Comparison of the effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam in lipid emulsion as sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

More than half of hypoxemia cases occurred during the recovery period after completion of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with planned moderate sedation

Guidelines advise precautionary measures for possible adverse events that may occur due to sedation during endoscopic procedures. To avoid complications, intraprocedural and postprocedural monitoring during recovery is considered important. However, since not many studies have reported on hypoxemia during the recovery period, findings for specific monitoring methods are insufficient. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the incidence of hypoxemia during the recovery period using continuous central-monitoring by pulse oximetry and to characterize the hypoxemia cases. Among the 4065 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures under planned moderate sedation, 84 (2.1%) procedures developed unexpected hypoxemia (SpO₂ ≤ 90%). Hypoxemia was observed during the procedure, at the end of the procedure, and during the recovery period in 21, 17, and 46 (1.1%) procedures, respectively. More than half of the hypoxemia cases occurred during the recovery period. Many hypoxemia cases were characterized by neither serious co-morbid illness nor low body mass index which have been reported as risk factors of hypoxemia. The lack of risk factors is no guarantee that hypoxemia will not occur. Therefore, continuous monitoring by pulse oximetry is more important during the recovery period and is recommended in all EGD procedures under planned moderate sedation.

Basic principles and practice of gastric cancer screening using high-definition white-light gastroscopy: Eyes can only see what the brain knows

Endoscopic diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors consists of the following processes: (i) detection; (ii) differential diagnosis; and (iii) quantitative diagnosis (size and depth) of a lesion. Although detection is the first step to make a diagnosis of the tumor, the lesion can be overlooked if an endoscopist has no knowledge of what an early-stage 'superficial lesion' looks like. In recent years, image-enhanced endoscopy has become common, but white-light endoscopy (WLI) is still the first step for detection and characterization of lesions in general clinical practice. Settings and practice of routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) such as use of antispasmodics, number of endoscopic images taken, and observational procedure are customarily decided in each facility in each country and are not well standardized. Therefore, in the present article, we attempted to outline currently available evidence and actual Japanese practice on gastric cancer screening using WLI, and provide tips for detecting EGC during routine EGD which could become the basis of future research.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

A randomized, prospective, double-blind comparison of midazolam (Versed) and emulsified diazepam (Dizac) for opioid-based, conscious sedation in endoscopic procedures

OBJECTIVE

We completed a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to compare the quality of sedation with two benzodiazepines (emulsified diazepam and midazolam) for endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy were eligible. Exclusion criteria included: drug allergies, altered mental status, untreated glaucoma, active pancreatitis, hyperlipidemia, resident physician training, or cases done outside the Endoscopy unit. Nurses began the sedation process by administering an opioid followed immediately by administering study drugs until patients were adequately sedated. At completion of the procedure, both the physician and the nurse rated whether the patient's sedation appeared to be adequate. In addition, before discharge, patients were asked to rate the quality of sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were randomized to the emulsified diazepam group and 100 to the midazolam group. There was no difference in the physician's assessment of quality of sedation between the groups (p > 0.05). The length of time to sedation, total procedure time, and recovery time were similar between both groups. The estimated cost of using emulsified diazepam was approximately 50% less than that of midazolam, with an equal quality of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Neither the physicians, nurses, nor the patients could detect a difference between sedation produced by the drugs. We conclude that both drugs were equally effective for sedation for both upper and lower endoscopic procedures. Based on the results of this trial, we suggest that increased use of emulsified diazepam would markedly reduce the cost without altering the quality of sedation. The cost savings would be at least $50,000/yr at our institution.

Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparison of alfentanil-midazolam and meperidine-diazepam

The authors studied the efficacy and cost of substituting sedation using midazolam and alfentanil for the existing regimen of diazepam and meperidine in patients requiring upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sixty consenting subjects were randomized to receive either meperidine 50 mg with diazepam approximately 90 micrograms.kg-1 (Group D) or alfentanil 250 micrograms with midazolam approximately 50 micrograms.kg-1 (Group M). Endoscope insertion time, patient acceptance, apnoeic or desaturation episodes were noted by a physician observer. Pulse oximetry was used to monitor heart rate and oxygen saturation (SpO2) during endoscopy. Subjects performed four-choice reaction time (4CRT) tests before, 30 and 60 min after endoscopy, and were assessed for nausea or dizziness and their ability to stand and walk. During endoscopy, insertion time was shorter (84 +/- 45 sec vs 122 +/- 83 sec, P < 0.03) and fewer aversive movements occurred (0.4 +/- 0.6 vs. 1.7 +/- 2.4, P < 0.005) in Group M than Group D. No subject in either group suffered any apnoea or prolonged desaturation requiring supplemental oxygen. Irrespective of treatment group, greater decreases in SpO2 (6.1 +/- 3.4% vs 3.6 +/- 2.2% P < 0.001) occurred in subjects > 45 yr of age than in subjects < or = 45 yr. During recovery 4CRT values at 30 min after endoscopy were longer (723 +/- 226 msec vs 594 +/- 139 msec, P < 0.005) in Group M than in Group D but not after 60 min. It was concluded that the small differences in endoscopy conditions and greater sedation during the first 30 min of recovery did not justify the additional cost of using midazolam and alfentnil.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Review article: premedication and intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can be performed without intravenous sedation but the evidence suggests that, in the United Kingdom and United States, most patients and endoscopists prefer that some form of premedication is given. Intravenous diazepam or midazolam are used by the majority of endoscopists. In the UK, the ratio of diazepam to midazolam users is approximately 2:1, while in the USA more endoscopists are now using midazolam. Midazolam is approximately twice as potent as diazepam but, when allowance is made for this, there is probably little or no difference in the propensity of the two drugs to produce respiratory depression. The antegrade amnesic effect of midazolam is significantly superior to that of diazepam. A benzodiazepine/narcotic combination can achieve a smoother and more rapid induction with less gagging and choking, but the incidence of adverse outcomes--particularly respiratory depression--is increased significantly. Over 50% of the deaths that are associated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy are due to cardiopulmonary problems. Hypoxia is very common if measured using non-invasive monitoring equipment, such as a pulse oximeter. Methods of preventing oxygen desaturation and thus, by inference, most cardiac arrhythmias associated with endoscopy are discussed, as is the role of flumazenil, the new benzodiazepine antagonist.

Rapid intravenous low-dose diazepam as sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

One hundred patients for endoscopy, aged, between 18 and 74 years were randomly allocated to two equal groups. Group A received 10 mg diazepam intravenously rapidly over 2-4 s; Group B received diazepam intravenously over 1-2 min, titrated to provide a satisfactory level of sedation (mean dose 15.9 mg). Patient co-operation during endoscopy was similar in both groups, but one patient in Group A developed respiratory depression. Tests of psychomotor function after endoscopy showed greater impairment 30 min following injection for Group B, compared with Group A (P less than 0.02). Total or partial amnesia for endoscopy was present in 62% of Group A, and 90% in Group B (P less than 0.005). However, postal follow-up showed that endoscopy was acceptable to 96% of Group A and 98% of Group B. Delayed sedation later in the day was reported by 26% of Group A compared with 48% of Group B.

A comparison of diazepam and midazolam as endoscopy premedication assessing changes in ventilation and oxygen saturation

1. One hundred and two consecutive patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomised to be sedated with either intravenous diazepam (Diazemuls-Kabi Vitrum) or intravenous midazolam (Hypnovel-Roche). It was assumed that midazolam was likely to be approximately twice as potent as diazepam on the basis of previous work. 2. All patients had an ear oximeter attached throughout the procedure to record continuously their level of oxygen saturation. 3. All 102 patients had pre-endoscopy respiratory function tests measured and 100 wore an induction plethysmograph vest to allow continuous estimation of respiratory rate and excursion. The plethysmograph was calibrated using a pneumotachygraph, so baseline, post-injection and post-endoscopy minute volumes could be estimated. 4. The age, sex ratio and pre-endoscopy respiratory function tests of the 51 patients given intravenous diazepam in a mean dose (s.d.) of 11.5 (5.8) mg over a mean of 3.4 (0.9) min) were similar to that of the 51 patients sedated with intravenous midazolam (mean dose 6.0 (2.8) mg over 3.3 (0.9) min. 5. Both drugs significantly reduced minute volume (P less than 0.001) and oxygen saturation (P less than 0.001). Midazolam appeared to produce slightly greater hypoxaemia with 57% having falls in oxygen saturation of greater than 2.5% compared with only 35% given an equivalent dose of diazepam. 6. Ventilation was still less than baseline when re-checked some minutes after removal of the gastroscope. The speed of recovery appeared faster after diazepam sedation which is in contrast to its longer pharmacological half-life.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)