The effect of droperidol on objective markers of patient cooperation and vital signs during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective investigation

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Prospective evaluation of adjunctive ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility in humans

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) at endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatogram (ERCP) is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is used as an adjunctive agent in patients who are difficult to sedate. Concerns regarding the safety profile of droperidol and its effects on sphincter of Oddi motility has resulted in the search for other potent sedative agents that do not influence SOM readings. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, is increasingly being used as an adjunctive agent for conscious sedation. This study evaluates the effect of ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility when used as an adjunctive sedative agent during ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of 30 consecutive patients undergoing SOM who were difficult to sedate and required adjunctive ketamine. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam plus meperidine or a combination of diazepam plus meperidine and midazolam. After the initial two pull-throughs, 20 mg of ketamine was administered intravenously and the measurements were repeated 5 min later.

RESULTS

The basal pressures of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by ketamine. By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure >or=40 mmHg, concordance (normal vs abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after ketamine was seen in 28 patients (93%). Ketamine also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. No complication was associated with ketamine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine at 20 mg did not significantly affect SOM parameters. Further studies are required to confirm our preliminary findings before ketamine can be added to the armamentarium of agents used for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

Effect of loxapine on electrical brain activity, intracranial pressure, and middle cerebral artery flow velocity in traumatic brain-injured patients

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is a frequent complication of traumatic brain injury, especially during the weaning period. Antipsychotic drugs are often used in this case. Loxapine is a tricyclic antipsychotic drug with sedating properties. The effects of intravenous loxapine on EEG as well as on systemic and cerebral hemodynamics after traumatic brain injury are unknown.

METHODS

Seven sedated and mechanically ventilated traumatic brain injured patients were studied 11 +/- 5 days after trauma. They were on continuous perfusion of sufentanil and midazolam. Left and right spectral edge frequency (SEFl, SEFr) of continuous EEG recording, intracranial pressure (ICP), mean flow velocity of the middle cerebral artery (MFV(MCA)) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were simultaneously recorded and digitalized before and after loxapine infusion (10 mg in 10 min of continuous infusion).

RESULTS

Loxapine induced no significant change on MAP, MFV. On the contrary, it decreased ICP and both SEFl, SEFr. ETCO(2 )and the dose of vasopressors were not altered during the study period.

CONCLUSION

10 mg of loxapine administered intravenously over 10 min decreased brain electrical activity. There is a concomitant reduction in ICP without any significant change in cerebral blood flow velocity. The use of intravenous loxapine to control agitation is not accompanied by deleterious hemodynamic or systemic effects in ICU's traumatic brain injured patients.

Prospective randomized trial evaluating ketamine for advanced endoscopic procedures in difficult to sedate patients

BACKGROUND

Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for advanced endoscopic procedures such as ERCP and EUS.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in difficult to sedate patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized trial of all patients undergoing ERCP or EUS who were not adequately sedated despite administration of meperidine 50 mg, midazolam 5 mg and diazepam 5 mg. Patients during endoscopy were then randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (20 mg) every 5 min or continue to receive standard sedation using meperidine and diazepam.

RESULTS

Of 175 patients, 82 were randomized to receive ketamine and 93 standard sedatives. Compared with standard sedation, qualitative physician rating (P < 0.0001) and depth of sedation (P < 0.001) were superior in the ketamine group with shorter recovery times (P < 0.0001). Both patient discomfort and sedation-related technical difficulty were significantly less among patients randomized to receive ketamine (P < 0.0001). More patients in the standard sedation group were crossed-over to the ketamine group due to sedation failure (35.5 vs. 3.7%, P < 0.0001). Nine patients who received ketamine, developed adverse events that were managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use Results in better quality and depth of sedation with shorter recovery times than patients sedated using benzodiazepines and meperidine alone. Further prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of ketamine for endoscopic sedation are needed.

Diphenhydramine as an adjunct to sedation for colonoscopy: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous benzodiazepines in combination with opiates are used to achieve moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Although effective, these agents have potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression and hypotension. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride possesses central nervous system depressant effects that theoretically could provide a synergistic effect for sedating patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to assess the efficacy of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an adjunct to improve sedation and to reduce the amount of standard sedatives used during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a university hospital with an active GI fellowship training program.

PATIENTS

The study group comprised 270 patients undergoing screening/diagnostic/therapeutic colonoscopy were enrolled.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo, given intravenously 3 minutes before starting conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was anesthetic effect as assessed by the endoscopy team and by the patient; quantity of adjunctive sedatives to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients, data were analyzed for 258 patients, with 130 patients in the diphenhydramine group and 128 patients in the placebo group. There was a 10.1% reduction in meperidine usage and 13.7% reduction in midazolam usage in favor of the diphenhydramine group. The mean evaluation scores as judged by the faculty, the fellows, and the nurses were statistically significant in favor of the diphenhydramine group. In addition, patient scores for overall sedation and pain level favored the group that received diphenhydramine.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine given before initiation of standard sedation offers a significant benefit to conscious sedation for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Prospective evaluation of droperidol on sphincter of Oddi motility

BACKGROUND

Droperidol increasingly is used as an effective adjunct for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures. Given the concern for the effects of narcotics and benzodiazepines on sphincter of Oddi motility, and the potential difficulty in sedating patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry, droperidol could be an ideal agent in this setting.

METHODS

Over a 43-month period, consecutive patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry were studied prospectively. Sphincter of Oddi manometry was performed under general anesthesia in all but 10 patients. Standard retrograde pull-through techniques were used to examine the biliary and/or pancreatic sphincter, depending on the indication for sphincter of Oddi manometry. After the initial two pull-throughs, 5 mg of droperidol were given intravenously and measurements were repeated 5 minutes later.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were studied (42 women [76%], 13 men; mean age 43 years). The basal biliary sphincter pressures measured in 35 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 56 mm Hg and 48 mm Hg (p = 0.02); the basal pancreatic sphincter pressures measured in 22 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 92 mm Hg and 67 mm Hg (p = 0.29). By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure greater than 40 mm Hg, droperidol would have resulted in a change in diagnosis in 5 patients undergoing biliary manometry (one misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, 4 misclassified as normal), and 6 patients undergoing pancreatic sphincter manometry (5 misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, one misclassified as normal) (total 19% of procedures). No complication was associated with droperidol use.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol alters basal sphincter pressures, which in some patients was clinically significant and would have resulted in misclassification. Although safe and well tolerated, droperidol appears to have subtle but clinically significant effects on the sphincter of Oddi.

Effects of droperidol on the pancreatic and biliary sphincters

BACKGROUND

Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry at ERCP is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is frequently administered when adequate sedation cannot be achieved with a benzodiazepine and meperidine. This study examined the effects of droperidol on the biliary and pancreatic sphincters.

METHODS

A total of 31 patients were prospectively evaluated by sphincter of Oddi manometry in the conventional retrograde fashion. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam alone, diazepam plus meperidine or midazolam plus meperidine. Manometry was then repeated 5 minutes after droperidol was administered.

RESULTS

The basal pressure of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by droperidol. Concordance (normal vs. abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after droperidol was seen in 30 patients (97%). Droperidol also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. Thirteen manometry tracings (42%) were judged as being qualitatively better after droperidol, whereas two (6.5%; </= p 0.001) were qualitatively better before droperidol administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol does not significantly affect sphincter of Oddi manometric parameters. It appears that it can be added to the armamentarium of agents needed for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry. However, further study is needed to determine whether recent safety concerns with droperidol use are valid.

Intravenous droperidol causes a reduction in the bispectral index in propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia

We investigated the effect of IV droperidol on the bispectral index (BIS) in conscious and propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia. Thirty minutes after the induction of spinal anesthesia, 20 patients were given 2 mg of droperidol IV without administration of other sedatives (conscious group). Another group of patients were sedated with a propofol infusion to maintain BIS at 60 +/- 5 and were administered IV saline (placebo group; n = 20), droperidol 1 mg (dro-1 group; n = 20), or droperidol 2 mg (dro-2 group; n = 20) in a randomized order and in a double-blinded fashion. Although BIS remained the same in the conscious and placebo groups, it significantly decreased after administration of droperidol in the dro-1 and dro-2 groups. The decrease in BIS was significantly larger in the dro-2 group than in the dro-1 group. These results suggest that an antiemetic dose of droperidol enhances the hypnotic effect of propofol in a dose-dependent manner during spinal anesthesia.

IMPLICATIONS

An antiemetic dose of IV droperidol causes a decrease in the bispectral index in patients sedated with propofol during spinal anesthesia. We conclude that droperidol may enhance the hypnotic effect of propofol.

The role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal disorders

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy has revolutionized the clinical management of upper gastrointestinal diseases. Millions of EGDs are performed annually in the United States for many indications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, dysphagia, or surveillance of premalignant lesions. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is very safe, with a low risk of serious complications such as perforation, cardiopulmonary arrest, or aspiration pneumonia. It is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test, especially when combined with endoscopic biopsy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is increasingly being used therapeutically to avoid surgery. New endoscopic technology such as endosonography, endoscopic sewing, and the endoscopic videocapsule will undoubtedly extend the frontiers and increase the indications for endoscopy.

A randomized, double-blind study of the use of droperidol for conscious sedation during therapeutic endoscopy in difficult to sedate patients

BACKGROUND

Droperidol has been used in combination with narcotics and benzodiazepines to achieve conscious sedation. We performed a randomized, double-blind, study of droperidol in patients at risk for difficult sedation scheduled for therapeutic endoscopy.

METHODS

Patients with regular ethanol, narcotic, or benzodiazepine usage, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, or a history of difficult sedation were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either droperidol or placebo along with midazolam and meperidine as preprocedure sedation. Time to achieve sedation, interruptions due to undersedation, medication dosages, recovery time, and subjective assessments of sedation were recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred one patients were randomized. The droperidol group had significantly fewer procedure interruptions and observer ratings of difficulty with sedation and required significantly less midazolam (23%) and meperidine (16%) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in time to achieve sedation, incomplete procedures, procedure length, recovery room time, or complications. There were significantly higher observer ratings of the quality of sedation for patients who received droperidol.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use results in significantly fewer interruptions due to poor sedation and improved sedation ratings compared with sedation using midazolam and meperidine alone.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of droperidol as a sedative premedication for EUS

BACKGROUND

Droperidol is a neuroleptic agent with anti-emetic properties that produces mild sedation, reduced anxiety, and a state of mental detachment and indifference to one's surroundings. Routine premedication with droperidol has been shown to improve sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was to determine whether premedication with droperidol improves sedation during routine upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in a cost-effective manner.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients referred for EUS were randomly assigned to receive either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of droperidol or placebo before the procedure. After EUS, the physician, nurse, and recovered patient scored various parameters of procedural sedation.

RESULTS

In the group receiving 5 mg of droperidol there was significantly less gagging at intubation, less retching during the procedure, better patient cooperation, less need for physical restraint, and improved nurses' and physician's impression of sedation. Significantly less meperidine and less midazolam were required for sedation, making medication costs significantly lower in the group receiving 5 mg droperidol.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5 mg dose of droperidol given as premedication for routine upper EUS improves sedation during the procedure while significantly decreasing the overall cost of sedation.

Benefit of intravenous antispasmodic (hyoscyamine sulfate) as premedication for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether premedication for colonoscopy with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate (Levsin) was helpful from the standpoint of the colonoscopist and the patient.

METHODS

One hundred sixteen adult patients were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg hyoscyamine sulfate intravenous (n = 57) or placebo (n = 59). After administration of study drug, patients were given meperidine and midazolam. Parameters measured included the time required to reach the cecum, total procedure time, and the endoscopist's perception of the adequacy of sedation, difficulty of insertion, and amount of colonic spasm on insertion and withdrawal. Patients were given a postprocedure questionnaire assessing their experience.

RESULTS

In patients receiving hyoscyamine, there was a shorter cecal intubation time (median 9.2 vs. 12.9 minutes; p = 0. 01), shorter total colonoscopy time (median 20.5 vs. 25.0 minutes; p = 0.01), better patient sedation (p = 0.02), easier colonic insertion (p = 0.001), and less spasm on insertion (p = 0.01). No difference was found in the amount of spasm during withdrawal or the total dosages of meperidine or midazolam used. Patients receiving hyoscyamine sulfate reported being more comfortable during their procedures ( p < 0.001) and were more willing to repeat colonoscopy in the future (p = 0.0001). The only adverse effect seen during the study was a 27% incidence of sinus tachycardia that occurred in patients receiving hyoscyamine.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate was beneficial in terms of the time required for cecal intubation, total procedure time, adequacy of sedation, and scales of patient comfort. However, the high frequency of sinus tachycardia seen with the dose used in our study, which was extremely rapid in two patients, indicates the need for further study before the drug can be recommended as a routine premedication for colonoscopy.

Chemical restraint for the agitated patient in the emergency department: lorazepam versus droperidol

Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute agitation frequently require physical and chemical restraint. To determine the efficacy of lorazepam vs. droperidol, we conducted a prospective, randomized study of violently agitated patients requiring chemical restraint. Patients were randomized to receive either lorazepam or droperidol i.v. A six-point sedation scale was used. Sedation scores were recorded at time 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min. Vital signs were compared at time 0 and at 60 min. Repeat dosages of each drug could be given at 30 min. Toxicology screen, ethanol and creatinine phosphokinase levels were obtained. A total of 202 patients were evaluated. One hundred patients received lorazepam and 102 patients received droperidol. Agitation was attributed to methamphetamine toxicity in 146 patients (72%), cocaine toxicity in 28 (14%), psychiatric illness in 20 (10%), and ethanol withdrawal in 8 (4%). Ethanol intoxication was present in 98 patients (49%). Both drugs had similar sedation profiles at 5 min. Patients receiving droperidol had significantly lower sedation scores at times 10, 15, 30, and 60 than lorazepam. More repeat doses of lorazepam were given (40) than droperidol (8) at 30 min. We conclude that droperidol produces a more rapid and better sedation than lorazepam at the doses used in this study in agitated patients requiring chemical restraint. Lorazepam is more likely to require repeat dosing than droperidol. Methamphetamine toxicity was present in the majority of patients in this study.

Predictors of patient cooperation during gastrointestinal endoscopy

We examined a number of patient variables, including three different scales of preprocedure patient anxiety, to determine which best predicted patient cooperation and satisfaction with gastrointestinal endoscopy. We prospectively evaluated 251 patients undergoing outpatient diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy under conscious sedation. All were given a questionnaire on arrival to our endoscopy center that included three measures of preprocedure anxiety: (a) a single question asking how anxious the patient was (termed "Anxiety I" scale); (b) a visual linear analog scale of anxiety; and (c) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Patient cooperation during the procedure was rated by the attending endoscopist. Patients were telephoned the next day to complete a questionnaire assessing their endoscopic experience. Logistic regression analysis was used to construct models for predicting which patients were most likely to have difficulty during their procedures from both the endoscopists' and the patients' standpoint. Statistical analysis identified three parameters that by themselves significantly correlated with patient cooperation during endoscopy: age (p = 0.008), Anxiety I scale (p = 0.03), and visual linear analog anxiety score (p = 0.02). When used together, age, type of procedure, and Anxiety I scale were the best predictors of patient cooperation from the standpoint of the endoscopist. Age, type of procedure, Anxiety I scale, and education level were the best predictors of satisfaction with endoscopy from the perspective of the patient. Good cooperation during endoscopy was associated with greater patient satisfaction.