Patients Prefer Propofol to Midazolam Plus Fentanyl for Sedation for Colonoscopy: Results of a Single-Center Randomized Equivalence Trial

Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

Colonoscopy is a key procedure for the early detection of colorectal cancer. Despite its importance, the discomfort associated with colonoscopy often requires sedation, and the ideal sedation regimen remains to be determined. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to two different sedation protocols. Group A received a combination of midazolam and propofol, while group B was given midazolam and pethidine. The study analyzed data from 51 patients, with 23 in group A and 28 in group B. The incidence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation times or total procedure durations. Notably, group A had a lower frequency of required postural changes (1.0±.7 vs. 1.5±0.7, p=0.02) and a reduced rate of manual compression (52.2% vs. 82.1%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding subjective pain or overall satisfaction. Both sedation regimens were found to be safe and effective. The midazolam and propofol combination was associated with a smoother procedure, evidenced by fewer postural adjustments and less manual compression needed during colonoscopy.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on alfentanil consumption during procedural sedation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA. Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Setting: Single-center study from November 2016 to December 2018. Methods: Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, emergency colonoscopy, allergies for study medication, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathy, BMI < 18 kg m -2 , BMI > 35 kg m -2 , obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and uncontrolled hypertension. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg -1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg -1 h -1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Amount of alfentanil and propofol used during the interventional procedure. Cardiorespiratory events as defined in methods during the colonoscopy. Results: There was a not statistically significant reduction in the use of alfentanil [327 µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)] and propofol [39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)] in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted. Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a trend for reduced alfentanil and propofol consumption in patients receiving lidocaine during colonoscopy under sedation. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.

Autonomous Nervous Response During Sedation in Colonoscopy and the Relationship With Clinician Satisfaction

Background: Nurse assisted propofol sedation (NAPS) is a common method used for colonoscopies. It is safe and widely accepted by patients. Little is known, however, about the satisfaction of clinicians performing colonoscopies with NAPS and the factors that negatively influence this perception such as observer-reported pain events. In this study, we aimed to correlate observer-reported pain events with the clinicians' satisfaction with the procedure. Additionally, we aimed to identify patient biosignals from the autonomic nervous system (B-ANS) during an endoscopy that correlate with those pain events. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for a colonoscopy with NAPS were prospectively recruited. During the procedure, observer-reported pain events, which included movements and paralinguistic sounds, were simultaneously recorded with different B-ANS (facial electromyogram (EMG), skin conductance level, body temperature and electrocardiogram). After the procedure, the examiners filled out the Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI). The primary endpoint was the correlation between CSSI and observer-reported pain events. The second primary endpoint was the identification of B-ANS that make it possible to predict those events. Secondary endpoints included the correlation between CSSI and sedation depth, the frequency and dose of sedative use, polyps resected, resection time, the duration of the procedure, the time it took to reach the coecum and the experience of the nurse performing the NAPS. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03860779. Results: 112 patients with 98 (88.5%) available B-ANS recordings were prospectively recruited. There was a significant correlation between an increased number of observer-reported pain events during an endoscopy with NAPS and a lower CSSI (r = -0.318, p = 0.001). Additionally, the EMG-signal from facial muscles correlated best with the event time points, and the signal significantly exceeded the baseline 30 s prior to the occurrence of paralinguistic sounds. The secondary endpoints showed that the propofol dose relative to the procedure time, the cecal intubation time, the time spent on polyp removal and the individual nurse performing the NAPS significantly correlated with CSSI. Conclusion: This study shows that movements and paralinguistic sounds during an endoscopy negatively correlate with the satisfaction of the examiner measured with the CSSI. Additionally, an EMG of the facial muscles makes it possible to identify such events and potentially predict their occurrence.

Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.).

Oxygenation before Endoscopic Sedation Reduces the Hypoxic Event during Endoscopy in Elderly Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Sedation endoscopy increases patient and examiner satisfaction but involves complications. The most serious complication is hypoxia, the risk factors for which are old age, obesity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3 or greater. However, clear evidence of oxygenation during sedation endoscopy for elderly people is lacking in US, European, and Korean guidelines. Method: This study was conducted for 1 year starting in August 2018 to evaluate whether pre-oxygenation use 1 min before sedation endoscopy could reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients older than 65 years of age. A total of 70 patients were divided into the non-oxygenated group (n = 35; control group) and oxygen-treated group (n = 35; experimental group) during endoscopy. Result: The incidence of hypoxia was 28 (80%) in the control group versus 0 (0%) in the pre-oxygenated group. Factors related to hypoxia in the non-oxygenated group were a relatively high dose of midazolam and concomitant injection with narcotic analgesics such as pethidine. Conclusion: The incidence of hypoxia during sedation endoscopy is high in patients over 65 years, but oxygenation during endoscopic sedation in elderly people can significantly reduce the incidence of intraprocedural hypoxic events.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.

AIM

To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.01, I 2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-+0.04, I 2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: -0.03, 95%CI: -0.06-+0.00, I 2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62-+1.17, I 2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: -31.85-+1.56, I 2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: -0.13--0.02, I 2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.08-+0.08, I 2: 85%), desaturation (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.02, I 2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: -6.96-+2.88, I 2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11-+87.60, I 2: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.002-+0.02, I 2: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: -0.05-+0.13, I 2: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-+0.22, I 2: 95%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Factors Associated With Adenoma Detection in Propofol-sedated Patients

GOALS

To assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

BACKGROUNDS

Low adenoma detection rate (ADR) are linked to increased risk of interval cancer and related deaths. Compared with air insufflation (AI) colonoscopy, the method of water exchange (WE) significantly decreased insertion pain and increased ADR in unsedated patients. Deep sedation with propofol has been increasingly used in colonoscopy. One report suggested that WE significantly increased ADR in propofol-sedated patients, but the factors associated with adenoma detection were not analyzed.

STUDY

Post hoc multiple logistic regression analyses were performed based on pooled data from 2 randomized controlled trials to assess the factors associated with adenoma detection in propofol-sedated patients.

RESULTS

Propofol-sedated patients (n=510) were randomized to AI and WE. The baseline characteristics were comparable. Multiple logistic regression analyses show that age, withdrawal time, indications (screening vs. diagnostic), and WE were significantly and independently associated with higher ADR. WE had fewer patients with inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of <6. Despite a significantly shorter inspection time, WE had significantly higher overall ADR than AI, especially in those with adequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥6. Right colon ADR (17.5% vs. 10.5%), flat ADR (32.3% vs. 19.4%), combined advanced and sessile serrated ADR (13.1% vs. 7.4%) of WE were significantly higher than those of AI.

CONCLUSIONS

WE enhanced quality of colonoscopy in propofol-sedated patients by significantly improving colon cleanliness and overall ADR. Colonoscopists with patients under propofol sedation might consider evaluating WE method for performance improvement.

Propofol Compared to Midazolam Sedation and to General Anesthesia for Percutaneous Microwave Ablation in Patients with Hepatic Malignancies: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of Three Historical Cohorts

Purpose

In percutaneous ablation procedures, periprocedural pain, unrest and respiratory concerns can be detrimental to achieve a safe and efficacious ablation and impair treatment outcome. This study aimed to compare the association between anesthetic technique and local disease control in patients undergoing percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and Methods

This IRB-exempted single-center comparative, retrospective analysis of three cohorts analyzed 90 patients treated for hepatic malignancies from January 2013 until September 2018. The local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), safety and periprocedural pain perception were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses to correct for potential confounders.

Results

In 114 procedures (22 general anesthesia; 32 midazolam; 60 propofol), 171 liver tumors (136 CRLM; 35 HCC) were treated with percutaneous MWA. Propofol and general anesthesia were superior to midazolam/fentanyl sedation regarding LTPFS (4/94 [4.3%] vs. 19/42 [45.2%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%]; P < 0.001, respectively). Local tumor progression rate was 14.6% (25/171). Eighteen tumors (72.0%) were retreated by ablation. Of them, 14 (78%) were previously treated with midazolam. Propofol versus midazolam (P < 0.001), general anesthesia versus midazolam (P = 0.016), direct postprocedural visual analog pain score above 5 (P = 0.050) and more than one tumor per procedure (P = 0.045) were predictors for LTPFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that propofol versus midazolam (HR 7.94 [95% CI 0.04–0.39; P < 0.001]) and general anesthesia versus midazolam (HR 6.33 [95% CI 0.04–0.69; P = 0.014]) were associated with LTPFS. Pain during and directly after treatment was significantly worse in patients who received midazolam sedation (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to propofol and general anesthesia, midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with an increased periprocedural perception of pain and lower local tumor progression-free survival. To reduce the number of repeat procedures required to eradicate hepatic malignancies, general anesthesia and propofol sedation should be favored over midazolam.

Higher Sedation Requirements Among Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy for Disease Activity Assessment or Dysplasia Surveillance

Background and Aims

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require colonoscopy for diagnosis, disease activity assessment, and dysplasia surveillance. Few studies have evaluated anesthesia needs of IBD patients during procedures. This study aimed to examine sedation requirements of IBD patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of IBD and non-IBD patients presenting for colonoscopy between August 2015 and December 2016 was undertaken. Data collected included patient and procedure focused variables. Sedation was categorized as intravenous conscious sedation (IVCS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Results: A total of

522 consecutive colonoscopies (212 IBD, 310 non-IBD) between August 2015 and December 2016 met criteria for inclusion. In total, 323 cases utilized IVCS (56 IBD, 267 non-IBD) and 196 used MAC (155 IBD, 41 non-IBD). Compared with non-IBD patients (13.2%), more IBD patients (73.1%) required MAC (P &lt; 0.01). For IVCS cases, IBD patients required more midazolam (5.73 mg versus non-IBD 4.31 mg; P &lt;0.01) and opioid (IBD 157.59 µg fentanyl equivalents versus non-IBD 119.41 µg; P &lt; 0.01). Diphenhydramine was more frequently added to IVCS for IBD cases (IBD 25.0% versus non-IBD 1.9%; P &lt; 0.01). For MAC cases, propofol dosage was not significantly different between groups (IBD 355.64 mg versus non-IBD 317.104 mg; P = 0.29). IBD colonoscopies took longer (IBD 22.7 versus non-IBD 17.2 min; P &lt; 0.01) and more patients had recent narcotic use (IBD 21.2% versus non-IBD 9.0%; P &lt; 0.01).

Conclusions

IBD patients required more IVCS, including greater diphenhydramine use with longer procedure times compared with non-IBD patients. These findings suggest MAC should be considered for IBD procedural sedation.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program

INTRODUCTION

sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications.

METHODS

a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy.

RESULTS

patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.

Prospective study of the factors associated with poor tolerance to ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opiates for colonoscopy is a widespread clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

to determine the patient's tolerance to colonoscopy and identify the factors associated with lower tolerance.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, descriptive study of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation. The pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale with a score of 0 to 100 and also qualitatively.

RESULTS

three hundred patients with a median age of 54 years completed the study (p25-75: 45-64); 138 were men (46%). Tolerance was good in 273 cases (91%). The median value of tolerance was 13 (p25-p75: 4-33). Pain was considered as mild in 215 (71.7%), moderate in 57 (19%) and intense in 28 (9.3%). In the univariate study, greater pain was associated with females, anxiety, the indication for the procedure, the length of time and difficulty of the examination, and the doses of sedatives. In the multivariate study, both the indication (OR 2.92, 95% CI = 1.03-8.2, p < 0.05) and the difficulty of the examination (OR 4.68, 95% CI = 1.6-13.6, p < 0.01) were significant. Complications were found in 16 patients (5.3%), although all of them were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

tolerance of patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy under conscious sedation is good in most cases and complications are infrequent and minor. A worse tolerance to the test is associated with women patients, individuals with anxiety prior to colonoscopy, indication, difficult and longer exploration and lower doses of sedatives.

No increased risk of perforation during colonoscopy in patients undergoing propofol versus traditional sedation: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The safety of propofol sedation during colonoscopy remains unclear, and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the risk of perforation in patients undergoing propofol vs. traditional sedation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CBM, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched up to December 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed abstract of those searched articles. Data about perforation condition in propofol and traditional sedation groups were extracted and combined using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Compared to traditional sedation, propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation (RD = - 0.00, 95% CI - 0.00~0.00, p = 0.98; subgroup analysis: OR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.83~2.05, p = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that propofol sedation did not increase the risk of perforation compared to traditional sedation during colonoscopy.

Patient Satisfaction With Propofol for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has shown that propofol has ideal anesthetic properties for patients undergoing colonoscopy, a common procedure at outpatient surgery centers. However, there is a paucity of information regarding patient satisfaction with propofol.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with propofol compared with nonpropofol (fentanyl/midazolam) anesthesia for outpatient colonoscopies. Safety and complications were secondary end points.

DESIGN

This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group controlled clinical trial (NCT 02937506).

SETTING

This study was conducted at a single ambulatory surgery center at an urban teaching community health system.

PATIENTS

Patients were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Those with high-risk cardiac or pulmonary disease were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Anesthesia personnel administered either fentanyl/midazolam (n = 300) or propofol (n = 300) for sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. A single, highly experienced endoscopist performed all colonoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were patient satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and procedure complications. Data were collected on the day of endoscopy by the nursing staff of the postanesthesia care unit. A subinvestigator blinded to the randomization called patients 24 to 72 hours after discharge to obtain data on postprocedure problems and status of resumption of normal activities. Analysis was intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Fewer patients who received propofol remembered being awake during the procedure (2% vs 17% for fentanyl, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to rate the amount of anesthesia received as being "just right" (98.7% vs 91.3% for fentanyl, p = 0.0002) and state that they were "very satisfied" with their anesthesia (86.3% vs 74% for fentanyl, p = 0.0005). Twenty-six percent of fentanyl procedures were rated "difficult" compared with 4.3% for propofol (p < 0.0001), and complications were fewer in the propofol group (2.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

The endoscopist could not be completely blinded to the anesthetic administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients prefer propofol over a combination of fentanyl/midazolam as their anesthetic for outpatient colonoscopies. From a patient and provider perspective, propofol appears to be superior to fentanyl/midazolam for outpatient colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A445.

Comparison of patients' tolerance between computed tomography enterography and double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography enterography (CTE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are widely used in diagnosis of small bowel diseases. Both of these examinations bring discomfort to patients. The aim of this study was to compare patients' tolerance and preference between CTE and DBE.

METHODS

From August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016, patients with suspected or known small bowel diseases who underwent both CTE and DBE were prospectively enrolled in our study. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire evaluating discomfort of the procedure after each examination.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients completed our study. Abdominal distension, painfulness, tenesmus, general discomfort, prolonged duration, difficulty in completing the test, and discomfort after the examination were significantly lower with CTE than with DBE (P<0.001, respectively). Mannitol intake (47.7%), bowel preparation (31.9%), and radiation exposure (15.0%) were regarded as the three most intolerable burdens in CTE. Painfulness (38.3%), bowel preparation (26.2%), and invasiveness (16.8%) were considered as the three most unacceptable parts of DBE. More patients (61.7%) preferred to repeat CTE rather than DBE (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to DBE, CTE was a more tolerable and less burdensome examination and enjoyed higher preference by most patients.