positivity compared to the patients who were negative. In ROC analysis, cutoff values were calculated for USGFT (5.86 mm) and USGMT (4.49 mm). In gastritis diagnosis, the USGFT cutoff value was found to have 796 % sensitivity and 68.7 % specificity.

CONCLUSION

USG was seen to be an extremely effective method in visualising the antrum wall and gastritis diagnosis can be made comfortably from the wall thickness measurement.

Risk factor analysis of additional administration of sedative agent and patient dissatisfaction in intravenous conscious sedation using midazolam for third molar extraction

Objectives

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the factors related with additional administration of sedative agent during intravenous conscious sedation (IVS) using midazolam (MDZ). The secondary purpose was to analyze the factors affecting patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Clinical data for 124 patients who had undergone surgical extraction of mandibular third molar under IVS using MDZ were retrospectively investigated in this case-control study. The initial dose of MDZ was determined by body mass index (BMI) and weight. In the case of insufficient sedation at the beginning of surgery, additional doses were injected. During surgery, peripheral oxygen saturation, bispectral index score (BIS), heart rate, and blood pressure were monitored and recorded. The predictor variables were sex, age, BMI, sleeping time ratio, dental anxiety, Pederson scale, and initial dose of MDZ. The outcome variables were additional administration of MDZ, observer's assessment of alertness/sedation, intraoperative amnesia, and patient satisfaction. Descriptive statistics were computed, and the P-value was set at 0.05.

Results

Most patients had an adequate level of sedation with only the initial dose of MDZ and were satisfied with the treatment under sedation; however, 19 patients needed additional administration, and 13 patients were unsatisfied. In multivariable logistic analysis, lower age (odds ratio [OR], 0.825; P=0.005) and higher dental anxiety (OR, 5.744; P=0.003) were related to additional administration; lower intraoperative amnesia (OR, 0.228; P=0.002) and higher BIS right before MDZ administration (OR, 1.379; P=0.029) had relevance to patient dissatisfaction.

Conclusion

The preoperative consideration of age and dental anxiety is necessary for appropriate dose determination of MDZ in the minor oral surgery under IVS. The amnesia about the procedure affects patient satisfaction positively.

Comparison of efficacy of meperidine and fentanyl in terms of pain management and quality of life in patients with cervical cancer receiving intracavitary brachytherapy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two sedative regimens, a benzodiazepine with either meperidine or fentanyl, in relieving pain in patients with cervical cancer undergoing intracavitary brachytherapy in terms of pain score and quality of life.

METHODS

Forty unselected outpatients undergoing brachytherapy (160 fractions) were enrolled with informed consent and randomized to receive a benzodiazepine with either meperidine or fentanyl. The perceived pain score according to a standard 10-item numeric rating scale was collected every 15 min during the procedure, and the perceived quality of life was determined at the end of each procedure using the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire. The patients and medical staff members directly involved with the procedure were blinded to the medication used.

RESULTS

The patients' pain levels were mild in both analgesic groups. Meperidine appeared to be slightly more effective than fentanyl, although the differences in the average pain score and quality of life were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Both meperidine and fentanyl in combination with benzodiazepine were effective in relieving pain and discomfort in patients undergoing brachytherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02684942, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Comparison of Propofol, Propofol-Remifentanil, and Propofol-Fentanyl Administrations with Each Other Used for the Sedation of Patients to Undergo ERCP

INTRODUCTION

Using single anesthetic agent in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may lead to inadequate analgesia and sedation. To achieve the adequate analgesia and sedation the single anesthetic agent doses must be increased which causes undesirable side effects. For avoiding high doses of single anesthetic agent nowadays combination with sedative agents is mostly a choice for analgesia and sedation for ERCP.

AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of propofol alone, propofol + remifentanil, and propofol + fentanyl combinations on the total dose of propofol to be administered during ERCP and on the pain scores after the process.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This randomized study was performed with 90 patients (ASA I-II-III) ranging between 18 and 70 years of age who underwent sedation/analgesia for elective ERCP. The patients were administered only propofol (1.5 mg/kg) in Group Ι, remifentanil (0.05 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group II, and fentanyl (1 μg/kg) + propofol (1.5 mg/kg) combination in Group III. All the patients' sedation levels were assessed with the Ramsey Sedation Scale (RSS). Their recovery was assessed with the Aldrete and Numerical Rating Scale Score (NRS) at 10 min intervals.

RESULTS

The total doses of propofol administered to the patients in the three groups in this study were as follows: 375 mg in Group I, 150 mg in Group II, and 245 mg in Group III.

CONCLUSION

It was observed that, in the patients undergoing ERCP, administration of propofol in combination with an opioid provided effective and reliable sedation, reduced the total dose of propofol, increased the practitioner satisfaction, decreased the pain level, and provided hemodynamic stability compared to the administration of propofol alone.

Recommended sedation and intraprocedural monitoring for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with a longer treatment time and a higher risk of patient discomfort than conventional procedures. Adequate, safe sedation is therefore essential. Sedation can cause adverse effects such as hypoxemia and hypotension, requiring continuous intraoperative and postoperative monitoring of blood pressure, use of the electrocardiogram, and arterial blood oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry. A physician and a nurse solely responsible for sedating and monitoring the patient should be present during treatment.A combination of benzodiazepines and analgesics are generally used for sedation, but new sedatives such as propofol and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride are expected to be useful agents. Endoscopists should become more familiar with sedatives, analgesics, and emergency procedures in the future.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Endoscopy in the elderly

With increasing age, the incidence of both benign and malignant gastrointestinal (GI) disease rises. Endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in elderly and very elderly patients to diagnose and treat GI disorders. There are a number of issues to contemplate when considering performing an endoscopic procedure in an elderly patient, including the anticipated benefits of endoscopy as well as the increased risks associated with procedural sedation and some endoscopic procedures. This review will focus on the yield and safety of endoscopic procedures in older adults.

Alfentanil and patient-controlled propofol sedation - facilitate gynaecological outpatient surgery with increased risk of respiratory events

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) demands simplicity and a predictable outcome. We evaluated patients' safety and ease of use of PCS for gynaecological outpatient procedures.

METHODS

In a prospective double-blind study, 165 patients were randomized to use propofol or propofol with alfentanil as PCS combined with local anaesthetic for pain control. Data on cardiopulmonary function, consciousness, and need for interventions were collected at baseline and every fifth minute. The surgeons' evaluation of the ease and the duration of the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-five patients used PCS for the entire procedure, 76 patients propofol, and 79 patients propofol/alfentanil. Fifteen procedures in the propofol group were limited or could not be done, compared with four in the propofol/alfentanil group (P = 0.02). The duration of surgery was not affected. The addition of alfentanil affected respiratory function compared with the propofol group: five patients compared with none were manually ventilated (P = 0.03), and two thirds, compared with a quarter, were given supplementary oxygen as their saturation decreased below 90% (P < 0.001). Overall cardiovascular stability was maintained. The propofol group had deeper conscious sedation as measured by the bispectral index (P = 0.03), but all patients could be roused. In the propofol/alfentanil group, five patients became apnoeic and could not be roused.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS using propofol alone supports patients' safety, as the addition of alfentanil increased the need for specific interventions to maintain respiratory stability. However, alfentanil increases the feasibility of the procedure, as complementary doses of propofol were not required.

Sedative techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable therapeutic procedure that cannot be performed without adequate sedation or general anaesthesia. A considerable number of ERCPs are performed annually in the UK (at least 48,000) and many more worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of our review was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of sedative or anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate the procedure of ERCP in adult (age > 18 years) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011); EMBASE (1950 to September 2011); CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS (all to September 2011). We searched for additional studies drawn from reference lists of retrieved trial materials and review articles and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies where the main procedures performed were ERCPs. The three interventions we searched for were (1) conscious sedation (using midazolam plus opioid) versus deep sedation (using propofol); (2) conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia; and (3) deep sedation versus general anaesthesia. We considered all studies regardless of which healthcare professional administered the sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed 124 papers and identified four randomized trials (with a total of 510 participants) that compared the use of conscious sedation using midazolam and meperidine with deep sedation using propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. All sedation was administered by non-anaesthetic personnel. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the studies we decided to review the papers from a narrative perspective as opposed to a full meta-analysis. Our primary outcome measures included mortality, major complications and inability to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems. Secondary outcomes encompassed sedation efficacy and recovery.

MAIN RESULTS

No immediate mortality was reported. There was no significant difference in serious cardio-respiratory complications suffered by patients in either sedation group. Failure to complete the procedure due to sedation-related problems was reported in one study. Three studies found faster and better recovery in patients receiving propofol for their ERCP procedures. Study protocols regarding use of supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid administration and capnography monitoring varied considerably. The studies showed either moderate or high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results from individual studies suggested that patients have a better recovery profile after propofol sedation for ERCP procedures than after midazolam and meperidine sedation. As there was no difference between the two sedation techniques as regards safety, propofol sedation is probably preferred for patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, in all of the studies that were identified only non-anaesthesia personnel were involved in administering the sedation. It would be helpful if further research was conducted where anaesthesia personnel were involved in the administration of sedation for ERCP procedures. This would clarify the extent to which anaesthesia personnel should be involved in the administration of propofol sedation.

Perioperative care for the older outpatient undergoing ambulatory surgery

As the number of ambulatory surgery procedures continues to grow in an aging global society, the implementation of evidence-based perioperative care programs for the elderly will assume increased importance. Given the recent advances in anesthesia, surgery, and monitoring technology, the ambulatory setting offers potential advantages for elderly patients undergoing elective surgery. In this review article we summarize the physiologic and pharmacologic effects of aging and their influence on anesthetic drugs, the important considerations in the preoperative evaluation of elderly outpatients with coexisting diseases, the advantages and disadvantages of different anesthetic techniques on a procedural-specific basis, and offer recommendations regarding the management of common postoperative side effects (including delirium and cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, dizziness, pain, and gastrointestinal dysfunction) after ambulatory surgery. We conclude with a discussion of future challenges related to the growth of ambulatory surgery practice in this segment of our surgical population. When information specifically for the elderly population was not available in the peer-reviewed literature, we drew from relevant information in other ambulatory surgery populations.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: first Nordic results from implementation of a structured training program

INTRODUCTION

Proper training to improve safety of NAPS (nurse-administered propofol sedation) is essential.

OBJECTIVE

To communicate our experience with a training program of NAPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2007, a training program was introduced for endoscopists and endoscopy nurses in collaboration with the Department of Anaesthesiology. During a 2.5-year period, eight nurses were trained. Propofol was given as monotherapy. The training program for nurses consisted of a 6-week course including theoretical and practical training whereas the training program for endoscopists consisted of 2.5 h of theory. Patients were selected based on strict criteria including patients in ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) group I-III.

RESULTS

2527 patients undergoing 2.656 gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were included. The patients were ASA group I, II and III in 34.7%, 56% and 9,3%, respectively. Median dose of propofol was 300 mg. No mortality was noted. 119 of 2527 patients developed short lasting hypoxia (4.7%); 61 (2.4%) needed suction; 22 (0.9%) required bag-mask ventilation and 8 (0.3%) procedures had to be discontinued. In 11 patients (0.4%), anesthetic assistance was called due to short lasting desaturation. 34 patients (1.3%) experienced a change in blood pressure greater than 30%.

CONCLUSION

NAPS provided by properly trained nurses according to the present protocol is safe and only associated with a minor risk (short lasting hypoxia 4.7%). National or international structured training programs are at present few or non-existing. The present training program has documented its value and is suggested as the basis for the current development of guidelines.

Sedation, analgesia, and cardiorespiratory function in colonoscopy using midazolam combined with fentanyl or propofol

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of sedatives during colonoscopy remains controversial because of its safety concerns. We compared cardiorespiratory function and sedative and analgesic effects in sedative colonoscopy, using combinations of midazolam with either fentanyl or propofol.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 480) received 1.0-2.0 mg midazolam alone (n = 160), midazolam combined with either 50-100 mg fentanyl intramuscularly (n = 160), or 0.5-2.5 mg/kg propofol intravenously, as premedication for sedative colonoscopy. Pulse rate, blood pressure, and saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO(2)) were monitored. Levels of sedation and analgesia were semi-quantitatively scored using visual analog scales, and amnesia profiles were qualitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Combining midazolam with either fentanyl or propofol resulted in acceptable sedative and analgesic effects compared to treatment with midazolam alone (P < 0.001), with the combination with propofol giving more favorable results. More patients receiving the propofol combination became amnestic to the procedure than patients receiving the fentanyl combination. However, midazolam combined with propofol disturbed the pulse rate (P < 0.05) and blood pressure (P < 0.001) more significantly than a combination with fentanyl, or midazolam alone.

CONCLUSION

The combination of midazolam with either fentanyl or propofol allowed patients to undergo colonoscopy under comparable sedative and analgesic conditions. The combination with fentanyl had a significantly lower effect on pulse rate and blood pressure. The combination with propofol produced superior amnestic effects.

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol and remifentanil for ERCP: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation with propofol and an opioid is commonly used for ERCP but is associated with increased risk and may require the presence of an anesthesiologist. Delivery of propofol and a short-acting, potent opioid analgesic remifentanil by patients to themselves (patient-controlled sedation, PCS) could be another option. Comparative studies with propofol PCS for ERCP are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare PCS with propofol/remifentanil to anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled human trial.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 80 patients presenting for elective ERCP.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to PCS with propofol/remifentanil (PCS group) or anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation (propofol infusion group). Sedation level was estimated every 5 minutes throughout the procedure by using Ramsay and Gillham sedation scores. The total amount of propofol was calculated at the end of the procedure. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction with the procedures was evaluated with a structured questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patient vital signs, amount of consumed propofol, sedation levels, and degree of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

PCS was successful with 38 of 40 (95%) ERCP patients. In the PCS group, the mean (±standard deviation) level of sedation was markedly lighter and propofol consumption significantly smaller (175±98 mg) than in the propofol infusion group (249±138 mg) (P<.01). Degrees of patient and endoscopist satisfaction were equally high in both groups. All of the patients preferred the same sedation method should a repeat ERCP be required.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol/remifentanil is a suitable and well-accepted sedation method for ERCP. Anesthesiologist-managed propofol sedation with constant propofol infusion is associated with unnecessary deep sedation without any impact on the degree of patient or endoscopist satisfaction. Further larger-scale studies are needed to assess the safety of PCS in ERCP patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01079312.).

Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Traditionally, sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was provided by the gastroenterologist. Increasingly, however, complex procedures are being performed on seriously ill patients. As a result, anesthesiologists now are providing anesthesia and sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite for many of these patients. This article reviews the challenges encountered in this environment and anesthetic techniques that can be used successfully for these procedures.

Recent advances in patient-controlled sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in minimally invasive procedures have resulted in an increased demand for procedural sedation. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been in clinical use for almost 20 years, but has not been reviewed in over 10 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in microprocessor technology, increased demand for procedural sedation in a cost-conscious environment, and the availability of readily titratable pharmacologic agents together stimulated the development of alternative sedation practices. Continued research into the neurobiology of pain perception and the placebo effect has also played a role. PCS and patient-maintained sedation, primarily with propofol, have emerged as intriguing clinical alternatives to traditional sedation based in part on extensions of traditional PCA models.

SUMMARY

PCS has been applied to a wide variety of procedures, but systems that can be applied 'off-the-shelf' are not easy to tune. New approaches to PCS may address these limitations. Better understanding of the psychology of sedation may lead to better patient acceptance of PCS.

Bispectral index monitoring for nurse-administered propofol sedation during upper endoscopic ultrasound: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Bispectral index monitoring (BIS) is a quantitative assessment of brain cortical activity. The aim of this study was to determine if BIS-guided nurse-administered propofol sedation would decrease by > or = 20% both recovery time and propofol dose compared to standard propofol sedation for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Prospectively, eligible outpatients were randomized to BIS-guided or standard propofol sedation during EUS. Propofol was given by nurses in intermittent boluses with sedation targeted at a BIS score of < 65-75. For the control group, the nurse was blinded to BIS scores and sedation was titrated to a modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale (MOAA/S) score < or = 3. Of 50 patients enrolled, data for 44 randomized to BIS-guidance (n = 24) and the control group (n = 20) were evaluated. Between the BIS-guided and control group there was no difference between the mean procedure duration, total propofol dose, recovery time, mean intraoperative MOAA/S, and mean BIS score. Compared to standard propofol sedation for EUS, BIS-guided propofol sedation offers no significant decrease in postprocedure recovery times or propofol doses.

Propofol use by gastroenterologists-the European experience

The administration of propofol as a sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopies became very popular in many European countries during the last years. Nevertheless there are huge regional differences in the way that the drug is used. Switzerland, the country with highest propagation of gastroenterologist guided propofol sedation, serves as a case study of its safe use in daily practice. The experiences of this spread are summarized in this article.