Evaluation of Pharyngeal Function between No Bolus and Bolus Propofol Induced Sedation for Advanced Upper Endoscopy. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2014;2014:248097. [PMID: 24723747 PMCID: PMC3958785 DOI: 10.1155/2014/248097]

Anesthetic effect of different doses of butorphanol in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy

Background

This study aimed to investigate the anesthetic effect of butorphanol with different doses in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Methods

480 patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy were recruited and randomly divided into four groups to receive different doses of butorphanol (Group A = 2.5 μg/kg, Group B = 5 μg/kg, Group C = 7.5 μg/kg and Group D = 10 μg/kg). Butorphanol was administered 5 min before propofol infusion. The primary outcome was the incidence of body movement. Secondary outcomes were postoperative recovery time, length of stay in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), the total dose of propofol, and the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia, propofol injection pain, cough, postoperative nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, and dizziness.

Results

The incidence of body movement and the dose of propofol in Group C and D were lower than those in Group A and B (P < 0.05). The incidence and intensity of propofol injection pain and the incidence of cough in Group B, C, and D were lower than those in Group A (P < 0.05). The length of stay in PACU and the incidence of postoperative drowsiness and dizziness were higher in Group D than in Group A, B, and C (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Intravenous pre-injection of 7.5 μg/kg butorphanol with propofol can be the optimal dosage for patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Trial registration: Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031506. Registered 3 April 2020—Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01262-8.

Continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus injection of propofol during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is unclear whether continuous infusion or intermittent bolus injection of propofol is better for achieving adequate sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus injection of propofol during therapeutic ERCP.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 232 patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP to either continuous infusion (CI group, n = 113) or intermittent bolus injection (BI group, n = 119) of propofol. The primary outcome was the quality of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist. Other sedation-related parameters included sedation induction time, total dose of propofol, recovery time, involuntary patient movement, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction with sedation by the endoscopist and monitoring nurse were significantly higher in the CI group than the BI group (mean satisfaction score, 9.66 vs. 8.0 and 9.47 vs. 7.96, respectively, p < 0.01 for both). However, patients in the CI group had a significantly longer sedation induction time (5.28 minutes vs. 4.34 minutes, p < 0.01) and received a higher dose of propofol than patients in the BI group (4.22 mg/kg vs. 2.08 mg/kg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of propofol during therapeutic ERCP had the advantage over intermittent bolus injection of maintaining a constant level of sedation without increasing adverse events. However, it was associated with an increased total dose of propofol and prolonged sedation induction time.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sedation between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil during endoscopic submucosal dissection

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation protocols for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil.

METHODS: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for ESD were randomly allocated into a dexmedetomidine-remifentanil (DR) group or a propofol-remifentanil (PR) group. To control patient anxiety, dexmedetomidine or propofol was infused to maintain a score of 4-5 on the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Remifentanil was infused continuously at a rate of 6 μg/kg per hour in both groups. The ease of advancing the scope into the throat, gastric motility grading, and satisfaction of the endoscopist and patient were assessed. Hemodynamic variables and hypoxemic events were compared to evaluate patient safety.

RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables and pulse oximetry values were stable during the procedure in both groups despite a lower heart rate in the DR group. No oxygen desaturation events occurred in either group. Although advancing the scope into the throat was easier in the PR group (“very easy” 24.1% vs 56.7%, P = 0.010), gastric motility was more suppressed in the DR group (“no + mild” 96.6% vs 73.3%, P = 0.013). The endoscopists felt that the procedure was more favorable in the DR group (“very good + good” 100% vs 86.7%, P = 0.042), whereas patient satisfaction scores were comparable between the groups. En bloc resection was performed 100% of the time in both groups, and the complete resection rate was 94.4% in the DR group and 100% in the PR group (P = 0.477).

CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil were comparable to propofol and remifentanil during ESD. However, the endoscopists favored dexmedetomidine perhaps due to lower gastric motility.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer compared to midazolam

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been proposed as the gold standard in the treatment of early gastric cancer because it facilitates a more accurate histological assessment and reduces the risk of tumor recurrence. However, the time course of ESD for large gastric tumors is frequently prolonged because of the tumor size and technical difficulties and typically requires higher doses of sedative and pain-controlling drugs. Sedative or anesthetic drugs such as midazolam or propofol are used during the procedure. Therapeutic endoscopy of early gastric cancers can often be performed with only moderate sedation. Compared with midazolam, propofol has a very fast onset of action, short plasma half-life and time to achieve sedation, faster time to recovery and discharge, and results in higher patient satisfaction. For overall success, maintaining safety and stability not only during the procedure but also subsequently in the recovery room and ward is necessary. In obese patients, it is recommended that the injected dose be based on a calculated standard weight. Cooperation between gastroenterologists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists is imperative for a successful ESD procedure.