Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of propofol and midazolam

Endoscopist-directed administration of propofol: a worldwide safety experience

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (EDP) remains controversial. We sought to update the safety experience of EDP and estimate the cost of using anesthesia specialists for endoscopic sedation.

METHODS

We reviewed all published work using EDP. We contacted all endoscopists performing EDP for endoscopy that we were aware of to obtain their safety experience. These complications were available in all patients: endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and death.

RESULTS

A total of 646,080 (223,656 published and 422,424 unpublished) EDP cases were identified. Endotracheal intubations, permanent neurologic injuries, and deaths were 11, 0, and 4, respectively. Deaths occurred in 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, a severely handicapped patient with mental retardation, and a patient with severe cardiomyopathy. The overall number of cases requiring mask ventilation was 489 (0.1%) of 569,220 cases with data available. For sites specifying mask ventilation risk by procedure type, 185 (0.1%) of 185,245 patients and 20 (0.01%) of 142,863 patients required mask ventilation during their esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy, respectively (P < .001). The estimated cost per life-year saved to substitute anesthesia specialists in these cases, assuming they would have prevented all deaths, was $5.3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

EDP thus far has a lower mortality rate than that in published data on endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids and a comparable rate to that in published data on general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. In the cases described here, use of anesthesia specialists to deliver propofol would have had high costs relative to any potential benefit.

Propofol use by gastroenterologists-the European experience

The administration of propofol as a sedative in gastrointestinal endoscopies became very popular in many European countries during the last years. Nevertheless there are huge regional differences in the way that the drug is used. Switzerland, the country with highest propagation of gastroenterologist guided propofol sedation, serves as a case study of its safe use in daily practice. The experiences of this spread are summarized in this article.

Monitored anesthesia care with propofol versus surgeon-monitored sedation with benzodiazepines and narcotics for preoperative endoscopy in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND

Although still controversial, upper endoscopy is frequently performed before bariatric surgery. This study investigated the hypothesis that morbidly obese patients would prefer anesthesiologist-monitored sedation (AMS) compared to surgeon-monitored sedation (SMS) during preoperative endoscopy.

METHODS

All patients who underwent endoscopy before their bariatric surgery were given a post-procedure survey regarding their experience with the preoperative endoscopy. The survey inquired about issues during and after the procedure. We compared patients who had AMS with IV propofol versus SMS IV narcotics and benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

There were 100 patients (SMS=49 and AMS=51). Few patients complained of pain in the abdomen or throat during the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=2 vs. 8% and 2 vs. 10%, respectively; p=NS). More patients complained about throat pain after the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=37 vs. 45%; p=NS). More patients in the SMS group remembered the scope being placed in the mouth versus AMS (33 vs. 10%; p<0.02). More patients remembered gagging during the procedure in the SMS group versus the AMS group, but this did not reach statistical significance (24 vs. 10%; p=0.06). There was a trend that more patients in the AMS group felt they recovered in less than 1 h (53%) compared to the SMS group (37%; p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo upper endoscopy with either AMS or SMS seem to tolerate the procedure well. The preliminary benefits seen with AMS need to be further explored. AMS should be considered for patients undergoing preoperative upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation compared with midazolam and meperidine for EUS: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The utility of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) compared with midazolam and meperidine (M/M) for EUS is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction of NAPS and M/M for EUS.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial.

SETTING

Tertiary-referral hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana.

PATIENTS

Outpatients referred for EUS.

INTERVENTIONS

Sedation with M/M or NAPS. The patient and recovery nurse were blinded; however, the sedating nurse, endoscopist, and recording research nurse were unblinded to the sedatives used. A capnography, in addition to standard monitoring, was used. A questionnaire and visual analog scale assessed patient, endoscopist, and sedating nurse satisfaction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Recovery times, costs, safety, health personnel, and patient satisfaction in both groups.

RESULTS

Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to NAPS (n = 40) or M/M (n = 40). More patients in the propofol group were current tobacco users; patient demographics, procedures performed, mean procedure length, and the overall frequency of adverse events were otherwise similar. Compared with M/M, NAPS was associated with a faster induction of sedation (2.3 vs 5.7 minutes, respectively; P = .001) and full recovery time (29 vs 49 minutes, respectively; P = .001), higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and quicker anticipated return to baseline function. At discharge, total costs (recovery plus medications) were similar between the propofol ($406) and M/M groups ($399; P = .79).

LIMITATION

Low-risk patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with M/M, NAPS for an EUS offered a faster sedation induction and full recovery time, higher postprocedure patient satisfaction, and a quicker anticipated return to baseline function. Total costs were similar between the groups.

An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Demand for colonoscopy and EGD procedures is increasing. Impediments to performing these examinations persist. Patients perceive these procedures as unpleasant and painful. The use of suboptimal sedatives results in inefficiency in endoscopy practices. Improving sedation methods utilizing precise control of preferred sedatives may increase patient satisfaction and practice efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to demonstrate the feasibility of computer-assisted personalized sedation (CAPS) for facilitating the precise administration of propofol by endoscopist/nurse teams, achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing routine endoscopies.

DESIGN

Open label, single-center studies.

SETTING

Endoscopy clinics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Gent, Belgium.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-four adults per center; 12 colonoscopies, 12 EGDs.

INTERVENTIONS

Propofol sedation with CAPS by endoscopist/registered nurse care teams.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation level measured by modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S), recovery time measured from endoscope removal until Aldrete >/= 12, dosage of propofol, oxygen saturation, and safety assessments.

RESULTS

Subjects responded to mild tactile and verbal stimuli MOAA/S = 5, 4, 3, or 2) 99% of the time. Mean propofol doses in the United States and Belgium were 65.4 and 72.1 mg, respectively. Mean recovery times were 29 and 10 seconds, respectively. Oxygen desaturation occurred in only 6% of subjects. No device-related adverse events occurred.

LIMITATION

Open-label design.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CAPS, the endoscopist/nurse teams precisely controlled the administration of propofol achieving minimal to moderate sedation in subjects undergoing colonoscopy and EGD procedures. Mean propofol dosage was low and post-procedure recovery times were rapid. The device performed well when operated by the endoscopist/nurse team, with no device-related adverse events.

Mask adaptor--a novel method of positive pressure ventilation during propofol deep sedation for upper GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol dosages required for upper GI endoscopy are often high enough to pose serious risks of respiratory depression. Stopping the procedure and bag ventilating a patient until the propofol wears off may be a safer management because traditional mask ventilation is not available.

OBJECTIVE

We introduce the mask adaptor for upper GI endoscopy (MAUGE), a new method of positive pressure ventilation during upper GI endoscopy, and assessed its feasibility and safety.

DESIGN

Subjects received propofol 1.5 to 2.5 mg/kg injection followed by repeated doses of 20 to 30 mg if necessary.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III, undergoing upper GI endoscopy and requesting sedation.

INTERVENTIONS

After connecting the MAUGE to the anesthetic ventilation circuit and mask, the endoscope was inserted into the patient's digestive tract through the channel for endoscopes in the MAUGE and through the mask. Oxygen was supplied to the respiratory tract through the channel for gas in the MAUGE and through the mask by using positive pressure ventilation by bag-valve-mask ventilation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide tension, oxygen saturation, respiratory waveform.

RESULTS

Oxygen saturation was more than 95% throughout the endoscopy in all patients. Positive ventilation was achieved in all patients and consistent with thoracic wall movement and respiratory waveforms shown by capnography.

LIMITATIONS

The MAUGE cannot seal the respiratory tract. Patients in high risk for aspiration should not be considered candidates for using the MAUGE.

CONCLUSIONS

By use of the MAUGE, positive pressure ventilation was efficaciously achieved, and desaturation and carbon dioxide retention were effectively avoided during the upper GI endoscopy procedure.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

Propofol sedation during endoscopic procedures: how much staff and monitoring are necessary?

BACKGROUND

Propofol has been shown to be safe for nonanesthetist use during GI endoscopy. However, published studies involved propofol administration by an additional nurse or used specialized patient monitoring or were carried out in tertiary hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

Considering the downward pressure on reimbursement for endoscopic procedures, we asked how much staff and monitoring is necessary for safe use of propofol.

SETTING

Two private gastroenterology practices.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

A total of 27,061 endoscopic procedures (14,856 EGDs and 12,205 colonoscopies) were prospectively assessed regarding patient characteristics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, dosage of propofol, fall of oxygen saturation below 90%, need to increase nasal oxygen administration above 2 L/min, and need for assisted ventilation.

INTERVENTION

Propofol was administered by the endoscopy nurse supervised by the endoscopist. Patient monitoring consisted of only pulse oximetry and clinical assessment.

RESULTS

The mean propofol dose for EGD was 161 mg (range 50-650 mg). During colonoscopy patients received a mean propofol dose of 116 mg (30-500 mg) in addition to 25 mg of meperidine. Oxygen saturation fell below 90% (lowest 74%) in 623 procedures (2.3%), normalizing within less than 30 seconds by stimulating the patient and increasing the nasal oxygen flow to 4 to 10 L/min. Six patients (ASA III) required mask ventilation for less than 30 seconds. No endotracheal intubation was necessary.

LIMITATIONS

There was no further follow-up regarding adverse events after patient discharge from the endoscopy unit.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopy team, consisting of 1 physician endoscopist and 1 endoscopy nurse, can safely administer propofol sedation for GI endoscopy in a practice setting without additional staff or specialized monitoring.

Practice efficiency and economics: the case for rapid recovery sedation agents for colonoscopy in a screening population

GOAL

To determine rapidly acting agents' impact on practice efficiency and cost for outpatient colonoscopy in a screening population.

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated endoscopic sedation is popular due to rapid sedation onset and superior recovery profile compared with sedation with an opioid and benzodiazepine. There are few data on the impact of this type of sedation on the economics and efficiency of an endoscopy unit.

STUDY

A provider-perspective economic model assessed the ability of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan, GPI 15715, MGI Pharma) to increase practice efficiency and determined break-even costs based on current colonoscopy reimbursement levels. Reimbursement inputs by practice setting, costs, and recovery profiles-taken from published literature examining time to discharge-were used to populate the model. To measure robustness of model results to changes in base case inputs, sensitivity analyses were performed. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, inputs were varied simultaneously and randomly for 1000 iterations to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI) for break-even costs.

RESULTS

In the time to complete 1 colonoscopy with midazolam/meperidine, 1.76 colonoscopies can be completed with propofol and 1.91 colonoscopies can be completed with fospropofol disodium. This efficiency benefit produced a break-even cost for rapid recovery agents of $71.53 (95% CI: $38.39, $105.67) in a hospital outpatient clinic and $61.48 (95% CI: $41.33, $108.99) in an ambulatory surgical center. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the break-even cost of these agents was most sensitive to operating costs and time to discharge ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid recovery agents for colonoscopy can improve practice efficiency and offer economic advantages over traditional sedation.

Midazolam-pain, but one cannot remember it: a survey among Southern German endoscopists

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepines, especially midazolam, are the most frequently used agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy worldwide. Among other parameters the quality of sedation is determined by patients' satisfaction assessed after endoscopy. This approach is misleading as the potent amnestic effect of midazolam conceals pain actually suffered during the endoscopic procedure involving distraction of the endoscopists from their actual tasks by audible reactions and defense movements. In this study, we eliminated the influence of patients' amnesia on the assessment of the quality of sedation and rather interviewed endoscopists and their assistant personnel about their experience with midazolam sedation. We replaced the mostly vague term 'compliance' by terms which unequivocally describe the reactions of the patient during an unpleasant endoscopy.

METHODS

A short survey consisting of 12 questions was developed. The questionnaires were distributed to the participants - 115 endoscopists and their assistants - of a tutorial about sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in three major Southern German cities. The questionnaire retrieved the endoscopists' experience regarding patients' discomfort or pain under sedation with midazolam, their wish for better sedative agents, their preferred sedative regimens, their medical specialty and their professional experience.

RESULTS

Participants were highly experienced with the majority having more than 10,000 procedures and a median of 18 years of endoscopic experience; 77% of endoscopists utilized midazolam for sedation. Ninety-eight percent of the questioned physicians felt that patients have pain during endoscopy with midazolam+/-opioid, but do not remember later. Ninety-two percent reported that it happens that patients moan aloud because of pain and almost half of the endoscopists (48%) reported of screaming. The majority of the endoscopists (91%) reported fierce defense movements with midazolam or the need to hold the patient down on the examination couch because of fierce movements, respectively (75%). Seventy percent of the endoscopists wished to have the rooms for endoscopy preferably soundproof away from the waiting room and 93% wished for better sedative agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam was rated as insufficient for sedation by both endoscopists and their assistant personnel. A wish for better sedative drugs exists.

Prospective randomized trial evaluating ketamine for advanced endoscopic procedures in difficult to sedate patients

BACKGROUND

Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for advanced endoscopic procedures such as ERCP and EUS.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ketamine in difficult to sedate patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized trial of all patients undergoing ERCP or EUS who were not adequately sedated despite administration of meperidine 50 mg, midazolam 5 mg and diazepam 5 mg. Patients during endoscopy were then randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (20 mg) every 5 min or continue to receive standard sedation using meperidine and diazepam.

RESULTS

Of 175 patients, 82 were randomized to receive ketamine and 93 standard sedatives. Compared with standard sedation, qualitative physician rating (P < 0.0001) and depth of sedation (P < 0.001) were superior in the ketamine group with shorter recovery times (P < 0.0001). Both patient discomfort and sedation-related technical difficulty were significantly less among patients randomized to receive ketamine (P < 0.0001). More patients in the standard sedation group were crossed-over to the ketamine group due to sedation failure (35.5 vs. 3.7%, P < 0.0001). Nine patients who received ketamine, developed adverse events that were managed conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use Results in better quality and depth of sedation with shorter recovery times than patients sedated using benzodiazepines and meperidine alone. Further prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of ketamine for endoscopic sedation are needed.

Anaesthetic considerations during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has evolved from being a simple diagnostic procedure, performed under proceduralist-administered sedation, to a therapeutic one involving increasingly complex techniques that require a high degree of patient cooperation. The anaesthetist has become a vital member of the team. Many of the patients are medically unfit for surgery. Sedation or general anaesthesia is generally indicated for the increasingly complex, long and painful procedures being performed. Although there is very little published evidence of specific anaesthetic techniques in this area, knowledge of these problems allows the anaesthetist to select an appropriate technique to provide safe and effective anaesthesia.

Anesthesia for pediatric gastroscopy: a study comparing the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with nasal cannulae

BACKGROUND

We tested the hypothesis that pediatric gastroscopy is more successful using the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway with the drain tube as a conduit to the stomach (ProSeal LMA group) than using nasal cannulae with conventional oral access to the stomach (NC group).

METHODS

Sixty children were consecutively and randomly allocated into each group. Patients breathed spontaneously and were given sevoflurane/air/oxygen mixture with propofol 1 mg.kg-1 boluses, as required. Anesthesia was provided by experienced users of both techniques. The following data were collected by an unblinded observer: operation and anesthesia times; cardiorespiratory data; adverse events; and recovery scores. In addition, the surgeon scored the ease of performing the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean (range) age and weight was 74 (24-144) months and 26 (10-61) kg. Operation (15 min vs 24 min, P<0.0001) and anesthesia (22 min vs 37 min, P<0.0001) times were shorter in the ProSeal LMA group, but propofol bolus requirements per unit time were similar. Oxygen saturation was higher in the ProSeal LMA group (100% vs 94%, P<0.0006), but other cardiorespiratory variables were similar. There were no differences in the ease of performing the procedure. Hypoxia occurred more frequently in the NC group (20% vs 0%). Recovery scores were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that pediatric gastroscopy is quicker and has fewer airway complications when performed through the ProSeal LMA than using nasal cannulae and a conventional approach by experienced users.

Risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol-mediated sedation for endoscopy is popular because of its rapid onset and recovery profile.

AIM

To examine procedure-specific occurrence and risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A cohort study using the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative database was used to determine the frequency of cardiopulmonary events. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative consisted of 69 practice sites comprising 593 US endoscopists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis used variables, such as age, ASA classification and propofol administration by monitored anaesthesia care or gastroenterologist-administered propofol to determine the risk of cardiopulmonary events.

RESULTS

The overall cardiopulmonary event rate for 5928 EGDs and 11 683 colonoscopies was 11.7/1000 cases. For colonoscopy, ascending ASA classification was associated with an increased risk. Monitored anaesthesia care was associated with a decreased adjusted relative risk (0.5, 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). ASA I and II patients receiving monitored anaesthesia care for EGD exhibited a significantly lower relative risk (ARR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64). For subjects with ASA class III or greater, there was no difference in the risk between monitored anaesthesia care and gastroenterologist-administered propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

There are procedure-specific risk factors for cardiopulmonary events during propofol-mediated EGD and colonoscopy. These should be taken into account during future prospective comparative trials.

Propofol sedation with fentanyl or midazolam during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Sedation is commonly used to facilitate diagnostic procedures in children. The aim of our study was to investigate sedation in children using propofol alone or combined with fentanyl or midazolam with regard to efficacy, adverse reactions or side-effects related to the drugs, ease of operation for the endoscopist, and time to discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 240 children, aged 1-12 yr of age, undergoing endoscopic procedures of the upper gastrointestinal tract. The patients were given an oral premedication with midazolam (0.5 mg kg(-1)) and were then randomly allocated to one of the three study groups: propofol alone (Group P), propofol with fentanyl 1 mug kg-1 (Group PF) or propofol with midazolam 0.1 mg kg(-1) (Group PM). Additional doses of propofol given during the procedure were recorded. Adequacy of sedation and ease of procedure (easy, adequate, impossible) were evaluated by the endoscopist, who was blinded as to the drugs used.

RESULTS

The duration of the procedure and the recovery period were similar in the three groups. The number of patients requiring supplemental doses of propofol to permit safe completion of gastroscopy was 31 in Group P (=39%; eight of these required two additional doses), 14 in Group PM (=18%), and 11 in Group PF (=13%) (P < 0.05). There was a lower incidence of adverse events in Group PM and in Group PF than in Group P (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol in combination with fentanyl or midazolam gives better sedation and ease of endoscopy than propofol alone.

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Even though propofol has better recovery profile than traditional agents, its use is limited because of the perception of increased complication rates. Because an adequately powered trial comparing risk of propofol with traditional agents is lacking, we performed a meta-analysis of the current literature.

METHODS

We searched Medline (1966-October 2004), EMBASE (1980-October 2004), and Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following 4 cardiopulmonary complications were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea. Procedures were divided into 3 groups: esophagogastroduodenoscopy group, colonoscopy group, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/endoscopic ultrasonography group. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 3 groups. Random effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 90 citations identified, 12 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 1161 patients. Of these, 634 received propofol, and 527 received midazolam, meperidine, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q = 4.81, P = .90). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia or hypotension for all the procedures combined was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.24); for EGD, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.33-2.17); for colonoscopy, 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2-0.79); and for ERCP/EUS, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.38-3.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation during colonoscopy appears to have lower odds of cardiopulmonary complications compared with traditional agents, but for other procedures, the risk of complications is similar.

Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this respect it is known that the short-acting anesthetic propofol offers certain potential advantages for sedation during ERCP, but there are no controlled studies concerning the feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in elderly, high-risk patients.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients aged >or=80 yr with high comorbidity (ASA score >or=III: 91 %), randomly received midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 75) for sedation during ERCP. Vital signs were continuously monitored and procedure-related parameters, recovery time, and quality as well as patients' cooperation and tolerance of the procedure were assessed.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a temporary oxygen desaturation (<90%) occurring in eight patients in the propofol-group and seven patients receiving midazolam/meperidine (n.s.). Hypotension was documented in two patients in the propofol group and one patient receiving midazolam/meperidine. Propofol provided a significantly better patient cooperation than midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01), but the procedure tolerability was rated nearly the same by both groups. Mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (22 +/- 7 min vs 31 +/- 8 min for midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01)) while the recovery score was significantly higher under propofol (8.3 +/- 1.2 vs 6.1 +/- 1.1(p < 0.01)). During recovery a significant lower number of desaturation events (<90%) were observed in the propofol group (12%) than in the midazolam/meperidine group (26%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Under careful monitoring the use of propofol for sedation during ERCP is superior to midazolam/meperidine even in high-risk octogenarians.

Nursing use between 2 methods of procedural sedation: Midazolam versus propofol

We compared propofol (P) and midazolam (M) use in sedation using nurses' (RN's) monitoring times, costs, and visual analog scale (VAS) satisfaction scores. We randomized 40 patients to either P or M groups. The P group received 0.5 mg/kg IV followed by titration to a Ramsay Sedation Scale of 3 or 4. The M group received 1 mg IV every 2 minutes to a Ramsay Sedation Scale of 3 or 4. Time for sedation, procedure, and recovery were compared. VAS scores were measured for the patient, RN, and physician. Thirty-two patients completed the study. Median RN monitoring time was 52 minutes for the M group and 36 minutes for the P group. VAS score differences were significant only in the physician group. We concluded that compared with midazolam, propofol required less RN monitoring and had lower costs. Physician satisfaction was higher with propofol sedation than with midazolam and required less time.

The effect of propofol on thermal pain perception

We studied the effect of propofol, a widely used sedative-hypnotic drug, on pain perception. Eighteen subjects received propofol in two sedative concentrations that were balanced and randomized in order. Painful (45 degrees C, 47 degrees C, and 49 degrees C) stimulation temperatures were presented in random order, and nonpainful 31 degrees C stimuli were presented on alternate trials. We used a target-controlled infusion and chose effect site concentrations of 0.5 mug/mL for mild sedation and 1.0 mug/mL for moderate sedation. Using a visual analog scale, subjects rated both pain intensity and unpleasantness higher when sedated with propofol. The average pain intensity was 28/100 for placebo, 35/100 for mild, and 40/100 for moderate sedation. Pain unpleasantness was 23/100 for placebo, 29/100 for mild, and 33/100 for moderate sedation. This effect was unexpected and may be explained by a difference of subjective pain experience by a patient and the perceived level of analgesia by a health care provider in sedated patients. This finding calls further attention to the need for adequate analgesia in patients sedated with propofol.

Efficiency issues in sedation and monitoring

Sedation and monitoring are key elements of the endoscopy process. There continues to be intense study of better methods for sedation and monitoring to improve the endoscopic "experience" for both patient and physicians alike. Our current practices will likely change in the future with technologic advances (monitoring) and expansion of our pharmacologic armamentarium (sedation).

Moderate level sedation during endoscopy: a prospective study using low-dose propofol, meperidine/fentanyl, and midazolam

BACKGROUND

Propofol provides several benefits over benzodiazepine and narcotic agents as a sedative medication for endoscopic procedures, including faster recovery and improved patient satisfaction. However, its use generally has been limited to anesthesiologists because of the risks associated with deep sedation.

METHODS

One hundred patients undergoing colonoscopy or EGD were sedated with low-dose propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl (or meperidine). Depth of sedation was assessed at 2-minute intervals by an independent observer by using the American Society of Anesthesiologists criteria. Recovery time was determined by using paired neuropsychometric tests. A post-procedure satisfaction survey and 24-hour follow-up questionnaires were administered.

RESULTS

For colonoscopy and EGD, respectively, the mean propofol dose was 98 mg and 79 mg, the mean midazolam dose was 0.9 mg and 0.8 mg, the mean fentanyl dose was 69 mcg and 63 mcg, and the mean meperidine dose was 42 mg (for both procedures). There were 628 assessments of the level of sedation performed during 74 colonoscopies and 101 assessments during 26 EGDs. The level of sedation was minimal in 77%, moderate in 21%, and deep in 2% of assessments. Nine of the 13 episodes of deep sedation were recorded during colonoscopy and 4 during EGD. In no instance was more than a single assessment of deep sedation recorded during one procedure. Ninety-eight percent of patients were satisfied with the sedation, and 71% returned to their usual activities within 2 hours of discharge. There was no serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic sedation with low-dose propofol, a narcotic agent, and midazolam produces a moderate level of sedation. The quality of sedation and measures of recovery are comparable with the results reported with standard-dose propofol.

Propofol: a gastroenterologist's perspective

The use of propofol for GI endoscopy has left the realm of experimentation and is now a viable alternative to standard sedation and analgesia. In the hands of appropriately trained gastroenterologists and registered nurses, propofol has been shown to be superior to standard sedation and analgesia in terms of patient satisfaction and comfort and shorter recovery parameters. Comparative studies have found it to be as safe as the regimens that are used for standard sedation and analgesia. Its narrow therapeutic window demands that specially trained personnel who are not directly involved in the endoscopic procedure administer it. Cost-effectiveness data suggest that propofol is superior to conventional sedation and analgesia, even with the use of added personnel.The importance of pre-procedural assessment and appropriate monitoring cannot be overemphasized. The endoscopist must have a thorough knowledge of the pharmacology of the agents used for sedation and the training necessary to recognize and manage over sedation. Numerous regulatory groups are carefully scrutinizing the practice of sedation and analgesia. It seems that ventilatory monitoring will be required for at least a subset of patients. Although hypercapnia and apnea can be reliably measured, the most important questions to be answered are if such monitoring affects patient outcomes and which patients are at risk for apnea and alveolar hypoventilation.

Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Variations in pain threshold, drug tolerance, and visceral sensitivity among patients make it difficult to anticipate the appropriate dose of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Propofol was recently introduced for sedation in endoscopy and has a rapid onset and offset of action, making it an ideal substance for patient-controlled administration. Several controlled trials have demonstrated that during colonoscopy, patient-controlled application of propofol alone or in combination with various opioids is effective,safe, and yields high patient satisfaction. Target-controlled infusion of propofol has shown encouraging results for prolonged upper endoscopy procedures like endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography.

Review article: registered nurse-administered propofol sedation for endoscopy

Propofol has several attractive properties that render it a potential alternative sedative agent for endoscopy. Compared with meperidine and midazolam, it has an ultra-short onset of action, short plasma half-life, short time to achieve sedation, faster time to recovery and discharge, and results in higher patient satisfaction. Shorter times to achieve sedation enhance efficiency in the endoscopy unit. Multiple studies have documented the safe administration of propofol by non-anaesthesiologists. Administration by registered nurses is more cost-effective than administration by anaesthesiologists. However, the administration of propofol by a registered nurse supervised only by the endoscopist is controversial because the drug has the potential to produce sudden and severe respiratory depression. More information is needed on how training nurses and endoscopists should proceed to give propofol, as well as the optimal level of monitoring to ensure the safety of nurse-administered propofol.

Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol

OBJECTIVES

Nurse-administered propofol has gained attention as a safe and effective means of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the effect of propofol on the technical performance of colonoscopy.

METHODS

Three separate studies were conducted. In the first study, we reviewed procedure notes from consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist at our hospital endoscopy unit on patients sedated with either nurse-administered propofol (n = 162) or midazolam/narcotic (n = 164). In the second study, 100 eligible colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to receive either nurse-administered propofol (n = 50) or midazolam/fentanyl (n = 50). In both studies, the measured parameters included visualization of the cecum, time required to reach the cecum, repositioning of the patient, and the application of abdominal counterpressure. In a third study, we reviewed the rate of cecal intubation and colonic perforation in the first 2357 patients in our unit receiving nurse-administered propofol.

RESULTS

In the retrospective comparative study, there was no difference in the cecal intubation rate in those receiving propofol (99.4%) compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (97%; p= 0.1), and three of five failed cecal intubations in the latter group resulted from obstructing masses. Patients sedated with propofol were repositioned less frequently compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (3.7%vs 26.2%) (p < 0.0001). Abdominal pressure was employed in 9.9% of patients sedated with propofol compared to 19.5% (p= 0.01) of those given midazolam/narcotic. The mean time to reach the cecum was lower in the propofol group than in the midazolam/narcotic group (4.6 min vs 6.0 min, p= 0.002). In the prospective randomized study, the endoscopist intubated the cecum in all 100 patients. Patients in the propofol group were repositioned less frequently than those in the midazolam/fentanyl group (2%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.001). The number of cases requiring abdominal counterpressure was not significantly different between the propofol and midazolam/fentanyl groups (12%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.1). The mean time to reach the cecum in the propofol group (3.2 min) was similar to that in the midazolam/fentanyl group (3.8 min, p= 0.08). Among the first 2357 patients in our unit undergoing colonoscopy with nurse-administered propofol, the rate of complete colonoscopy was 99.2% and there were no perforations.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and simplifies the technical performance of colonoscopy compared to midazolam/narcotic sedation.

The safe and effective use of propofol sedation in children undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: experience in a pediatric ICU and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To describe our experience using propofol sedation to facilitate elective diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to document the safety profile of propofol in this setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive case series and review of the literature.

SETTING

Pediatric intensive care unit of a United States Navy tertiary care medical center.

PATIENTS

Children receiving propofol for procedural sedation over an 18-month period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive features of sedation including adverse events.

RESULTS

During the study period, 91 children received propofol to facilitate the performance of 110 medical procedures. The mean induction dose was 2.41 mg/kg, the mean infusion rate was 179.3 microg/kg/min, and the mean total dose of propofol administered was 4.23 mg/kg. In all cases, sedation was successfully achieved. The average length of stay in the PICU was 108.4 minutes. Three children (3.3%) had transient episodes of oxygen desaturation that improved with repositioning of the airway. No child required placement of an endotracheal tube. Three (3.3%) children experienced hypotension requiring a decrease in the infusion rate of propofol and a 10-mL/kg bolus infusion of normal saline. No cardiac arrhythmias or adverse neurologic effects secondary to propofol infusion were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric intensivists can safely and effectively administer propofol to facilitate the performance of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures outside the operating room setting.

Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.

Nurse-administered propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES

Upper GI endoscopy is often performed in patients with chronic liver disease to screen for esophageal and gastric varices. Propofol is currently under evaluation as an alternative to the combination of midazolam and meperidine for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare nurse-administered propofol to midazolam and meperidine for sedation in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty outpatients who had known chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh class A or B) and were undergoing variceal screening were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus meperidine for sedation. Administration of sedation was performed by a registered nurse and supervised by the endoscopist. Outcome measures studied were induction and recovery times, efficacy and safety of sedation, patient satisfaction, and return to baseline function.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol and meperidine/midazolam administered was 203 mg (SD 43.7, range 150-280) and 71.3 mg (SD 17.7, range 50-100)/5.3 mg (SD 0.9, range 3.0-6.0), respectively. The mean time to achieve adequate sedation was 3.6 min (SD 1.2) for the propofol group in comparison to 7.3 min (SD 2.8) for the meperidine/midazolam group (p<0.05). Procedure times between the groups were similar: propofol, 3.9 min (SD 1.9); midazolam/meperidine, 2.7 min (SD 0.8) (p=0.11). The level of sedation achieved by the propofol group was greater (p=0.0001). Time to full recovery was faster in the propofol group: 34.9 min (SD 10.3) versus 51.6 min (SD 18.4) (p<0.05). The mean time to reach a maximal level of alertness on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale for the propofol group was 15 min (SD 3.6) versus 29 min (SD 10.5) (p=0.001). Although both groups recorded a high level of satisfaction, patients receiving propofol expressed greater overall mean satisfaction with the quality of their sedation at the time of discharge (p<0.05), and reported a return to baseline function sooner in the majority of cases. Propofol achieved comparable levels of efficacy and safety to meperidine/midazolam in our study group. Both were well tolerated with minimal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation administered by registered nurses in the setting of adequate patient monitoring is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with liver disease who are undergoing variceal screening by upper endoscopy. Patients were more satisfied with the quality of sedation, and return to baseline function was usually sooner compared to results achieved with midazolam/meperidine. Propofol offers advantages over meperidine/midazolam in cirrhotic patients.

Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the use of propofol, an ultrashort-acting hypnotic agent, for sedation during endoscopic examinations. A protocol was developed for administration of propofol, combined with small doses of midazolam and meperidine, for endoscopic sedation under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Initial experience with using this protocol is described.

METHODS

A total of 819 consecutive endoscopic examinations under sedation with propofol, midazolam, and meperidine (or fentanyl), in adherence with the sedation protocol, were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 638 colonoscopies and 181 EGDs; 89% of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II. Mean dosages of medications were: propofol 63 (33.5) mg, meperidine 48 (7.2) mg, and midazolam 1 (0.12) mg. The dose of propofol was inversely correlated with age and ASA class, and positively correlated with patient weight and duration of examination. Hypotension (>20 mm Hg decline in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure) developed in 218 (27%) patients, and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <90%) developed in 75 (9%). All episodes of hypotension and hypoxemia were transient, and no patient required administration of a pharmacologic antagonist or assisted ventilation. The average time for recovery after colonoscopy and after EGD was, respectively, 25 minutes and 28 minutes. All EGDs and 98% of colonoscopies were completed successfully.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this initial experience, it is believed that propofol, potentiated by small doses of midazolam and meperidine, can be safely and effectively administered under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Additional research will be necessary to determine whether propofol is superior to the current methods of sedation.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center

Narcotics and benzodiazepines are commonly used for sedation for endoscopy in the United States. Propofol has certain advantages over narcotics and benzodiazepines, but its use is often controlled by anesthesia specialists. This report describes our experience with dosage, safety, patient satisfaction, and discharge time with nurse-administered propofol sedation in 9152 endoscopic cases. The study was performed in a private practice ambulatory surgery center in Medford, Oregon. With the assistance of an anesthesiologist, we developed a protocol for administration of propofol in routine endoscopic cases, in which propofol was given by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists or gastroenterologists. We then applied the protocol with 9152 patients. There were seven cases of respiratory compromise (three prolonged apnea, three laryngospasm, one aspiration requiring hospitalization), all associated with upper endoscopy. Five patients required mask ventilation, but none required endotracheal intubation. There were seven colonic perforations (<1 per 1000 colonoscopies), of which three may have involved forceful sigmoid disruption. Of patients who had previously received narcotic or benzodiazepine sedation, 84% preferred propofol. Gastroenterologists strongly preferred propofol. The mean time from completion of procedures to discharge in a sample of 100 patients was 18 min.Nurse-administered propofol sedation in an ambulatory surgery center was safe and resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction and rapid postprocedure recovery and discharge.

Safety of propofol for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures in high-risk patients-a prospective, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Propofol, a rapidly-acting hypnotic agent, is increasingly being used for endoscopic sedation. Serious adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression, make many endoscopists reluctant to use propofol in critically ill patients. This study characterizes propofol's safety profile in consecutive high-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classes III and IV) compared with matched subjects (ASA classes I and II).

METHODS

During a 19-month period, 1370 at risk-patients were sedated with propofol, of whom 47% (614 ASA III, 28 ASA IV) were age matched with 642 consecutive patients of the same gender and age assigned to ASA classes I and II and undergoing the same endoscopic procedures (395 gastroscopies, 201 colonoscopies, 14 combined). Registered nurses performed all sedations by propofol dose titration while carefully monitoring arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred among the critically ill patients. There was, however, an increased risk for a short relevant oxygen desaturation (<90%) of 3.6% for ASA III and IV versus 1.7% for ASA I and II (p = 0.036). In four versus one case, short mask ventilation was necessary. Also, a greater proportion of patients showed a > or =5% oxygen saturation decrease. There was no pronounced influence on arterial pressure or heart rate and no perforations in 336 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

With careful monitoring, propofol sedation during GI endoscopies is safe, even for high-risk patients. Considering their higher comorbidity and tendency toward oxygen desaturation, they need particularly careful monitoring, and the required dose is, on mean, 10-20% lower than in ASA classes I and II.

Risk stratification and safe administration of propofol by registered nurses supervised by the gastroenterologist: a prospective observational study of more than 2000 cases

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is standard for GI endoscopy. Propofol increasingly is used as an alternative drug to avoid unwanted effects of the commonly used benzodiazepines. Although propofol in the hands of nonanesthesiologists is still controversial, this study characterized the safety profile of propofol administered by nurses under supervision of the gastroenterologist.

METHODS

All patients undergoing any endoscopic procedure between September 2000 and December 2001 in the gastroenterology department of an academic tertiary medical center were eligible for inclusion in this prospective observational study. Sedation was voluntary. Demographic data, type of endoscopic procedure, and clinical features were recorded. A structured personal history led to a 5-class risk stratification based on the criteria of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. A total of 3475 procedures were performed in 2574 patients using propofol administered by registered nurses.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred because of the use of propofol, but overall decreases in the mean values for oxygen saturation (-2%), arterial pressure (-18%), and pulse rate (-10%) were observed. Severe respiratory depression requiring intervention occurred in less than 0.3% of all patients given propofol.

CONCLUSION

The administration of propofol by registered nurses, with careful monitoring under the supervision of the gastroenterologist, is safe for conscious sedation during GI endoscopic procedures.

The role of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal disorders

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy has revolutionized the clinical management of upper gastrointestinal diseases. Millions of EGDs are performed annually in the United States for many indications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, dysphagia, or surveillance of premalignant lesions. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is very safe, with a low risk of serious complications such as perforation, cardiopulmonary arrest, or aspiration pneumonia. It is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test, especially when combined with endoscopic biopsy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is increasingly being used therapeutically to avoid surgery. New endoscopic technology such as endosonography, endoscopic sewing, and the endoscopic videocapsule will undoubtedly extend the frontiers and increase the indications for endoscopy.

The effect of midazolam on stress levels during simulated emergency medical service transport: a placebo-controlled, dose-response study

Patients in the emergency medical service (EMS) may have increased endogenous catecholamines because of pain or fear and may benefit from sedation similar to premedication in the hospital. During a simulated EMS scene call, 72 healthy male volunteers were either transported by paramedics from a third-floor apartment through a staircase with subsequent EMS transport with sirens (three stress groups of n = 12; total, n = 36) or asked to sit on a chair for 5 min and lie down on a stretcher for 15 min (three control groups of n = 12; total, n = 36). Catecholamine plasma samples were measured in the respective stress and control groups at baseline and after placebo IV (n = 12) or 25 (n = 12) or 50 (n = 12) microg/kg of midazolam IV throughout the experiment, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance; P < 0.05 was considered significant. The Placebo Stress versus Control group, but not the 50 microg/kg Stress Midazolam group, had both significantly increased epinephrine (73 +/- 5 pg/mL versus 45 +/- 5 pg/mL; P < 0.001) and norepinephrine (398 +/- 34 pg/mL versus 278 +/- 23 pg/mL; P < 0.01) plasma levels after staircase transport. After EMS transport, the Placebo Stress versus Control group had significantly increased epinephrine (51 +/- 4 pg/mL versus 37 +/- 4 pg/mL; P < 0.05) but not norepinephrine (216 +/- 24 pg/mL versus 237 +/- 18 pg/mL) plasma levels, whereas no significant differences in catecholamine plasma levels occurred between groups after either 25 or 50 microg/kg of midazolam. In conclusion, simulated EMS patients may be subject to more stress during staircase transport than during transport in an EMS vehicle. Titrating sedation with 25 microg/kg of midazolam significantly reduced endogenous catecholamines but not heart rate.

IMPLICATIONS

Simulated emergency medical service patients were more likely to be stressed when being transported by paramedics through a staircase than in an ambulance. Accordingly, it may be beneficial to inject sedative drugs before initiating transport to ensure patient comfort and safety.

Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND

Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

Eighty outpatients (ASA Class I or II) undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either propofol or midazolam plus meperidine, administered by a nurse and supervised by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychological function, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean dose of propofol administered was 218 mg; mean doses of midazolam and meperidine were, respectively, 4.7 mg and 89.7 mg. Mean time to sedation was faster in the propofol patients (2.1 min vs. 7.0 min; p < 0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (p < 0.0001). On average, after the procedure, the propofol patients could stand at the bedside sooner (14.2 vs. 30.2 min), reached full recovery faster (14.4 vs. 33.0 min), and were discharged sooner (40.5 vs. 71.1 min) (all p < 0.0001). Patients who received propofol also expressed greater overall mean satisfaction on a 10-point visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 8.6; p < 0.05). At discharge, the propofol group had better scores on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Four patients in the midazolam/meperidine group developed minor complications (1 hypotension and bradycardia, 2 hypotension alone, and 1 tachycardia) and 1 patient in the propofol group had oxygen desaturation develop during an episode of epistaxis.

CONCLUSION

For outpatient colonoscopy, propofol administered by nurses and supervised by endoscopists has several advantages over midazolam plus meperidine and deserves additional investigation.

Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases

OBJECTIVES

Propofol has certain advantages over benzodiazepines plus narcotics as sedation for endoscopy. In a few centers, propofol has reportedly been used in endoscopic procedures and administered by nurses supervised by gastroenterologists without attendance by anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists.

METHODS

As part of our continuous quality improvement program, we prospectively recorded the doses of propofol and adverse reactions to the drug in our initial 2000 cases. In all cases propofol was administered by nurses who were supervised by gastroenterologists, with no involvement by an anesthesia specialist.

RESULTS

The 2000 cases included 2222 procedures. There were five episodes of oxygen desaturation to <85%, four of which seemed to be related to excessive administration of propofol and were treated by brief (< 1 min) periods of mask ventilation. No patient required endotracheal intubation or hospital admission, or suffered long-term sequelae from propofol administration. There were no perforations in 977 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be given safely by appropriately trained nurses under supervision by endoscopists. Technology that allows immediate detection of apnea would likely further improve its safety.

Unsedated upper endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

EGD is essential to the investigation and treatment of GI disorders in children. Although safe, EGD has the potential for complications, in particular cardiopulmonary abnormalities associated with intravenous sedation. EGD is often performed in adults without sedation. Unsedated EGD is occasionally performed in children but has not been subjected to study. This study assessed the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of unsedated EGD in children.

METHODS

Selected, highly motivated children requiring EGD were offered the choice of sedation or no sedation for the procedure. Children recorded scores for pain (face scale) and anxiety (vertical visual analogue scale) before and after EGD. In addition, the times required to prepare the patient, perform the EGD, and recover the patient were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, gender, or pre-EGD pain scores between children selecting sedation or no sedation. However, children selecting sedation had significantly higher pre-EGD anxiety scores than those who chose no sedation. Successful completion of EGD was similar for sedated (96.3%) and unsedated (95.2%) children. Post-EGD scores for anxiety were significantly decreased in those receiving sedation and unchanged in children who received no sedation. There was no significant change in post-EGD pain score in either group. Nearly 80% of children undergoing unsedated EGD would elect to forego sedation if EGD was needed again. Total procedure time was significantly longer in sedated versus unsedated children, reflecting longer preparation and recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated EGD can be performed safely and successfully in children with good patient tolerance. There was a significant decrease in total procedure time for children who have unsedated EGD. Unsedated EGD should be considered a viable option for motivated children.

Sedation and analgesia

In the United States sedation and analgesia is the standard of practice when performing upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Many of these endoscopic procedures are performed in ambulatory endoscopy centers, including ambulatory surgery centers. This article reviews new Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations standards for sedation and analgesia, drugs used for sedation and analgesia (including side effects), patient assessment and monitoring (before, during, and postprocedure), and discharge of patients from the ambulatory endoscopy center.

Determination of the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used to provide anaesthesia for children undergoing oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD). Despite this, the plasma concentration-response relationships for propofol used in this setting have not been established.

METHODS

In order to determine the EC50 of propofol during OGD, we studied 12 children aged 3-10 years. No premedication was given. Propofol was administered via a target-controlled infusion system using the STANPUMP software based on a paediatric pharmacokinetic model. The 'up-and-down' method described by Dixon was used to determine the EC50. Accordingly, the target plasma propofol concentration for each patient, beginning with the second subject, was determined by the response of the previous patient. A patient was considered a 'responder' if there was minimal movement and the heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) remained < or = 120% of baseline during the procedure. Patients who moved excessively, i.e. requiring more than gentle restraint, or who manifest HR and BP >120% of baseline, were considered 'nonresponders'.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol during OGD was 3.55 microg.ml(-1) in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The plasma propofol concentration associated with adequate anaesthesia for OGD in 50% of unpremedicated children is 3.55 microg.ml(-1). This concentration is higher than that required for OGD in adult patients.

Patient-maintained sedation for ERCP with a target-controlled infusion of propofol: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

ERCP requires patient cooperation and often prolonged sedation. In different areas of anesthetic practice, patient-controlled sedation with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol provides effective sedation. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the same system in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

Twenty patients used the TCI system. Patients received oxygen at 2 L/min via nasal cannulae. By using pharmacokinetic TCI software modeling, an initial propofol target blood concentration (Ct) of 1.0 microg/mL was supplemented on patient demand with a handset that, when pressed twice within 1 second, increased the Ct of propofol by 0.2 microg/mL. The maximum permissible target concentration was set at 3.0 microg/mL to prevent oversedation.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients used the system successfully throughout the procedure. The Ct propofol ranged from 1.2 to 2.6 microg/mL, and the number of successful handset activations (after commencement of the ERCP) ranged from 0 to 3. In 3 patients, the ceiling Ct propofol was attained without adequate sedation and the system was manually overridden. The system failed in 1 case because of patient confusion. There were no episodes of hemodynamic instability, airway obstruction, or significant oxygen desaturation. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction were high. Four patients were oversedated according to our criteria at the end of the procedure, but all were awake within 5 minutes of arrival in the recovery area.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-maintained sedation with TCI propofol was safe and fully effective in 16 patients. Ease of endoscopy was rated high by the endoscopists, and all patients were well satisfied with their sedation. Adjustments to the software programming are being evaluated to increase the safety profile to avoid oversedation.