Evaluation of Different Sedatives for Colonoscopy

Comparison of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS) with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed gastroenterological procedure in patients associated with anxiety and pain. Various approaches have been used to provide sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy, including patient-controlled analgesia and sedation (PCAS). This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of PCAS administered with propofol and remifentanil for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial was performed in an authorized and approved endoscopy center. A total of 80 outpatients were recruited for the colonoscopy studies. Patients were randomly allocated into PCAS and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) groups. In the PCAS group, the dose of 0.1 ml/kg/min of the mixture was injected after an initial bolus of 3 ml mixture (1 ml containing 3 mg of propofol and 10 μg of remifentanil). Each 1 ml of bolus was delivered with a lockout time of 1 min. In the TIVA group, patients were administered fentanyl 1 μg/kg, midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, and propofol (dosage titrated). Cardiorespiratory parameters and auditory evoked response index were continuously monitored during the procedure. The recovery from anesthesia was assessed using the Aldrete scale and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale was used to assess the satisfaction of patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were observed in the Visual Analogue Scale scores of the patients (9.58 vs 9.50) and the endoscopist (9.43 vs 9.30). A significant decline in the mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, and auditory evoked response index parameters was recorded in the TIVA group (P < 0.05). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the PCAS group than in the TIVA group (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

The combination of remifentanil and propofol could provide sufficient analgesia, better hemodynamic stability, lighter sedation, and faster recovery in the PCAS group of patients compared with the TIVA group.

The Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Tosilate versus Etomidate-Propofol in Elderly Outpatients Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial

Objective

The optimal sedation regime during endoscopy remains controversial, especially for elderly outpatients. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety between remimazolam tosilate (RT) and etomidate-propofol (EP) in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 elderly outpatients undergoing sedative colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in the RT group received a 0.075-mg/kg maintenance dose of remimazolam following an initial dose of 0.15 mg/kg, whereas patients in the EP group (10 mL:20 mg etomidate plus 10 mL:100 mg propofol) received a 0.05-mL/kg maintenance dose following an initial dose of 0.1 mL/kg to maintain a Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score of ≤3 during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the success of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included time metrics, hemodynamics, consumption of fentanyl, etomidate, propofol, and remimazolam, intraoperative body movement, patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores, supplemental dose of sedative and fentanyl, and incidence and severity of adverse events.

Results

The procedure success rate was 96.52% in the RT group and 100% in the EP group. The difference in procedure success rate between the RT and EP groups was −3.48% (95% confidence interval: −6.81%, −0.15%). Four patients in the RT group required rescue midazolam. Compared with patients in the RT group, the onset time of the EP group was significantly lower (p < 0.05), whereas time to fully alert (p = 0.001), ready for discharge (p = 0.001), and hospital discharge (p = 0.002) were all significantly higher in the EP group. However, there were no significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.846) or cecal intubation time (p = 0.320) between the two groups. Although the frequency of intraoperative body movement was higher in the RT group, the difference was not significant (p = 0.508). There were no significant differences in patients’ demographic and baseline characteristics, supplemental doses of sedative and fentanyl, or patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores (p > 0.05). Muscular tremor and pain on injection were recorded more frequently in the EP group (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in hypoxia, respiratory depression, or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The severity of adverse events was all mild (grade 1) across both groups.

Conclusion

RT may have non-inferior efficacy and a higher safety profile than EP in elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy, which suggests that RT may be more suitable for elderly outpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Adequacy of Anesthesia Guidance for Colonoscopy Procedures

In patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures (CPs), inadequate dosing of hypnotic drugs (HD) and opioid analgesics (OA) during intravenous sedoanalgesia (ISA) may lead to intraprocedural awareness with recall (IAwR), intraprocedural (IPP) and postprocedural pain (PPP), as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the titration of HD and OA based on the observance of changing values of state entropy (SE) and surgical pleth index (SPI) (adequacy of anesthesia-AoA), state entropy alone, or standard practice may reduce the number of adverse events. One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of IAwR and IPP was statistically more frequent in patients from the C group in comparison with the AoA and SE groups (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). In turn, the rate of PPP, PONV, and patients' and operators' satisfaction with ISA between groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Changes in hemodynamic parameters, demand for HD, and OA were statistically significant, but of no clinical value. In patients undergoing CPs under ISA using propofol and FNT, as compared to standard practice, intraprocedural SE monitoring reduced the rate of IAwR and IPP, with no influence on the rate of PPP, PONV, or patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction. AoA guidance on propofol and FNT titration, as compared to SE monitoring only, did not reduce the occurrence of the aforementioned studied parameters, imposing an unnecessary extra cost.