Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2015;31:580-584. [PMID: 26678938 DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2015.09.004]

Simulation-Based Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedations: A Novel Validation to Multidrug Pharmacodynamic Modeling

Pharmacodynamic models have described the interactions between anesthetics. Applying the models to clinical practice is still problematic due to inherent limitations: 1. modeling conditions are different from practice. 2. One model can only describe one endpoint. To tackle these, we propose a new method of model validation for recovery and intraprocedural sedation adequacy with a three-drug pharmacodynamic model using six published clinical studies that contain midazolam, opioid, and propofol. Mean drug dose, intraprocedural sedation level, procedure, and recovery time are extracted from each study. Simulated drug regimens are designed to best approximate study conditions. A published deep sedation model is used for simulation. Model-predicted recovery time and intraprocedural sedation scores are compared with the original clinical study outcomes. The model successfully predicted recovery times in eight out of nine regimens. Lower doses of midazolam are associated with faster recovery. Model prediction of intraprocedural sedation level was compatible with the clinical studies in five out of seven regimens. The three-drug pharmacodynamic model describes the course of gastrointestinal endoscopy sedations from clinical studies well. Model predictions are consistent with the results from clinical studies. The approach implies that large scale validation can be performed repeatedly.

Long-term high-risk drinking does not change effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope in Chinese male patients

Background

Available literature indicates that long-term drinkers demand a higher dose of propofol for induction of anesthesia than non-drinkers. However, there is no study having assessed the influence of long-term high-risk drinking (LTHRD) on the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope with sedation. This study was designed to compare the effective doses of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and non-drinking (ND) Chinese male patients.

Methods

Thirty-one LTHRD patients and 29 ND male patients undergoing elective gastroscopy with propofol sedation were enrolled. The modified Dixon’s up-and-down method was applied to determine the calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope. Furthermore, the isotonic regression analysis was used to establish the dose–response curve of propofol and assess the effective doses of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀) and 95% (ED₉₅) of gastroscope insertions were successful.

Results

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.55 ± 0.10 mg/kg and 1.44 ± 0.11 mg/kg in the LTHRD and ND patients. The isotonic regression analysis further showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was 1.50 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.40–1.63) and 1.80 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.74–1.90) in the LTHRD patients, respectively; 1.40 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.27–1.57) and 1.60 mg/kg (95%CI, 1.56–1.65) in the ND patients. The ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope was not significantly different between LTHRD and ND patients.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the difference in the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful insertion of gastroscope between LTHRD and ND Chinese male patients was not statistically significant.

Trial registration

The study was registered on November 28, 2020 (ChiCTR2000040382) in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01725-2.

Academy of Medicine, Singapore clinical guideline on the use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

In Singapore, non-anaesthesiologists generally administer sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The drugs used for sedation in hospital endoscopy centres now include propofol in addition to benzodiazepines and opiates. The requirements for peri-procedural monitoring and discharge protocols have also evolved. There is a need to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline on the safe and effective use of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists during gastrointestinal endoscopy in the hospital setting.

METHODS

The Academy of Medicine, Singapore appointed an expert workgroup comprising 18 gastroenterologists, general surgeons and anaesthesiologists to develop guidelines on the use of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The workgroup formulated clinical questions related to different aspects of endoscopic sedation, conducted a relevant literature search, adopted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology and developed recommendations by consensus using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

The workgroup made 16 recommendations encompassing 7 areas: (1) purpose of sedation, benefits and disadvantages of sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) pre-procedural assessment, preparation and consent taking for sedation; (3) Efficacy and safety of drugs used in sedation; (4) the role of anaesthesiologist administered sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy; (5) performance of sedation; (6) post-sedation care and discharge after sedation; and (7) training in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy for non-anaesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations serve to guide clinical practice during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by non-anaesthesiologists in the hospital setting.

The Effectiveness of Low-dose Dexmedetomidine Infusion in Sedative Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and objectives: Flexible bronchoscopy has been widely used for diagnosis and intervention, while various drugs are used for sedation during bronchoscopy. We examined two regular standardized sedation options (with or without dexmedetomidine) regularly used in our regional hospital. The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine on conscious sedation under bronchoscopy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from April 2017 to March 2018. All patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with moderate sedation were enrolled. Patients having received dexmedetomidine-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group D, and those having received midazolam-propofol-fentanyl were defined as group M. The primary outcome was a safety profile during the procedure, including the incidence of procedural interference by patient cough or movement, transient hypoxemia, and hypotension. The secondary outcome was measured by the recovery profile (awake and ambulation time). Results: Thirty-five patients in group D and thirty-three in group M were collected in this retrospective study. All patients underwent the procedure successfully. Group D showed higher safety with fewer procedural interference incidences by cough or body movement than Group M (3.3% versus 36.3%, p < 0.001) and minor respiratory adverse effects. Patients in group D showed faster recovery in a shorter ambulation time than group M (24.9 ± 9.7 versus 31.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.02). In group D, bronchoscopist satisfaction to sedation was higher than group M (p = 0.01). More transient bradycardia episodes were noted in patients receiving dexmedetomidine (p < 0.05), but all recovered without atropine intervention. Overall post-procedural adverse events and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusions: The co-administration of dexmedetomidine met the safety and recovery demands of flexible bronchoscopy. Compared to the conventional midazolam-propofol-fentanyl regimen, the application of dexmedetomidine improved sedative effectiveness with less procedural interruptions, shorter time to ambulation and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction.

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.

AIM

To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I²: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I²: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I²: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I²: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I²: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I²: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I²: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I²: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I²: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11–+87.60, I²: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.002–+0.02, I²: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: −0.05–+0.13, I²: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08–+0.22, I²: 95%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Doxapram alleviates low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous propofol anesthesia is widely applied in the clinical scenario. Despite the good sedation and elimination of anxiety that propofol provides, low SpO2 may also result. Doxapram is a respiratory stimulant with a short half-life. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effects of doxapram on alleviating low SpO2 induced by the combination of propofol and fentanyl during painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients scheduled for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned to group D or S with 55 patients per group. Initially, both groups received a combination of propofol and fentanyl. Patients in group D received 50 mg doxapram after propofol injection, while patients in group S received an equal volume of saline. Vital signs of the patients, propofol dose, examination duration, and incidences of low SpO2 were recorded.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in propofol consumption and examination duration between the two groups. Twenty-six patients in group S experienced low SpO2 versus 10 in group D (P = 0.001). Nineteen patients in group S underwent oxygenation with a face mask in contrast to 8 in group D (P = 0.015). Eighteen patients in group S were treated with jaw lifting compared to 5 in group D (P = 0.002). Four patients in group S underwent assisted respiration compared to 2 in group D (without statistical difference). The average oxygen saturation in group S was significantly lower than that in group D at 1, 2 and 3 min after propofol injection (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were no statistical differences in oxygen saturation at other time points. There were no statistical differences in MAP and HR (except for the time point of 1 min after the induction) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of doxapram can effectively alleviate low SpO2 in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy with intravenous propofol, without affecting propofol consumption, examination duration, MAP, or HR.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Clinical and New Technology of Wuxi People's Hospital on 20th July, 2018 (KYLLH2018029) and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Register on 16th August, 2018 (ChiCTR1800017832).

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%).

CONCLUSION

PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.

Use of computer-assisted drug therapy outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of procedures performed in the out-of-operating room setting under sedation has increased many fold in recent years. Sedation techniques aim to achieve rapid patient turnover through the use of short-acting drugs with minimal residual side-effects (mainly propofol and opioids). Even for common procedures, the practice of sedation delivery varies widely among providers. Computer-based sedation models have the potential to assist sedation providers and offer a more consistent and safer sedation experience for patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Target-controlled infusions using propofol and other short-acting opioids for sedation have shown promising results in terms of increasing patient safety and allowing for more rapid wake-up times. Target-controlled infusion systems with real-time patient monitoring can titrate drug doses automatically to maintain optimal depth of sedation. The best recent example of this is the propofol-based Sedasys sedation system. Sedasys redefined individualized sedation by the addition of an automated clinical parameter that monitors depth of sedation. However, because of poor adoption and cost issues, it has been recently withdrawn by the manufacturer.

SUMMARY

Present automated drug delivery systems can assist in the provision of sedation for out-of-operating room procedures but cannot substitute for anesthesia providers. Use of the available technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, decrease provider workload, and have a long-term economic impact on anesthesia care delivery outside of the operating room.