A comparison of propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Comparative Study of Moderate Sedation with Propofol Versus Propofol Combined with Midazolam for Ambulatory Care Digestive Endoscopic Procedures

Anesthesia is essential during colonoscopy because it provides patients with necessary sedation to perform the investigation safely and nonetheless to obtain the highest quality of the results. We aimed here to evaluate and establish which of the combinations of anesthetic drugs most frequently used for sedation purposes for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the ambulatory best covers the needs of the patient and the gastroenterologist. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study carried out on a total of 100 patients, aged between 18 and 80 years, who meet the conditions for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly allocated into either group A (Propofol) or group B (Midazolam plus Propofol). Evaluation of the dose of Propofol used in the 2 groups, awakening time, anesthetic induction, as well as the occurrence of episodes of bradycardia and hypotension represented the parameters followed in the study. In group A, 50 patients received on average 218.6mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. In group B, 50 patients received 0.1mg/kg Midazolam and an average of up to 129.2mg of Propofol in bolus of 10-20mg. Awakening time was shorter in group A-3.18 minutes, than in group B-15.7 minutes. Bradycardia and hypotension were met in a larger number in group B than in group A. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups. The conclusion of our study was that the group to which only Propofol was administered had the best results from all aspects (rapid anesthetic induction, stability of vital functions, lower cost, awakening time much faster) compared to the combination of Propofol with Midazolam.

Safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the intensive care unit

Background and study aims  Propofol sedation is an increasingly popular method of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of the non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) sedation has been demonstrated in the ambulatory setting. However, NAAP sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to determine safety and efficacy of NAAP sedation in an ICU population. Methods  We retrospectively reviewed esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) performed with NAAP sedation in our intensive care units from June 2014 to September 2016. All EGDs were performed for evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). The secondary end points included successful completion of procedure and any endoscopic interventions performed. Results  Two of 161 procedures (1.2 %) had sedation-related AEs requiring procedure termination. One hundred forty-six of 161 procedures (90.7 %) were successfully completed. Incomplete procedures were due to excess heme, retained food or obstructive lesions (13/161, 8.1 %). Endoscopic intervention was performed successfully in 17/24 cases (70.8 %) that had endoscopically treated lesions identified. One hundred six of 161 patients (66 %) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III or IV. Conclusion  Our retrospective analysis demonstrated that EGDs can be successfully completed in ICU patients using NAAP sedation. When procedures cannot be completed, it is rarely due to sedation-related AEs. NAAP sedation further allows adequate examination and successful treatment of high-risk lesions. NAAP sedation appears safe and effective for endoscopic procedures in the ICU setting.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program

INTRODUCTION

sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications.

METHODS

a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy.

RESULTS

patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.