Efficacy and safety of remifentanil and sulfentanyl in painless gastroscopic examination: a prospective study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25:e57-e60. [PMID: 24910942 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000064]

The effect of capnography on the incidence of hypoxia during sedation for EGD and colonoscopy in mildly obese patients: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

By continually monitoring end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations, capnography can detect abnormal ventilation or apnoea early. This randomized, controlled study explored the effect of early intervention with capnography on the incidence of hypoxia in mildly obese patients undergoing sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized, single-blind, parallel-assignment, controlled trial. Mildly obese patients (28 kg/m² ≤ BMI < 40 kg/m²) undergoing sedation for EGD and colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the standard or capnography group. Standard cardiopulmonary monitoring equipment was used in both groups, and additional capnography was performed in the capnography group. In the event of inadequate alveolar ventilation during sedation, five interventions were administered in sequence (a-e) : a: increasing oxygen flow (5 L/min); b: a chin lift or jaw thrust maneuver; c: placement of the nasopharyngeal airway and chin lift; d: mask positive-pressure ventilation, and e: ventilator-assisted ventilation with tube insertion. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia (SpO₂ < 90%, ≥ 10 s) in each group. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypoxia (SpO₂ ≤ 85%), subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO₂ < 95%), interventions, minimum SpO₂ during operation, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, and other adverse events of anesthesia sedation.

RESULTS

228 patients were included (capnography group = 112; standard group = 113; three patients were excluded) in this study. The incidence of hypoxia was significantly lower in the capnography group than in the standard group (13.4% vs. 30.1%, P = 0.002). Subclinical respiratory depression in the capnography group was higher than that of the standard group (30.4% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.026). There was only a 5.4% incidence of severe hypoxia in the capnography group compared with 14.2% in the standard group (P = 0.026). During sedation, 96 and 34 individuals in the capnography and standard groups, respectively, underwent the intervention. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.0001) in the number of the last intraoperative intervention between the two groups ( a:47 vs. 1, b:46 vs. 26, c:2 vs. 5, d:1 vs. 2, e:0 vs. 0 ). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of minimum SpO₂ during operation, patient satisfaction, or endoscopist satisfaction rating. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events of anesthesia sedation between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Capnography during sedation for EGD and colonoscopy allows for the detection of apnea and altered breathing patterns in mildly obese patients before SpO₂ is reduced. Effective intervention measures are given to patients within this time frame, which reduces the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia in patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethical approval was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee (Chairperson Professor Tian Hui) of Qilu Hospital, Shandong University ((Ke) Lun Audit 2021 (186)) on 15/07/2021. The study was registered ( https://www.chictr.org.cn ) on 23/10/2021(ChiCTR2100052234). Designed and reported using CONSORT statements.

A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of propofol combined with different doses of alfentanil in gastroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Propofol can be used alone or in combination with opioids during gastroscopy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol and different doses of alfentanil in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 300 patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups, and 0.9% saline (group A), 2 μg/kg alfentanil (group B), 3 μg/kg alfentanil (group C) or 4 μg/kg alfentanil (group D) were injected intravenously 1 min before the intravenous injection of 1.5 mg/kg propofol. If body movement and coughing occurred during the procedure, 0.5 mg/kg propofol would be administered intravenously. The primary outcome (awakening time) and secondary outcomes were recorded and analyzed, including hemodynamic changes, the incidences of body movement, coughing, hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness and dizziness.

RESULTS

Patients in group C (7.0 [5.0 to 8.0] min) and group D (6.0 [5.0 to 7.0] min) woke up significantly earlier than those in group A (8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] min) (P < 0.001). Patients in group A experienced more body movement (P = 0.001) and coughing (P < 0.001) than the other groups. With the increasing dose of alfentanil, the morbidity of hypotension and bradycardia increased significantly (P = 0.001), while the incidence of dizziness decreased significantly (P = 0.037). The incidences of hypoxemia, tachycardia, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting were similar among the four groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous 1.5 mg/kg propofol combined with 3 μg/kg alfentanil is more suitable for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and the dose of alfentanil can be reduced according to the patient's actual physical condition.

Effects of Remimazolam Combined with Esketamine Anesthesia on Circulatory and Respiratory Function during Painless Gastroenteroscopy

Objective

To investigate the effect of applying remimazolam combined with esketamine for anesthesia in painless gastroenteroscopy on patients' circulatory and respiratory function.

Method

In this study, 106 patients who had undergone painless gastroenteroscopy in Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) Hospital between July 2021 and January 2022 were selected as study subjects, which were grouped according to the anesthetic drugs used in the surgery and divided into control group (n = 53 cases) and observation group (n = 53 cases), while those who were anesthetized with propofol + sufentanil during the operation were the control group and those who were anesthetized with remimazolam + esketamine were the observation group. To compare the induction time of anesthesia, patient awakening and recovery time of orientation, circulatory and respiratory function, intraoperative adverse effects, and postoperative complications in the two study groups.

Results

There was no statistical difference in induction of anesthesia, patient awakening, and recovery time of orientation between the two groups (P > 0.05) and no statistical difference in postoperative complications (P > 0.05). The observation group had a better occurrence of local pain at the injection site, circulatory and respiratory function of patients after anesthesia, and intraoperative adverse reactions than the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remimazolam combined with esketamine anesthesia has the same advantages of rapid awakening compared with propofol anesthesia. Moreover, it has fewer side effects on patients' circulatory and respiratory functions with fewer adverse effects, as a suitable anesthetic method for painless gastroenteroscopy.

Effective dose of propofol combined with a low-dose esketamine for gastroscopy in elderly patients: A dose finding study using dixon’s up-and-down method

Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal dose of propofol combined with esketamine to inhibit the response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients.

Methods: This is a prospective, non-controlled, non-randomized, single-center study. Elderly patients aged 65–80 years were enrolled in the study with the American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II undergoing elective gastroscopy. All patients were administered propofol after an intravenous esketamine at the dosage of 0.3 mg/kg 30 s, the subsequent dose of propofol was determined by the response of the previous patient to gastroscope insertion (choking, body movement, etc.) using Dixon’s up-and-down method. The initial dose of propofol administered to the first elderly patient was 3.0 mg/kg, and the standard ratio of propofol dose in adjacent patients was 0.9. At least six crossover points were obtained before the conclusion of the study. By using Probit analysis the median effective dose (ED₅₀), 95% effective dose (ED₉₅), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for propofol were determined.

Results: The study continued until we obtained seven crossover points and 32 elderly patients (17 males and 15 females) were collected. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with esketamine inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients were found to be 1.479 mg/kg (95% CI 1.331–1.592 mg/kg), and ED₉₅ was found to be 1.738 mg/kg (95% CI 1.614–2.487 mg/kg).

Conclusion: According to the present study, propofol combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine is safe and effective for elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. The ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ doses of propofol inhibiting response to gastroscope insertion in elderly patients when combined with 0.3 mg/kg esketamine were 1.479 and 1.738 mg/kg, respectively, without apparent adverse effects.

Gastroscopy sedation: clinical trial comparing propofol and sufentanil with or without remimazolam

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sufentanil is often used in clinical anesthesia for patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy, but there are still adverse events such as longer recovery time, respiratory depression and higher doses of propofol etc. This study was to evaluate the sedative effect of remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil in sedative gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients who were going to have gastroscopy examination were randomly divided into two groups: Group RM (remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil group) and group PR (propofol-sufentanil group). Patients of each group were anesthetized according to the corresponding anesthesia procedure, and all observation indices were recorded.

RESULTS

In the RM group, there were only small and unsignificant changes in the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 after anesthesia(P>0.05), while the values of SBP, HR, RR and SpO2 in the PR group at each time point after anesthesia were significantly lower than those at T0, and the values of SBP and RR at T2, T3 and T4 were also significantly lower than those at T1（P<0.05). The dosage of propofol (38±9 mg) in the RM group was significantly less than that (115±15 mg) in the PR group, meanwhile the anesthesia time (8.4±1.6 min), awakening time (2.9±0.8 min), discharge time (6.7±3.1 min) of the RM group were also significantly shorter than those of the PR group (14.5±3.3, 8.7±1.9, 12.4±3.6 min)（P<0.05), but there was no statistical significance between the two groups in other indices（P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, remimazolam-propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme has more advantages than propofol-sufentanil sedative scheme.

Anesthetic strategy for obese patients during gastroscopy: deep sedation or conscious sedation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the obese patients between conscious sedation and deep sedation and whether conscious sedation was superior to the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Obese patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were randomly assigned to two different intervention groups: group CS (conscious sedation) or group DS (deep sedation). Group CS patients were managed by conscious sedation [Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) at 4-5] protocol, and group DS patients were managed by deep sedation (MOAA/S at ≤ 2) protocol. Propofol and sufentanil (0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg) were, respectively, infused for sedation and analgesia in CS and DS protocols. The primary endpoints were to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the patients between the two groups. The incidence of successful sedation, satisfaction scores of patients and endoscopist were assessed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

115 obese patients (59 in group CS and 56 in group DS) were enrolled in this study. The incidences of SpO₂ < 95% and < 90% in group CS (42.4% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than those in group DS (69.6% and 19.6%, with P = 0.003 and 0.041, respectively). The incidence of successful sedation was similar between groups (86.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.641). Patient satisfaction scores and endoscopist satisfaction scores were both similar between groups (P = 0.548 and 0.171).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with propofol and sufentanil (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the incidence of hypoxic events without affecting gastroscopy procedure and satisfaction compared with the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-1900024894; registration date, July 31, 2019. http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Doxapram alleviates low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely applied in the clinical scenario. Despite the good sedation and elimination of anxiety that propofol provides, low SpO2 may also result. Doxapram is a respiratory stimulant with a short half-life. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of doxapram on alleviating low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients scheduled for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to group D or S with 55 patients per group. Initially, both groups received a combination of propofol and fentanyl. Patients in group D received 50 mg doxapram after propofol injection, while patients in group S received an equal volume of saline. Vital signs of the patients, propofol dose, examination duration, and incidences of low SpO2 were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in propofol consumption and examination duration between the two groups. Twenty-six patients in group S experienced low SpO2 versus 10 in group D (P = 0.001). Nineteen patients in group S underwent oxygenation with a face mask in contrast to 8 in group D (P = 0.015). Eighteen patients in group S were treated with jaw lifting compared to 5 in group D (P = 0.002). Four patients in group S underwent assisted respiration compared to 2 in group D (without statistical difference). The average oxygen saturation in group S was significantly lower than that in group D at 1, 2 and 3 min after propofol injection (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were no statistical differences in oxygen saturation at other time points. There were no statistical differences in MAP and HR (except for the time point of 1 min after the induction) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of doxapram can effectively alleviate low SpO2 in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous propofol, without affecting propofol consumption, examination duration, MAP, or HR.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Clinical and New Technology of Wuxi People's Hospital on 20th July, 2018 (KYLLH2018029) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 16th August, 2018 (ChiCTR1800017832).

Role of combined propofol and sufentanil anesthesia in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of sufentanil and propofol injection in patients undergoing endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs).

METHODS

Patients with severe EVs who underwent EIS with sufentanil and propofol anesthesia between April 2016 and July 2016 at our hospital were reviewed. Although EIS and sequential therapy were performed under endotracheal intubation, we only evaluated the efficacy and safety of anesthesia for the first EIS procedure. Patients were intravenously treated with 0.5-1 μg/kg sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 1-2 mg/kg propofol and maintained using 2-5 mg/kg per hour of propofol. Information, regarding age, sex, weight, American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification, indications, preanesthetic problems, endoscopic procedure, successful completion of the procedure, anesthesia time, recovery time, and anesthetic agents, was recorded. Adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were also noted.

RESULTS

Propofol and sufentanil anesthesia was provided in 182 procedures involving 140 men and 42 women aged 56.1 ± 11.7 years (range, 25-83 years). The patients weighed 71.4 ± 10.7 kg (range, 45-95 kg) and had ASA physical status classifications of II (79 patients) or III (103 patients). Ninety-five patients had a CTP classification of A and 87 had a CTP classification of B. Intravenous anesthesia was successful in all cases. The mean anesthesia time was 33.1 ± 5.8 min. The mean recovery time was 12.3 ± 3.7 min. Hypotension occurred in two patients (1.1%, 2/182). No patient showed hypertension during the endoscopic therapy procedure. Bradycardia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182), and hypoxia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182). All complications were easily treated with no adverse sequelae. All endoscopic procedures were completed successfully.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of propofol and sufentanil injection in endotracheal intubation-assisted EIS for EVs is effective and safe.