A controlled trial of phenoperidine and diazepam in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Review article: premedication and intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can be performed without intravenous sedation but the evidence suggests that, in the United Kingdom and United States, most patients and endoscopists prefer that some form of premedication is given. Intravenous diazepam or midazolam are used by the majority of endoscopists. In the UK, the ratio of diazepam to midazolam users is approximately 2:1, while in the USA more endoscopists are now using midazolam. Midazolam is approximately twice as potent as diazepam but, when allowance is made for this, there is probably little or no difference in the propensity of the two drugs to produce respiratory depression. The antegrade amnesic effect of midazolam is significantly superior to that of diazepam. A benzodiazepine/narcotic combination can achieve a smoother and more rapid induction with less gagging and choking, but the incidence of adverse outcomes--particularly respiratory depression--is increased significantly. Over 50% of the deaths that are associated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy are due to cardiopulmonary problems. Hypoxia is very common if measured using non-invasive monitoring equipment, such as a pulse oximeter. Methods of preventing oxygen desaturation and thus, by inference, most cardiac arrhythmias associated with endoscopy are discussed, as is the role of flumazenil, the new benzodiazepine antagonist.

Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of midazolam and diazepam

Comparison of the ease of upper endoscopy, patient tolerance, and amnestic effect, using diazepam, midazolam, or no sedation, was performed on 149 patients. Midazolam and diazepam sedation produced better conditions and improved patient acceptability. Midazolam was associated with better patient tolerance, less thrombophlebitis, and more amnesia than diazepam, but shared a similar recovery time. Midazolam should replace diazepam as the drug of choice in those patients requiring sedation for upper endoscopy.

Premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Premedication is not essential to endoscopy but patient tolerance is clearly improved and, thus, ease of examination. Although comparable results can be achieved through nonpharmacologic means, the time and effort involved precludes their widespread use. Despite near universal utilization of premedication in endoscopy, the associated risk is difficult to determine from the available literature. The reported data reveal nominal risk yet must be viewed as minimums. The ideal drug with predictable clinical effects, minimal postprocedure impairment, little respiratory compromise, and proven antagonist is not yet available. Although midazolam seems to represent an advance, recent emphasis on respiratory depression is particularly troublesome. Studies evaluating various agents have suffered from lack of quantitation of such parameters as patient tolerance, ease of examination, and postprocedure impairment. Development of proven standards for these parameters would have to occur before a definitive double-blind randomized trial could be undertaken. Suggested means of assessing these parameters are listed in Table I. Improvement in major morbidity would be difficult in light of its low incidence. As the search for the ideal drug continues, endoscopists must continue to use drugs whose full effects are incompletely understood. The ability to increase patient comfort must be balanced with the small, but ever present, risk of morbidity and mortality.

A comparison of diazepam and phenoperidine in premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized double blind controlled study

A variety of agents are used as premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (U.G.E.). To our knowledge, no double blind studies have been performed to compare their value. In this study phenoperidine (2 mg i.v.) was compared with diazepam (t mg i.v.) in 200 consecutive patients undergoing elective U.G.E. The study was randomized and double blind in regard to both endoscopists and patients. All patients were given atropine (0.4 mg i.v.) and a throat spray with 2% amethocaine. Patients who needed supplemental medication were given diazepam and excluded from final analysis. A graded questionnaire was recorded by endoscopists and patients after U.G.E., and a further anonymous questionnaire was returned by patients four days later. Statistical analysis revealed that phenoperidine was superior at facilitating intubation and providing more relaxation as judged by the endoscopist. Patient questionnaires, four days after U.G.E., indicated less distress during intubation and examination with phenoperidine. Nausea, vomiting, amnesia and phlebitis were uncommon after either phenoperidine or diazepam.