Electroencephalogram monitoring facilitates sedation with propofol for routine ERCP: a randomized, controlled trial

The Effects of Ketamine-Propofol and Remifentanil-Propofol Combinations on Integrated Pulmonary Index During Sedation in Gastrointestinal System Endoscopy

Objectives

Different sedo-analgesia and monitoring methods are used during endoscopic procedures. And yet, there is no consensus on optimal sedating agents. In this study, the main aim is to compare ketamine-propofol and remifentanil propofol sedo-analgesia protocols by monitoring integrated pulmonary index (IPI).

Methods

The study population is divided into two groups: Group ketamine received 0.25 mg/kg ketamine and 0.75 mg/kg propofol at the beginning of anesthesia. 1 mcg/kg of remifentanil and 0.75 mg/kg propofol were administered to group remifentanil patients at the induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia maintenance was provided by titration of drug doses according to the Ramsey sedation scale. Measurements were taken at four different points in time: just before anesthesia was induced, five minutes after sedation was induced, ten minutes later, and five minutes after the treatment was finished.

Results

There was no significant difference in respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate, SPO2, and EtCO2 measured in the T1 time period between the groups. In the T2 time period, a significant difference was found between the groups in the integrated pulmonary index (IPI), sPO2, respiratory rate, and systolic pressure parameters were found to be significantly higher in group ketamine. T3 time period results were higher in these three parameters: IPI, sPO2, and respiration rate. In the T2, T3, T4 time periods, there was a difference between the groups in the respiration count parameter and it was found to be higher in group ketamine.

Conclusion

Although it causes slight prolongation in recovery, ketamine is a safe and effective drug that can be used during endoscopic procedures.

Cerebral oximetry monitoring in non-intubated patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under propofol-induced sedation: a prospective observational study

Background

Prolonged propofol-induced deep sedation increases the risk for sedation-related complications. Cerebral oximetry enables prompt assessment of tissue oxygenation by demonstrating the regional hemoglobin oxygen saturation (rSO₂) of the cerebral cortex. This study aimed to: evaluate cerebral oxygenation under deep sedation during an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure; determine the cerebral desaturation event (CDE) rate; and assess the predictive capacity of CDEs for sedation-related complications.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between September and December 2019 were included prospectively. Propofol monotherapy was used and sedation level was assessed using the bispectral index (BIS). The target level of sedation was deep sedation, defined by BIS values 40-60. Participants were monitored with arterial blood gas analysis and INVOS 5100C cerebral oximeter. RSO₂ values were registered prior to sedation (baseline value), every 5 min during the sedation period and at recovery of consciousness. BIS values were recorded simultaneously. CDE was defined as a drop >10% from individual baseline rSO₂.

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled. Mean baseline rSO₂ was 65.1% and BIS values ranged from 18-85. No significant correlation was observed between mean rSO₂ measurements and mean BIS values throughout the recordings (P = 0.193). Data from patients aged ≥65 years were analyzed separately and the results were similar. The CDE rate was 2.7%, but no CDE was associated with clinical manifestations. Twelve sedation-related complications occurred without the presence of cerebral desaturation.

Conclusion

Cerebral oxygenation remained independent of changes in sedation depth and cerebral oximetry monitoring did not detect complications earlier than standard monitors.

Evaluation of bispectral index monitoring efficacy in endoscopic patients who underwent retrograde cholangiopancreatography and received sedoanalgesia

INTRODUCTION

Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring provides an objective, non-invasive measurement of the level of consciousness in a sedated patient.

AIM

In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate the hypothesis that risk of respiratory depression could be reduced and the desired level of sedation with minimal doses of propofol could be achieved by using BIS monitoring in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty patients in the ASA 1-2 category, who were scheduled for an ERCP with sedation, were randomly divided into two groups. The procedure was performed, and sedation was administered so that the patient's Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) would be 4-5 in the first group (group 1) and the patient's BIS value would be 65-75 in the second group (group 2). Cardiopulmonary complications, the total duration of the procedure, and the total amount of propofol administered were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean SpO2 measurements at the third minute, fifth minute, and 10th minute were higher in the BIS group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.05). The mean number of respirations during the third, fifth, 10th, and 15th minute of sedation was significantly higher in the RSS group than in the BIS group (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in terms of recovery time, total propofol amount, and additional doses of bolus propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring during sedation with propofol for ERCP did not reduce total propofol use, but it may be an efficient guide for the timing of additional dose administration, which could reduce the risk of respiratory depression, and it could be used safely as an objective method in the follow-up of level of sedation.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period.

RESULTS

A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.

BIS Targeted Propofol Sparing Effects of Dexmedetomidine Versus Ketamine in Outpatient ERCP: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio Pancreatography (ERCP) is routinely performed under propofol sedation. Adjuvant drugs have improved the quality of propofol sedation while minimizing complications. The aim of the study was to compare the propofol consumption, recovery and hemodynamic profiles of dexmedetomidine versus ketamine against a placebo control with BIS targeted in the sedative range for outpatient ERCP procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study comprised of 72 patients undergoing ERCP, who were randomly allocated into one of the 3 groups: Group Dexmedetomidine (n =24) receiving a bolus and infusion of dexmedetomidine (1μg/kg and 0.5μg/kg/hr); Group Ketamine (n = 24) receiving a bolus and infusion of ketamine (0.25mg/kg and 5μg/kg/min) and Group Control (n =24) receiving saline placebo as a bolus and infusion with variable propofol boluses administered in all groups targeting BiSpectral Index between 60-70.

RESULTS

The total propofol consumption was significantly lower in both Dexmedetomidine (162.5 ± 71.7 mg ) and Ketamine groups (158.3 ± 66.89 mg) when compared with Control group (255.83 ± 114.12 mg)(p=0.001) .Time taken (minutes) to achieve Modified Aldrette Score (MAS) >9 and Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAAS) score >4 was significantly prolonged in Dexmedetomidine group (MAS 16.6 ± 3.18 and OAAS 16.67 ± 2.82) compared to Ketamine (MAS 10 ± 4.17 and OAAS 8.75 ± 3.68) and Control (MAS 7.5 ± 3.29 and OAAS 6.88 ± 2.47) (p<0.001). Hemodynamic profiles were comparable although patients in dexmedetomidine had a statistically significant lower heart rate (p<0.001) although without clinical significance.

CONCLUSION

Low dose ketamine with background propofol boluses resulted in lesser propofol consumption, with earlier recovery and favourable hemodynamics when compared with Dexmedetomidine and control group in outpatient ERCP.

Endoscopic sedation: from training to performance

Adequate sedation and analgesia are considered essential requirements to relieve patient discomfort and pain and ultimately to improve the outcomes of modern gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The willingness of patients to undergo sedation during endoscopy has increased steadily in recent years and standard sedation practices are needed for both patient safety and successful procedural outcomes. Therefore, regular training and education of healthcare providers is warranted. However, training curricula and guidelines for endoscopic sedation may have conflicts according to varying legal frameworks and/or social security systems of each country, and well-recognized endoscopic sedation training systems are not currently available in all endoscopy units. Although European and American curricula for endoscopic sedation have been extensively developed, general curricula and guidelines for each country and institution are also needed. In this review, an overview of recent curricula and guidelines for training and basic performance of endoscopic sedation is presented based on the current literature.

Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons

Concerns about the safety of endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) have been voiced that propofol should be given only by healthcare professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia. Here we discuss the safety and drawbacks of EDP for routine endoscopic procedures. Currently, both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy are well tolerated and accepted by both patients and endoscopists due to the application of sedation in most clinics worldwide. Accordingly, propofol use is increasing in many countries. It is crucial for endoscopists to be very familiar with the use of propofol or a combination of drugs. However, the controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an anesthesiologist continues. Until now, there have been no randomized control trials comparing sedation induced by propofol administered by an endoscopist or by an anesthesiologist. It might be difficult to perform this kind of study. For the convenience and safety of sedative endoscopy, it would be important that EDP be generally applied to endoscopic procedures, and for more safety, an anesthesiologist may automatically take care of particular patients at high risk of suffering from propofol side effects.

Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background/Aims

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation.

Results

The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046).

Conclusions

The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.

The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.

Bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered combined sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.

RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.

Ketamine, propofol and low dose remifentanil versus propofol and remifentanil for ERCP outside the operating room: is ketamine not only a "rescue drug"?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ERCP is a painful and long procedure requiring transient deep analgesia and conscious sedation. An ideal anaesthetic that guarantees a rapid and smooth induction, good quality of maintenance, lack of adverse effects and rapid recovery is still lacking. This study aimed to compare safety and efficacy of a continuous infusion of low dose remifentanil plus ketamine combined with propofol in comparison to the standard regimen dose of remifentanil plus propofol continuous infusion during ERCP.

MATERIAL/METHODS

322 ASAI-III patients, 18-85 years old and scheduled for planned ERCP were randomized. Exclusion criteria were a predictable difficult airway, drug allergy, and ASA IV-V patients. We evaluated Propofol 1 mg/kg/h plus Remifentanil 0.25 µg/kg/min (GR) vs. Propofol 1 mg/kg/h plus Ketamine 5 µg/kg/min and Remifentanil 0.1 µg/kg/min (GK). Main outcome measures were respiratory depression, nausea/vomiting, quality of intraoperative conditions, and discharge time. P≤0.05 was statistically significant (95% CI).

RESULTS

Respiratory depression was observed in 25 patients in the GR group compared to 9 patients in the GK group (p=0.0035). ERCP was interrupted in 9 cases of GR vs. no cases in GK; patients ventilated without any complication. Mean discharge time was 20±5 min in GK and 35±6 min in GR (p=0.0078) and transfer to the ward delayed because of nausea and vomiting in 30 patients in GR vs. 5 patients in GK (p=0.0024). Quality of intraoperative conditions was rated highly satisfactory in 92% of GK vs. 67% of GR (p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The drug combination used in GK confers clinical advantages because it avoids deep sedation, maintains adequate analgesia with conscious sedation, and achieves lower incidence of postprocedural nausea and vomiting with shorter discharge times.

Gastroduodenal stenting

Palliative procedures for patients with malignant gastroduodenal obstruction must be readily available, have a rapid onset of action, and be well tolerated by a patient with terminal cancer. Laparoscopic gastroenterostomy and insertion of self-expanding stents are emerging as the current methods of choice.An increasing number of dedicated enteral stents with different properties are now available. These can be placed under fluoroscopic guidance alone or with the help of an endoscope. Endoscopic placement has several advantages but requires good collaboration between the endoscopists and the radiology department. Appropriate imaging and work-up of each case at multidisciplinary meetings is required. Coexisting biliary obstruction may be dealt with endoscopically, but frequently requires percutaneous biliary stent placement prior to duodenal stenting. Reintervention is required in up to 25% of patients, usually due to stent occlusion by further tumor growth. This article suggests strategies for patient assessment, procedure planning, and stent insertion.

Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography

Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.

Safe and effective sedation in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a randomized comparison between propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam injection

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) generally takes longer to perform than conventional endoscopy and usually requires moderate/deep sedation with close surveillance for patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profiles and recovery scores propofol continuous infusion and intermittent midazolam (MDZ) injection as sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Sixty EGC patients scheduled for ESDs between August and November 2008 were included in this prospective study and randomly divided into a propofol (P-group, 28 patients) and an MDZ (M-group, 32 patients) group using an odd-even system. The P-group received a 0.8 mg/kg induction dose and a 3 mg/kg/h maintenance dose of 1% propofol using an infusion pump. All patients received 15 mg pentazocine at the start of the ESD and at 60-min intervals thereafter. We recorded and analyzed blood pressure, oxygen saturation and heart rate during and following the procedure and evaluated post-anesthetic recovery scores (PARS) and subsequent alertness scores.

RESULTS

The propofol maintenance and total dose amounts were (mean +/- standard deviation) 3.7 +/- 0.6 mg/kg/h and 395 +/- 202 mg, respectively. The mean total dose of MDZ was 10.3 +/- 4.5 mg. There were no cases of de-saturation <90% or hypotension <80 mmHg in either group. Alertness scores 15 and 60 min after the procedures were significantly higher in the P-group (4.9/4.9) than in the M-group (4.6/4.5; p < 0.05). The mean PARS 15 and 30 min after the ESDs were significantly higher in the P-group (9.6/9.9) than in the M-group (8.6/9.2; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the ESDs for EGC performed under sedation using propofol continuous infusion were as safe as those performed using intermittent MDZ injection. Propofol-treated patients had a quicker recovery profile than those treated with MDZ. We therefore recommend the use of continuous propofol sedation for ESD, but sedation guidelines for the use of propofol are necessary.

Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated sedation for endoscopy is popular because of its rapid onset and recovery profile.

AIM

To examine procedure-specific occurrence and risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database was used to determine the frequency of cardiopulmonary events. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative consisted of 69 practice sites comprising 593 US endoscopists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis used variables, such as age, ASA classification and propofol administration by monitored anaesthesia care or gastroenterologist-administered propofol to determine the risk of cardiopulmonary events.

RESULTS

The overall cardiopulmonary event rate for 5928 EGDs and 11 683 colonoscopies was 11.7/1000 cases. For colonoscopy, ascending ASA classification was associated with an increased risk. Monitored anaesthesia care was associated with a decreased adjusted relative risk (0.5, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). ASA I and II patients receiving monitored anaesthesia care for EGD exhibited a significantly lower relative risk (ARR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64). For subjects with ASA class III or greater, there was no difference in the risk between monitored anaesthesia care and gastroenterologist-administered propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

There are procedure-specific risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated EGD and colonoscopy. These should be taken into account during future prospective comparative trials.

Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this respect it is known that the short-acting anesthetic propofol offers certain potential advantages for sedation during ERCP, but there are no controlled studies concerning the feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in elderly, high-risk patients.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients aged >or=80 yr with high comorbidity (ASA score >or=III: 91 %), randomly received midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 75) for sedation during ERCP. Vital signs were continuously monitored and procedure-related parameters, recovery time, and quality as well as patients' cooperation and tolerance of the procedure were assessed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a temporary oxygen desaturation (<90%) occurring in eight patients in the propofol-group and seven patients receiving midazolam/meperidine (n.s.). Hypotension was documented in two patients in the propofol group and one patient receiving midazolam/meperidine. Propofol provided a significantly better patient cooperation than midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01), but the procedure tolerability was rated nearly the same by both groups. Mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (22 +/- 7 min vs 31 +/- 8 min for midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01)) while the recovery score was significantly higher under propofol (8.3 +/- 1.2 vs 6.1 +/- 1.1(p < 0.01)). During recovery a significant lower number of desaturation events (<90%) were observed in the propofol group (12%) than in the midazolam/meperidine group (26%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Under careful monitoring the use of propofol for sedation during ERCP is superior to midazolam/meperidine even in high-risk octogenarians.

Influence of EEG monitoring on intraoperative stapedius reflex threshold values in cochlear implantation in children

BACKGROUND

Cochlear implantation is a widely used means of treating deafness and severe hearing disorders. The surgical procedure includes inserting the cochlear implant electrode array into the cochlea and embedding the corresponding signal receiver in the mastoid bone behind the ear. Postoperative fitting of the externally worn speech processor is very important for successful use of the cochlear implant. For this purpose, electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold values can be used. However, stapedius reflex threshold values measured intraoperatively are influenced by anaesthetics. The goal of this retrospective study was to find out whether electroencephalogram (EEG) control of anaesthesia produces more reliable reflex threshold values as a basis for the fitting of the speech processor.

METHODS

Three groups of children, after surgery for cochlear implantation, were analysed with regard to the magnitude of intraoperative electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold values and their deviations from postoperatively determined maximum comfortable levels (group 1: methohexital/remifentanil with EEG monitoring, n = 10; group 2: isoflurane/fentanyl with EEG monitoring, n = 9; group 3: isoflurane/fentanyl without EEG monitoring, n = 11).

RESULTS

Children with EEG monitoring had significantly lower electrically elicited stapedius reflex threshold values and also significantly lower differences between intraoperative stapedius reflex threshold values and postoperatively determined maximum comfortable levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Electroencephalogram monitoring in cochlear implantation is of considerable value in controlling anaesthesia and improving speech processor fitting based on more reliable intraoperative neurophysiological data.