Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam/Fentanyl, Midazolam/Propofol, and Midazolam/Fentanyl/Propofol on Cognitive Function After Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Effects of adding adjuvants to propofol on the post-anesthesia cognitive function in patients undergoing gastroscopy/colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the effects of propofol plus adjuvants on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2023 on the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinictrials.gov websites were searched. Binary summary of results was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2691 patients). The combined sedation did not affect the processing speed (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.04; I2 = 79.3%, p < 0.001), attention (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.02, 0.05; I2 = 95.0%, p < 0.001), nor working memory (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.03, 0.06; I2 = 94.4%, p < 0.001) in CogState brief battery tool. A significant effect of combined sedation was observed in the domain of visual learning in CogState tool (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.04, -0.02; I2 = 15.8%, p = 0.306). The TDT (ES = 4.96, 95%CI: 2.92, 7.00) indicates that combined sedation would increase error rates in the tests of cognitive function. The DSST (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.44, 0.75) shown that combined sedation does not affect cognitive function. In addition, an insignificant difference in patient satisfaction between combined sedation and propofol alone was observed (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.09, 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that propofol combined with adjuvants may affect POCD but not patient satisfaction.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2023110092.

Comparison of the effects of esketamine, sufentanil, or lidocaine combined with propofol on tussis reflection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a randomised, two centre, three-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tussis, which increases the incidence of airway spasm, aspiration, nausea, and vomiting, is a common complication faced during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, sedatives and analgesics exhibit inhibitory actions against airway reflexes to different degrees. Our assumption is a combination of propofol and small doses of sufentanil, esketamine, or lidocaine, especially the combination of propofol and esketamine, might reduce tussis incidence.

METHOD

The study will be performed as a randomised controlled three-blind, two-centre trial. Patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomised to four groups: P group (single administration of propofol), P + S group (administration of propofol and sufentanil in combination), P + K group (administration of propofol and esketamine in combination), and P + L group (administration of propofol and lidocaine in combination) (N = 100 per group). The primary endpoints include the frequency of tussis, nausea and vomiting, and/or body movements observed at the insertion of the endoscope into the pharyngeal cavity or within 5 min of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes are recovery assessment, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure, MMSE scores, MET scores, sleep condition, and the number of sedation-related events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of vital signs. Satisfaction parameters and mental states are collected by means of questionnaires and evaluation scales before and after the procedure and on different following days.

DISCUSSION

Esketamine can reduce tussis occurrence with good tolerability and relax the bronchus and also provides high clearance rates and low possibility of adverse reactions. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to upper GI procedure is nevertheless superior to only administration of propofol or a combination of propofol with other anaesthetics, such as opioids or lidocaine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05497492 , Registered 09 August 2022.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

Post-operative cognitive dysfunction in patients following gastrointestinal endoscopic treatment

We aimed to explore the changes in post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) after gastrointestinal endoscopic treatment using detailed neuropsychological assessments. Patients hospitalized for gastrointestinal endoscopic polypectomy were recruited for neuropsychological evaluations, which included the Chinese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, Digit Span Test (DST), Trail Making Task (TMT), Verbal Fluency Test, Clock Drawing Test, and Stroop test. Cognitive assessments were performed twice: one day before and 24 h after treatment. Healthy control subjects participated in the neuropsychological assessment during the same intervals. Detailed cognitive assessments were performed for 40 patients and 60 control subjects. Based on the Z scores, the incidence of POCD 24 h after gastrointestinal endoscopic treatment was 20%. Patients with POCD had significant impairment in the post-operative MMSE, forward DST, TMT, and Stroop interference effect correct count tests (all p < 0.05). Our preliminary results showed that patients were not fully recovered, and 20% had impairment in multiple cognitive assessments 24 h after a gastrointestinal endoscopy. As attention was affected, safety while discharging those patients should be a concern.

Time and Motion at the Endoscopy Unit-A University Hospital Experience

Background/aims

An effective workflow at the endoscopy unit is important for optimal production. We conducted a time-and-motion study to identify the amount of time that patients spend during the different steps of a regular endoscopy procedure and compared propofol with midazolam sedation.

Methods

Data from 376 patients were prospectively collected. Durations of the different procedure steps were measured. Correlations between recovery times, age, and dose of sedative were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate how various factors affect recovery time.

Results

The use of midazolam resulted in significantly shorter procedure duration for gastroscopy (5.1 vs 8.3 min), shorter endoscopist delay duration for either types of endoscopy (5.9 vs 8.3 min for gastroscopy and 6.7 vs 11.4 min for colonoscopy), shorter endoscopy room duration for gastroscopy (22.2 vs 30.0 min), shorter recovery time for colonoscopy (23.4 vs 27.4 min) and shorter Endoscopy Unit Duration for either type of endoscopy (77.1 vs 101.4 min for gastroscopy and 99.6 vs 123.2 min for colonoscopy). There was a weak correlation between dose of midazolam and recovery time.

Conclusions

In contrast to other studies, propofol administration leads to more time spent at different steps in the workflow at our unit. Implementing propofol sedation will not improve efficacy if other steps in the workflow are not taken into account.

The median effective concentration of propofol in combination with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults

We designed a four-arm randomized controlled trial to investigate the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol in combination with different doses of esketamine inducing appropriate depth of anaesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy in adults. One hundred patients aged 18-65 years planning for gastrointestinal endoscopy were divided into four groups randomly: esketamine 0, 0.15, 0.25 and 0.5 mg/kg groups (n = 25). Propofol doses followed the Dixon and Massey up-and-down method with different starting between groups. The primary endpoint was the EC50 of propofol. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative dose of propofol, the duration of the procedure, recovery time, and adverse effects. The EC50 (median, 95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly less in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group compared with the esketamine 0, 0.15, and 0.25 mg/kg groups [1.34 (1.15, 1.54) vs. 3.48 (3.25, 3.71), 2.82 (2.58, 3.07), and 2.36 (2.11, 2.61), respectively; p < 0.001]. The total dose of propofol (mean ± SD) required for the whole procedure was significantly less in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group compared with the esketamine 0, 0.15, and 0.25 mg/kg groups [95.5 ± 43.1 vs. 277.4 ± 49.0, 207.8 ± 31.6, and 135.1 ± 27.7, respectively; p < 0.001]. The recovery time was significantly longer in esketamine 0 and 0.5 mg/kg group compared with other two groups (p < 0.001). More patients in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group experienced visual disturbance compared with the other groups (p = 0.016). Additionally, the incidence of hypotensionin the esketamine 0 mg/kg group after inducation was higher compared with other groups (p < 0.001). In summary, the administration of esketamine significantly and dose-dependently reduced the dose of propofol required to accomplish procedures.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

[2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation]

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

2021 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Sedation

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Digital clock drawing test metrics in older patients before and after endoscopy with sedation: An exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

In the postoperative period, clinically feasible instruments to monitor elderly patients' neurocognitive recovery and discharge-readiness, especially after short-stay procedures, are limited. Cognitive monitoring may be improved by a novel digital clock drawing test (dCDT). We screened for cognitive impairment with the 4 A Test (4AT) and then administered the dCDT pre and post short-stay procedure (endoscopy). The primary aim was to investigate whether the dCDT was sensitive to a change in cognitive status postendoscopy. We also investigated if preoperative cognitive status impacted postendoscopy dCDT variables.

METHODS

We recruited 100 patients ≥65 years presenting for endoscopy day procedures at a single metropolitan hospital. Participants were assessed after admission and immediately before discharge from the hospital. We administered the 4AT, followed by both command and copy clock conditions of the dCDT. We analysed the total drawing time (dCDT time), as well as scored the drawn clock against the established Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) criteria both before and after endoscopy.

RESULTS

Linear regression showed higher 4AT test scores (poorer performance) were associated with longer postoperative dCDT time (β = 5.6, p = 0.012) for the command condition after adjusting for preoperative baseline dCDT metrics, sex, age, and years of education.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative dCDT time-based variables slowed in those with baseline cognitive impairment detected by the 4AT, but not for those without cognitive impairment. Our results suggest the dCDT, using the command mode, may help detect cognitive impairment in patients aged >65 years after elective endoscopy.

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.

Discharging select patients without an escort after ambulatory anesthesia: identifying return to baseline function

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current standard of care requires ambulatory surgical patients to have an escort for discharge. Recent studies have started to challenge this dogma. Modern ultrashort acting anesthetics have minimal psychomotor effects after a couple of hours. Driving simulator performance and psychomotor testing return to baseline as soon as 1 h following propofol sedation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent reports of actual experience with thousands of patients found no increase in complications in patients who were discharged without escort or drove themselves from a sedation center. These studies suggest discharge without escort may be safe in select patients but a method to identify appropriate patients remains undefined.

SUMMARY

A reliable test to document return of function might allow safe discharge without an escort. Currently, there is intense interest in developing reliable, inexpensive, easy to administer psychomotor function testing to improve workplace safety and legally define the effects of drugs on driving impairment. Future studies may be able to adapt this technology and develop a validated test for residual anesthetic impairment.

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Negative-Pressure Isolation Mask for Endoscopic Examination During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, endoscopists have high risks of exposure to exhaled air from patients during gastroscopy. To minimize this risk, we transformed the oxygen mask into a fully closed negative-pressure gastroscope isolation mask. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of use of this mask during gastroscopy.

METHODS

From February 28, 2020, to March 10, 2020, 320 patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly assigned into the mask group (n = 160) or conventional group (n = 160). Patients in the mask group wore the isolation mask during gastroscopy, whereas patients in the conventional group did not wear the mask. The adenosine triphosphate fluorescence and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in patients' exhaled air were measured to reflect the degree of environmental pollution by exhaled air. Patients' vital signs, operation time, and adverse events during endoscopy were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Four patients were excluded because of noncooperation or incomplete data. A total of 316 patients were included in the final analysis. The difference between the highest CO2 concentration around patients' mouth and CO2 concentration in the environment was significantly decreased in the mask group compared with the conventional group. There was no significant difference in the adenosine triphosphate fluorescence, vital signs, and operation time between the 2 groups. No severe adverse events related to the isolation mask, endoscopy failure, or new coronavirus infection during follow-up were recorded.

DISCUSSION

This new isolation mask showed excellent feasibility of use and safety compared with routine gastroscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effect of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients: A randomized, controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone during gastroscopy might result in circulatory and respiratory depression. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients while the respiratory and haemodynamic stability were not compromised.

METHODS

Patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine + propofol (L + P) group or normal saline + propofol (NS + P) group. Subjects were initially administered intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in L + P group or equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in NS + P group. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of 1.0 μg sufentanil followed by injection of propofol in all patients. The induction dose of propofol for each individual patient was determined by the protocol of Dixon "up-and-down" method for both groups. The primary end point was the ED50 of propofol induction dose.

RESULTS

Totally, 48 patients were enrolled and completed this study. Compared with the NS + P group, the ED50 of propofol induction dose was significantly reduced in the L + P group (2.01 mg/kg vs. 1.69 mg/kg) (U = 61.5, p < 0.001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The addition of intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (registration No. ChiCTR1900024025, 23 June 2019).

The Effectiveness of Low-dose Dexmedetomidine Infusion in Sedative Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.

The effect of colonoscopy on intraocular pressure: an observational prospective study

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is an endoscopic examination of the bowel. It requires insufflation of the large bowel lumen with gas which leads to intraabdominal hypertension (IAH). There is evidence suggesting that IAH positively correlates with intracranial pressure (ICP) and possibly with intraocular pressure (IOP). The aim of this study was to examine the effect of routine screening colonoscopy performed under sedation on the IOP in healthy individuals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single site, observational study. Healthy adults undergoing routine colonoscopy performed under sedation including propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam were recruited. Right eye IOP measurements were performed using Tonopen XL® in a left decubitus position at 5 time points during the procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test for paired samples.

RESULTS

Twenty-three Caucasians were recruited. There are 14 males (60%) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 10.4 years (range 36-74). Colonoscopy was conducted under sedation and completed in 22 subjects. Mean baseline IOP was 19.9 ± 4.7 mmHg, 15.8 ± 4.8 mmHg immediately after sedation, 13.5 ± 2.3 mmHg when the colonoscope had reached the cecum, 15.4 ± 5.0 mmHg 5 min after colonoscopy beginning, and 16.5 ± 5.5 mmHg when located in the rectum. The IOP reduction during the procedure was statistically significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Routine colonoscopy performed under sedation using propofol, fentanyl, and midazolam does not increase the IOP in healthy adults.