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

ED50 of remimazolam combined with different doses butorphanol for first trimester artificial abortion

Introduction

Remimazolam (RMZ) is a novel intravenous sedative drug of ultra-short benzodiazepine. The optimal dose of RMZ plus butorphanol for sedation during first trimester artificial abortion is unknown. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the median effective dose (ED50) of RMZ combined with different doses of butorphanol on the sedative effect for first-trimester artificial abortion.

Methods

Sixty-one female patients were randomly assigned to Group B10 (31 patients) and Group B15 (30 patients). RMZ was administered 5 min after IV butorphanol at doses of 10 μg/kg (Group B10) and 15 μg/kg (Group B15). Cervical dilatation at the time of using a cervical dilating rod, if the patient has body movement and affects the gynecologist's operation, we define it as "Ineffective." Therefore, the dose of RMZ was increased in the next patient. Otherwise, it was defined as "Effective," and the dose of RMZ was reduced in the next patient. According to the pre-experiment, the first dose of RMZ in the first patient was 0.35 mg/kg, and the adjacent geometric dose ratio was 0.9. The centered isotonic regression was performed to determine the ED50 of RMZ. The total RMZ dose administered, recovery time, and anesthesia-related adverse events were all recorded.

Results

The ED50 (90% CI) of RMZ was 0.263 (0.215-0.310) mg/kg in Group B10, and 0.224 (0.191-0.261) mg/kg in Group B15, respectively. The recovery time in Group B10 was significantly shorter than in Group B15 (9.8 ± 2.3 vs. 12.5 ± 3.6 min, p ≤ 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of all anesthesia-related adverse events between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The ED50 of RMZ combined with a 10 μg/kg or 15 μg/kg dose of butorphanol was 0.263 and 0.224 mg/kg during painless first trimester artificial abortion. However, RMZ combined with a 10 μg/kg dose of butorphanol seems to have a shorter recovery time.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/bin/project/edit?pid=166623.

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial.

SETTING

Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022.

PATIENTS

A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 μg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 μg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events.

RESULTS

All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

Effective doses of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion, a prospective, single-arm, single-center study

BACKGROUND

Ciprofol is a novel intravenous sedative and anesthetic. Studies have shown that it features a rapid onset of action, a fast recovery time, slight inhibition of respiratory and cardiovascular functions, and a low incidence of adverse reactions. This study aims to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the 95% effective dose (ED95) of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with a low dose of alfentanil, and to evaluate its safety, to provide a reference for the rational use of ciprofol in clinical practices.

METHODS

We included 25 patients aged 18-64 years of either sex who underwent gastroscopy under intravenous general anesthesia, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 18-28 kg/m2, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I or II. In this study, the dose-finding strategy of ciprofol followed a modified Dixon's up-and-down method with an initial dose of 0.30 mg/kg and an increment of 0.02 mg/kg. Ciprofol was administered after intravenous injection of 7 µg/kg of alfentanil, and 2 min later a gastroscope was inserted. When the insertion response of one participant was positive (including body movement, coughing, and eye opening), an escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be given to the next participant; otherwise, a de-escalation of 0.02 mg/kg would be administered. The study was terminated when negative response and positive response alternated 8 times. A Probit model was used to calculate the ED50 and ED95 of ciprofol in inhibiting responses to gastroscope insertion when combined with alfentanil. Patients' recovery time, discharge time, vital signs and occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of single-dose intravenous ciprofol injection with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Patients' recovery time and discharge time were 11.04 ± 1.49 min and 9.64 ± 2.38 min, respectively. The overall incidence of adverse reactions was 12%.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 of ciprofol combined with 7 µg/kg of alfentanil in inhibiting gastroscope insertion responses was 0.217 mg/kg, and the ED95 was 0.247 mg/kg. Ciprofol showed a low incidence of anesthesia-related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200061727).

Efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of alfentanil plus propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on alfentanil combined with propofol versus propofol only for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy from the inception of the database to August 2022. The Rev Man 5.4 software was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1762 patients were identified as eligible for this study. The meta-analysis showed that compared with propofol, alfentanil combined with propofol had a more stable mean arterial pressure [mean difference (MD) = 5.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-8.80; P = .002], heart rate (MD = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.30-6.26; P = .003) and pulse oxygen saturation (MD = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.93-2.78; P = .0001); a lower propofol dose (standard mean difference = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.70 to -1.94; P < .00001), lower awakening time (MD = -3.23, 95% CI: -4.01 to -2.45; P < .00001) and lower directional force recovery time (MD = -3.62, 95% CI: -4.22 to -3.03; P < .00001); a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71; P = .005), body movement (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; P = .0002), hypotension (RR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .0001), respiratory depression (RR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.15-0.89; P = .03) and cough reflex (RR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12-0.89; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This meta-study found that current evidence indicates that alfentanil plus propofol is better than propofol alone for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy and is associated with a lower incidence of adverse reactions. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to validate these above conclusions.

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion combined with butorphanol for sedated colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a short-acting, rapid-recovering anesthetic widely used in sedated colonoscopy for the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of colon diseases. However, the use of propofol alone may require high doses to achieve the induction of anesthesia in sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with anesthesia-related adverse events (AEs), including hypoxemia, sinus bradycardia, and hypotension. Therefore, propofol co-administrated with other anesthetics has been proposed to reduce the required dose of propofol, enhance the efficacy, and improve the satisfaction of patients receiving colonoscopy under sedation.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) in combination with butorphanol for sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this controlled clinical trial, a total of 106 patients, who were scheduled for sedated colonoscopy, were prospectively recruited and assigned into three groups to receive different doses of butorphanol before propofol TCI: Low-dose butorphanol group (5 μg/kg, group B1), high-dose butorphanol group (10 μg/kg, group B2), and control group (normal saline, group C). Anesthesia was achieved by propofol TCI. The primary outcome was the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol TCI, which was measured using the up-and-down sequential method. The secondary outcomes included AEs in perianesthesia and recovery characteristics.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol for TCI was 3.03 μg/mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.83-3.23 μg/mL] in group B2, 3.41 μg/mL (95%CI: 3.20-3.62 μg/mL) in group B1, and 4.05 μg/mL (95%CI: 3.78-4.34 μg/mL) in group C. The amount of propofol necessary for anesthesia was 132 mg [interquartile range (IQR), 125-144.75 mg] in group B2 and 142 mg (IQR, 135-154 mg) in group B1. Furthermore, the awakening concentration was 1.1 μg/mL (IQR, 0.9-1.2 μg/mL) in group B2 and 1.2 μg/mL (IQR, 1.025-1.5 μg/mL) in group B1. Notably, the propofol TCI plus butorphanol groups (groups B1 and B2) had a lower incidence of anesthesia AEs, when compared to group C. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the rates of AEs in perianesthesia, including hypoxemia, sinus bradycardia, hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and vertigo, among group C, group B1 and group B2.

CONCLUSION

The combined use with butorphanol reduces the EC50 of propofol TCI for anesthesia. The decrease in propofol might contribute to the reduced anesthesia-related AEs in patients undergoing sedated colonoscopy.

Low-Dose Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Propofol Sedation for Same-Visit Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Same-visit bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) is widely performed under sedation. At present, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a low-dose esketamine added to propofol sedation reduces hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events in these procedures.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 660 adult patients scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy under sedation from 3 teaching hospitals in China will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to an esketamine group or a normal saline group (n = 330 in each group), stratified by study center. All patients will receive intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.1 μg/mL for induction of sedation, followed by intravenous esketamine 0.15 mg/kg or the same volume of normal saline. Propofol will be titrated to the target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary endpoint is a composite of desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg or decrease >30% of baseline). Secondary endpoints include desaturation, hypotension, total dose of propofol, pain scores and fatigue scores on the 0-10 numerical rating scale, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, nausea or vomiting, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. All analyses will be intention-to-treat.

Discussion

We expect that a low-dose esketamine adjunct to propofol-based sedation will improve cardiorespiratory stability in patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, providing reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR-ChiCTR2200055938).

Propofol suppresses adipose-derived stem cell progression via PI3K/AKT-Wnt signaling pathway

Adipose-derived stem cell (ADSC) transplantation has become a prospective way to treat cardiovascular diseases and skin traumas. Propofol, a short-acting intravenous anesthetic agent, plays an important role in the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. In this study, we investigated the effects of propofol on ADSCs. The flow cytometry results showed that ADSCs were positive for CD29, CD44, and CD90 and negative for CD31, CD34, and CD45. The results of MTT and BrdU assays demonstrated that propofol impeded the proliferation of ADSCs. The cell scratch test showed that propofol had an inhibitory effect on the migration of ADSCs. Transwell assay showed that invasive ASDC counts decreased significantly after propofol treatment. Propofol also promoted ADSC apoptosis and arrested ADSCs in the G0/G1 phase. All these effects showed in a dose-dependent manner that the higher the concentration, the stronger the effect. Western blot analysis revealed decreased levels of FAK, PI3K, AKT, and GSK3β phosphorylation, while the phosphorylation of β-catenin increased after 48 h of treatment with propofol. The findings above indicated that the PI3K/AKT-Wnt pathways mediated propofol-inhibited ADSC proliferation, providing new insights into the propofol application in ADSCs.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam in Endoscopic Sedation-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam in clinical endoscopic procedure sedation.

Methods: The authors searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies published until January 2, 2021, that reported remimazolam sedation for endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency and the incidence of adverse events were assessed as outcomes. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.3 was used to perform the statistical analyses.

Results: Seven relevant studies involving a total of 1,996 patients were identified. We conducted a meta-analysis of the different controls used in the studies, that is, the placebo, midazolam, and propofol. The results demonstrated that remimazolam had a strong sedative effect, and its sedative efficiency was significantly higher than that of placebo [OR = 0.01, 95% CI: (0.00, 0.10), I² = 30%, p <0.00001]. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam [OR = 0.12, 95% CI: (0.08, 0.21), I² = 0%, p < 0.00001] but lesser than that of propofol [OR = 12.22, 95% CI: (1.58, 94.47), I² = 0%, p = 0.02]. Regarding the adverse events, remimazolam is associated with a lower incidence of hypotension than placebo and midazolam. Similarly, remimazolam was associated with a lower incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia than propofol.

Conclusions: Remimazolam is a safe and effective sedative for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The sedative efficiency of remimazolam was significantly higher than that of midazolam but slightly lower than that of propofol. However, the respiration and circulation inhibitory effects of remimazolam were weaker than those of midazolam and propofol.

Propofol with or without fentanyl for pain relief after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (TRUS-P) biopsy: a randomized controlled study

Background

Postoperative pain from transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (TRUS-P) biopsy under sedation is often mild. Benefit of opioids used during sedation is controversial.

Objective

The objective was to compare numeric rating scale (NRS) score at 30 minutes after TRUS-P biopsy between patients receiving propofol alone or with fentanyl.

Methods

We randomly allocated 124 patients undergoing TRUS-P biopsy to receive either fentanyl 0.5 mcg.kg^-1 (Group F) or normal saline (Group C). Both groups received titrated propofol sedation via Target-controlled infusion (TCI) with Schneider model until the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scale 0–1 was achieved. Hemodynamic variables, patient movement, postoperative pain score, patient and surgeon satisfaction score were recorded.

Results

Overall, most patients (97.5%) had no to mild pain. Group F had significantly lower median NRS score at 30 minutes compared to Group C (0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 0.25], p = 0.039). More patients in Group C experienced pain (90% vs. 75.8%, p =  0.038). Perioperative hypotension was higher in group F (81.7%) compared to Group C (61.3%) (p =  0.013). Thirty-five (56.5%) patients in Group F and 25 (42.7%) patients in Group C had movement during the procedure (p = 0.240). Surgeon’s satisfaction score was higher in Group F (10 [9, 10]) than Group C (9 [9, 10]) (p =  0.037).

Conclusion

Combining low dose fentanyl with TCI propofol sedation may provide additional benefit on postoperative pain after TRUS-P biopsy, but results in perioperative hypotension. Fentanyl may attenuate patient movement during the procedure, which leads to greater surgeon’s satisfaction.

Effects of Sedation Performed by an Anesthesiologist on Pediatric Endoscopy: a Single-Center Retrospective Study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy is used for diagnosing and treating various digestive diseases in children as well as in adults. However, in pediatric patients, it is recommended that sufficient sedation should be ensured before conducting endoscopy, since insufficient sedation may cause serious complications. However, in Korea, no studies have yet described the types of sedation drugs, effects of sedation, and efficiency of endoscopy with respect to the sedation instructor. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness of sedative procedures performed by anesthesiologists.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients aged < 18 years who underwent endoscopy during March 2014-July 2019. Data of sedation instructors, sedation drugs and their doses, complications, and the recovery after sedation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients, 217 underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 40 underwent colonoscopies. Before EGD, 29 patients (13.4%) underwent sedation by the pediatric endoscopist and 188 (86.6%) were sedated by the anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist performed the sedation for all 40 patients who underwent colonoscopy. Endoscopic examinations performed by the anesthesiologist were relatively more time-consuming (401.0 ± 135.1 seconds vs. 274.9 ± 106.1 seconds, P < 0.001). We observed that in patients who underwent EGD, there was a difference in the dose of midazolam administered (P = 0.000). When comparing EGD and colonoscopy in patients undergoing sedation by the anesthesiologist, there were no significant differences in the doses of midazolam and ketamine, but the dose of propofol increased for colonoscopy (2.50 ± 0.95 mg/kg vs. 4.71 ± 1.66 mg/kg, P = 0.000). The cognitive recovery time according to drug dose was associated with propofol only in EGD with a shorter endoscopy time. The longer cognitive recovery time in colonoscopy and the discharge time of EGD and colonoscopies were not associated with propofol use.

CONCLUSION

When sedation is performed by an anesthesiologist, various drugs are used with sufficient doses and complications are reduced, but the discharge time does not change. For performing pediatric endoscopy in Korea, anesthesiologists should be considered for inducing anesthesia.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).