Propofol alone versus propofol in combination with meperidine for sedation during colonoscopy

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022.

PATIENTS

Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

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.

Variation in Pediatric Anesthesiologist Sedation Practices for Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background: Despite a worldwide shift toward anesthesiologist-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, ideal sedation regimens remain unclear and best practices undefined. Aim: The aim of our study was to document variation in anesthesiologist-administered sedation for pediatric endoscopy. Outcomes of interest included coefficients of variation, procedural efficiency, as well as adverse events. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to review electronic health records of children undergoing routine endoscopy at our medical center during a recent calendar year. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to examine predictors of sedation practices. Results: 258 healthy children [2-21 years (median 15, (Q1-Q3 = 10-17)] underwent either upper and/or lower endoscopies with sedation administered by anesthesiologists (n = 21), using different sedation regimens (29) that ranged from a single drug administered to 6 sedatives in combination. Most patients did not undergo endotracheal tube intubation for the procedure (208, 81%), and received propofol (255, 89%) either alone or in combination with other sedatives. A total of 10 (3.8%) adverse events (9 sedation related) were documented to occur. The coefficient of variation (CV) for sedation times was high at 64.2%, with regression analysis suggesting 8% was unexplained by procedure time. Multivariable model suggested that longer procedure time (p < 0.0001), younger age (p < 0.0001), and use of endotracheal tube intubation (p = 0.02) were associated with longer sedation time. Discussion: We found great variation in anesthesiologist administered regimens for pediatric endoscopy at our institution that may be unwarranted, presenting may opportunities for minimizing patient risk, as well as for optimizing procedural efficiency.

Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is effective in sedation for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. However, the optimum dose is ill-defined. This study aimed to estimate the effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful endoscope insertion in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults undergoing single UGI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty-six adult patients undergoing elective single UGI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. A modified Dixon's up-and-down method was utilized to assess the effective dose of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. The initial dose of propofol administered, 1.6 mg/kg, was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg as a step size. The patient's responses to endoscope insertion were classified as either 'movement' or 'no movement'. When patient's responses were changed from 'movement' to 'no movement' or from 'no movement' to 'movement', a crossover was defined. After eight crossovers had been obtained, patient recruitment was stopped. The mean of midpoints of all crossovers obtained by the modified Dixon's up-and-down method in all 26 patients was defined as calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀ ) of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. Furthermore, probit regression analysis was used to determine the dose of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀ ) and 95% (ED₉₅ ) of endoscope insertion attempts were successful.

RESULTS

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion was 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg. The probit regression analysis showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion were 1.90 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.78-2.10 mg/kg) and 2.15 mg/kg (95% CI, 2.01-3.56 mg/kg), respectively. No any patient had hypoxaemia and gag reflex during the UGI endoscopy with propofol mono-sedation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In healthy, non-obese Chinese adults, propofol mono-sedation can provide excellent conditions of UGI endoscopy and the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion is 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg.

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, I²: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I²: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I²: 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, I²: 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, I²: 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, I²: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I²: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I²: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I²: 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, I²: 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, I²: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: −0.05–+0.13, I²: 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, I²: 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.

Analysis of Dose Escalation of Propofol Associated With Frequent Sedation

Patients with dental phobia frequently require intravenous sedation to complete dental treatment. We encountered a case of a patient who received frequent sedation by propofol, which required escalation in the dosage of propofol required. The patient was a healthy young female with severe dental phobia, and the dental procedures were initiated under intravenous sedation. Intravenous sedation was administered to the patient more than 100 times over 9 years, and the dosages were analyzed. The mean dosage of propofol administered per hour was 6.9 ± 2.4 mg/kg/h, and the dosage tended to increase with frequency (0.06-0.1 mg/kg/h in each administration). Increased dosage was needed with a shorter interval between sedations after 30 episodes of sedation. Regarding the mean dosage of propofol per hour, the step-down method exhibited the highest increase in dosage rate of 0.18 mg/kg/h per administration followed by target-controlled infusion at 0.07 mg/kg/h per administration and combination sedation at 0.06 mg/kg/h per administration. We discuss factors that may be associated with acute tolerance to propofol when frequent propofol sedations are provided.

The Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Midazolam and propofol are both used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of midazolam versus propofol on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy are included. Two investigators have independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 552 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores during gastrointestinal endoscopy than midazolam [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.05 to -0.37; P<0.0001), but the comparison shows no remarkable influence on patient satisfaction scores between midazolam and propofol (Std. MD=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.88 to 0.20; P=0.21), procedure time (Std. MD=0.14; 95% CI=-0.13 to 0.42; P=0.31), hypoxia [risk ratio (RR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.53-1.38; P=0.53), and bradycardia (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.54-2.06; P=0.89). In addition, propofol shows higher incidence of hypotension than midazolam (RR=0.58; 95% CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores, but may increase the incidence of hypotension.

Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%).

CONCLUSION

PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.

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.

On the Horizon: The Future of Procedural Sedation

Sedation plays an integral part in endoscopy. By achieving patient comfort, it allows for a better examination and enhances patient satisfaction. Various medications have been used, propofol being the current favorite. With emphasis on patient safety and quality of endoscopy, various new medications in different combinations are being used to achieve adequate sedation and not escalate the cost of the procedure. With the advent of newer medications and newer modalities to administer these medications, there is need for more specialized training for the endoscopist to feel comfortable while using these medications.

Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the major technique for diagnosis of GI disease and treatment. Various sedation and analgesia regimens such as midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol can be used during GI endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to compare propofol alone and propofol combination with midazolam and fentanyl in moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing GI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All patients received a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) to maintain sedation during the procedure. Patients were randomly allocated into either Group P (propofol TCI alone) or Group C (combination of propofol TCI plus midazolam and fentanyl). Dermographic data, anesthetic parameters (sedation regimen, blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation), procedure parameters (procedure time, colonoscopy, or panendoscopy), propofol consumption, and adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia) were all recorded. Postprocedural records included recovery time, postoperative adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, recall, and pain) and satisfaction. The average propofol consumption was 251 ± 83 mg in Group P and 159 ± 73 mg in Group C (p < 0.001). The incidence of transient hypotension was higher in Group P (p = 0.009). The recovery time and discharge time were both shorter in Group C (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). Overall, postprocedural adverse events were similar in both groups. The postanesthetic satisfaction was comparable in both groups. TCI of propofol combined with midazolam and fentanyl achieved sedation with fewer hypotension episodes and shorter recovery and discharge time than propofol TCI alone in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIMS

To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

[Colonoscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam]

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

Bispectral index monitoring during anesthesiologist-directed propofol and remifentanil sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and lengthy procedure requiring optimal depth of sedation. The bispectral index (BIS) monitor is a non-invasive tool that objectively evaluates the depth of sedation. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether BIS guided sedation with propofol and remifentanil could reduce the number of patients requiring rescue propofol, and thus reduce the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 180 patients who underwent the ESD procedure for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer were randomized to two groups. The control group (n=90) was monitored by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale and the BIS group (n=90) was monitored using BIS. The total doses of propofol and remifentanil, the need for rescue propofol, and the rates of complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The number of patients who needed rescue propofol during the procedure was significantly higher in the control group than the BIS group (47.8% vs. 30.0%, p=0.014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with remifentanil reduced the number of patients requiring rescue propofol in ESD procedures. However, this finding did not lead to clinical benefits and thus BIS monitoring is of limited use during anesthesiologist-directed sedation.

Meperidine as the single sedative agent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In Taiwan, unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is widely used, but it is uncomfortable for some patients. While meperidine has been adopted in colonoscopy, its use in EGD has not received extensive attention. This was a prospective study to investigate the use of meperidine as a single sedative agent during EGD.

METHODS

One hundred and forty patients were randomized to receive either 25-mg meperidine (n = 70) or placebo (n = 70) by intramuscular injection before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores. The secondary outcomes included patient, endoscopist, and EGD-related variables.

RESULTS

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 2.0 and interquartile range [IQR] of 0-4.0 vs median score of 4.8 and IQR of 1.7-7.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and during the procedure (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-3.1] vs 3.5 [IQR 0-5.6], P = 0.001) than patients in the placebo group. The endoscopist found patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during esophageal intubation (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-2.0] vs 2.0 [IQR 1.0-3.0], P = 0.021) and during the procedure (median score of 0 [IQR 0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR 0-3.0], P < 0.001). After the procedure more patients in the meperidine group (71.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001) experienced self-limited dizziness that prolonged recovery by ∼3.7 min.

CONCLUSIONS

After receiving meperidine injection, patients had better tolerance and less discomfort during diagnostic EGD (NCT01547520).

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

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

Propofol combined with traditional sedative agents versus propofol- alone sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of PTSA and propofol alone 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), total dose of propofol used and amnesia were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine original RCTs investigating a total of 1,505 patients, of whom, 805 received PTSA sedation and 700 received propofol-alone sedation, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with propofol-alone sedation, the pooled relative risk with the use of PTSA sedation for developing hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea for all the procedures combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.30-2.92), 1.32 (95% CI, 0.38-4.64), 2.61 (95% CI, 0.23-29.29) and 2.81 (95% CI, 0.27-29.07), with no significant difference between the groups. The pooled mean difference in total dose of propofol used was -40.01 (95% CI, -78.96 to -1.05), which showed a significant reduction with use of PTSA sedation. The pooled relative risk for amnesia was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07), suggesting no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PTSA sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy could significantly reduce the total dose of propofol, but without benefits of lower risk of cardiopulmonary complications compared with propofol-alone sedation.

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.

Which should go first during same-day bidirectional endosocopy with propofol sedation?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Same-day bidirectional endoscopy, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, is frequently performed to screen for cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the optimal sequence for the procedures is unclear thus far. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy under propofol sedation were randomized to either the colonoscopy-first group (colonoscopy followed by EGD, n = 87) or the EGD-first group (EGD followed by colonoscopy, n = 89). We evaluated the propofol dose, procedure duration, patient tolerance and recovery, adverse events, and endoscopic findings. The patient tolerance was assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Total procedure times, patients' tolerance and recovery, adverse events, and endoscopic findings were similar between the two groups. The total propofol dose was significantly higher for the colonoscopy-first group than for the EGD-first group (mean 95% credibility limit: 135.7 [70-201.4] mg vs 124.7 [64.1-185.3] mg, respectively, P = 0.024). Patients in the colonoscopy-first group moved significantly more during colonoscopy than those in the EGD-first group: 1.1 (0-3.8) versus 0.6 (0-2.9) scores, respectively (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The optimal sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy is EGD followed by colonoscopy. In this order, the procedure is better tolerated, and patients require a lower overall dose of propofol.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled human trial.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

This study involved 80 patients presenting for elective ERCP.

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study.

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01079312.).

[Quality colonoscopy: assumptions and expectations]

Colonoscopy has become accepted as the most effective method of screening of the colon for neoplasia. Evidences prove that utilization of colonoscopy has increased dramatically in the past few years, largely because of increased rates of CRC screening. Effectiveness and safety of colonoscopy depend on the quality of examination, and growing body of evidence suggests that the quality of colonoscopy varies in clinical practice. Quality assurance of colonoscopy could be expected to contribute significantly to improved patient care. There is a clear need for evidence-based quality measures to ensure the quality of colonoscopy. In this review we present an overview of literature concerning criteria for best practice and important quality indicators for colonoscopy.