Target-Controlled Infusion of Propofol in Training Anesthesiology Residents in Colonoscopy Sedation: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy: A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND

Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation (NAPS) for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy Target controlled infusion (TCI) is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under- or oversedation.

AIM

To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.

METHODS

Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS. Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure. We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy, dosage of medication and adverse events.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group, compared to the NAPS group (8.2 ± 2.7 mg/min vs 9.3 ± 3.4 mg/min; P = 0.046). The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group (5.3 ± 2.7 min vs 7.7 ± 3.3 min; P < 0.001), nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups. No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy. This may translate into less adverse events. However, further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy has its own specificities and requires practical training. Monitoring devices, anesthetic drugs, understanding of procedures and management of complications are critical aspects.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data are available regarding risk factors for intra- and postoperative complications (based on anesthesia registries), airway management, new anesthetic drugs, techniques of administration and management of advances in interventional endoscopy procedures.

SUMMARY

Digestive tract endoscopy is a common procedure that takes place outside the operating room most of the time and has become more and more complex due to advanced invasive procedures. Prior evaluation of the patient's comorbidities and a good understanding of the objectives and constraints of the endoscopic procedures are required. Assessing the risk of gastric content aspiration is critical for determining appropriate anesthetic protocols. The availability of adequate monitoring (capnographs adapted to spontaneous ventilation, bispectral index), devices for administration of anesthetic/sedative agents (target-controlled infusion) and oxygenation (high flow nasal oxygenation) guarantees the quality of sedation and patient' safety during endoscopic procedures. Knowledge of the specificities of each interventional endoscopic procedure (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, submucosal dissection) allows preventing complications during anesthesia.

Effect of target-controlled propofol infusion to reduce the incidence of adverse events for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review

The administration of propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) for procedural sedation is standard in a range of hospital settings except for the Emergency Department (ED). Propofol TCI could be an alternative, safer way to provide procedural sedation in the ED compared with other methods of propofol administration. We compare the incidence of adverse events using propofol TCI compared with other methods of propofol administration. We conducted a systematic review of the literature from 1946 to January 2019 identifying studies that compared propofol TCI with other propofol regimens for procedural sedation in the adult population. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Seven articles were included. There was significant methodological heterogeneity in all aspects of study designs and definitions of adverse events which precluded a meta-analysis. A systematic review of the studies demonstrated fewer respiratory and cardiovascular adverse outcomes in three of the seven studies. It was not possible to determine if propofol TCI reduces the incidence of adverse events when compared with other sedating regimens using propofol using a descriptive systematic review of the relevant literature. Further research is required to compare the incidence of adverse events using propofol TCI for procedural sedation with other methods of administration in the ED. Future systematic reviews and meta-analysis comparisons would be aided by the use of standard adverse event reporting tools such as that of the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia.