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

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.

Nurse-administered propofol sedation for upper endoscopic ultrasonography

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) for advanced endoscopy.

AIMS

To evaluate the frequency of and the risk factors for complications associated with NAPS for upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

METHODS

Consecutive upper EUS examinations using NAPS were retrospectively identified. Clinical data and adverse events were recorded. Univariate and multivariable repeated measures logistic regression models were used to identify independent risk factors for complications.

RESULTS

Among 806 EUS procedures, the mean procedure duration, time for sedation induction, and postprocedure recovery time were: 34 +/- 20 min, 3.6 +/- 1.4 min, and 27 +/- 23 min, respectively. A decline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) to <90 mm Hg occurred in 104 patients (13%). Six patients (0.7%) had a decline in oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) to <90%. Four patients (0.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-1.27) required assisted positive pressure ventilation. There were no major complications. The minor complication rate from sedation was 21% (95% CI 17.2-25.3). All of the complications were clinically insignificant. Overall complication risk was not related to age, dose, or procedure time. Sedation-related complication rates for advanced experience-level (> or =100 NAPS procedures) nurses were lower compared to the least-experienced (< or =30 NAPS procedures) nurses (17.2%vs 25.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

NAPS for upper EUS is safe and may be performed without major complications. Four patients (0.5%) required assisted ventilation. Minor complications occurred in 21% of patients, but were not associated with patient age, propofol dose, or procedure time.

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.

Factors affecting outcomes in colonoscopy

There are many factors that influence successful outcomes in colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to evaluate these factors and determine ways to improve outcomes. All participants (N=229) who underwent planned colonoscopy between July and September 2004 were retrospectively included. Participants included 118 men and 111 women with a mean age of 59 years. Completion rate was 92%. Reasons of failure included poor bowel preparation (2.2%, p< .025), bowel looping (2.2%, p< .025), participant discomfort (1.3%), and obstructing lesion (1.3%). Mean midazolam dose was 3.8 mg. Three participants (1.3%) had midazolam alone, and all had complete colonoscopy. One hundred thirty-three participants (60.7%) had additional meperidine, with a completion rate of 94%. Eighty three participants (37.9%) had additional meperidine and Buscopan, with a completion rate reduced to 89.2%. There was no correlation between sedatives used and completion rate. Completion rate of colonoscopy in our unit was acceptable at 92%. A combination of midazolam and meperidine gave the best completion rates (94%). The two main reasons for incompletion were poor bowel preparation and excessive bowel looping.

Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone is less than propofol for conscious sedation during ERCP

BACKGROUND

Propofol is an accepted method of sedation for an ERCP and generally achieves deep sedation rather than conscious sedation, and dexmedetomidine has sedative properties of equivalent efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the hypothesis that dexmedetomidine is as effective as propofol combined with fentanyl for providing conscious sedation during an ERCP.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomized, blind, double-dummy clinical trial.

PATIENTS

Twenty-six adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists status I to III, underwent an ERCP.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive either propofol (n = 14) (target plasma concentration range 2-4 microg/mL) combined with fentanyl 1 microg/kg, or dexmedetomidine (n = 12) 1 microg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.2 to 0.5 microg/kg/min. Additional sedatives were used if adequate sedation was not achieved at the maximum dose allowed.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

The sedation level was assessed by the Richmond alertness-sedation scale and the demand for additional sedatives. Furthermore, heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were continuously assessed.

RESULTS

The relative risk (RR) was 2.71 (95% CI, 1.31-5.61) and the number of patients that needed to be treated (NNT) was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.19-4.21) to observe one additional patient with drowsiness 15 minutes after sedation in the dexmedetomidine group. Also, the RR was 9.42 (95% CI, 1.41-62.80), and the NNT was 1.42 (95% CI, 1.0-2.29) to require additional analgesic. However, there was also a greater reduction in blood pressure, a lower heart rate, and greater sedation after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine alone was not as effective as propofol combined with fentanyl for providing conscious sedation during an ERCP. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine was associated with greater hemodynamic instability and a prolonged recovery.

Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis

OBJECTIVE

Propofol sedation for mainly diagnostic endoscopic procedures has proved safe in recent trials, with no need for endotracheal intubation. However, there is evidence that cardiorespiratory side effects occur more frequently and that assisted ventilation may be necessary if propofol sedation is performed for interventional endoscopic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6-year period, all adverse events (defined as premature termination of the procedure due to sedation-related events or either the need for assisted ventilation or admission to ICU) occurring during 9547 endoscopic interventions (UGI, n = 5.374, ERCP, n = 3.937, EUS, n=236) under propofol sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 135 adverse events (1.4%) were documented. Assisted ventilation was necessary in 40 patients (0.4%); 9 patients required endotracheal intubation (0.09%); 28 needed further monitoring on the ICU (0.3%); and 4 patients died, 3 potentially due to sedation-related side effects (mortality, 0.03%). Independent risk factors for sedation-related side effects were emergency endoscopic examinations and a total propofol dose >100 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional endoscopy under propofol sedation is not risk-free. Increased attention must be focused on close monitoring of vital parameters, particularly when undertaking long-lasting interventions and emergency procedures.

Remifentanil compared with midazolam and pethidine sedation during colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

PURPOSE

The objective of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of remifentanil during colonoscopy with those of the standard combination of midazolam and pethidine.

METHODS

One-hundred and sixteen consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to groups A or B. Patients in group A (n = 56) received intravenous (IV) midazolam and pethidine. Patients in group B (n = 60) received IV remifentanil.

RESULTS

Recovery was faster in group B (0 min) than in group A (56 +/- 11.3 min) (P < 0.001). There was a marked difference between groups B and A with regard to the time of hospital discharge-28.7 +/- 4.3 and 148.9 +/- 34 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients in group A rated the procedure as comfortable, as also did those in group B. A combination of midazolam and pethidine had a greater affect on patients' cardiorespiratory characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil during colonoscopy provides sufficient pain relief with better hemodynamic stability, less respiratory depression, and significantly faster recovery and hospital discharge than moderate sedation with midazolam and pethidine.

Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the standard regimen of midazolam and pethidine administered by the gastroenterologist versus patient controlled sedation with a propofol-fentanyl mixture during upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography. Our primary end-points were patient satisfaction and patient cooperation assessed by endoscopist.

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients, undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography, received sedation with midazolam and pethidine (Group M: n=27) or propofol and fentanyl (Group P: n=27). Group M: pethidine 0.7mg/kg midazolam 0.04mg/kg before examination; boluses of same drugs if the sedation was insufficient plus a sham patient controlled sedation analgesia; Group P: propofol 17mg plus fentanyl 15microg before examination and a patient controlled sedation analgesia pump containing 170mg propofol plus 150microg fentanyl injecting 0.5ml every time the patient pressed the button (no "lock out"). Boluses of 1ml of the same mixture if the sedation was insufficient.

RESULTS

Group M: mean dosage of pethidine and midazolam 88.6 and 5mg, respectively. Group P: mean dosage of propofol and fentanyl 119.7mg and 106microg, respectively. Both groups were similar for duration and difficulty of the procedure, the grade of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score) and judgement by endoscopist and patient about cooperation and satisfaction. The only difference between groups was about the extra boluses administered during the procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a patient controlled sedation analgesia with propofol and fentanyl is an effective and safe technique for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography procedures and results in a high level of satisfaction both for patients and operator.

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.

[Safety of propofol administration by the staff of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit]

Deep sedation controlled by the staff of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is currently controversial. In the last few years, numerous studies have provided data supporting the safety of propofol use in these techniques. We present a large series of patients who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled deep sedation. A total of 875 procedures (297 gastroscopies and 578 colonoscopies) were included. In all procedures intravenous propofol with or without intravenous midazolam was administered. In gastroscopies, complications attributable to the sedation were found in only 6.7% of the patients, mostly due to desaturation, which was resolved without the need for intubation. In colonoscopies, complications were found in 11.2%, the most frequent being bradycardia and desaturation, none of which were serious. No association was found between the presence of complications and the propofol dose administered. In the group of patients undergoing colonoscopy, simultaneous midazolam administration allowed reduction of the propofol dose required to achieve deep sedation. In conclusion, propofol shows a good safety profile and excellent tolerance in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy and can be administrated by the endoscopy team. At least in the case of colonoscopy, the associated use of midazolam allows the propofol dose to be decreased, thus, theoretically, reducing the drug's adverse effects.

Endoscopist administered sedation during ERCP: impact of chronic narcotic/benzodiazepine use and predictive risk of reversal agent utilization

OBJECTIVES

When administered by endoscopists conventional sedation regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangipancreatography (ERCP) consist of intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines and opiates. As yet, standardized dosing regimens for individual patients do not exist. The aims of this study were to (a) determine sedative doses in patients with and without a history of narcotic or benzodiazepine use, (b) assess the frequency of reversal agent utilization, and (c) assess potential predictive factors for reversal agent utilization.

METHODS

Clinical data from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005, were abstracted from a computerized endoscopy database to determine: demographics, median sedation dosages, risk of reversal agent use, and clinical outcome related to sedation. Univariate and logistic regression analysis were performed to assess independent predictive factors for reversal agent utilization.

RESULTS

Of 3,179 patients undergoing ERCP, 3,058 received sedation directed by the endoscopists. Meperidine and midazolam IV were given at a median dose of 125 mg and 7 mg, respectively, during a mean procedure time of 42 min. One hundred eighty-six patients reported routine use of narcotics or benzodiazepines (6%). These patients were younger, predominantly female, required higher doses of meperidine and midazolam, and received IV promethazine during procedural sedation more frequently than patients not using narcotics or benzodiazepines. One hundred twenty-four patients required reversal agents (4%). They were relatively older, required significantly higher doses of meperidine and received promethazine more frequently than the nonreversed group.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single, high volume ERCP center, endoscopist administered sedation was provided in 96% of cases. Patient age >or=80 yr, dose of meperidine, and the use of promethazine were independent risk factors for the need of reversal agents.

Minimizing complications: sedation and monitoring

Serious adverse events are fortunately quite rare for procedural sedation. Current physiologic monitoring recommendations are therefore either based on "softer" outcomes, such as transient hypoxemia, or on expert opinion. Pulse oximetry and supplemental oxygen are recommended for the reduction of hypoxemia. Outcomes-based data for extended monitoring are just starting to emerge, and one of these technologies may become a recommended component of patient monitoring. With data on more than 150,000 patients published in the literature, propofol is the most studied sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this author's opinion, its safety and efficacy have been established.

Tolerability and patient acceptance of sodium phosphate tablets compared with 4-L PEG solution in colon cleansing: combined results of 2 identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase 3 trials

GOALS

Evaluate patient tolerance and acceptance of a sodium phosphate (NaP) tablet purgative compared with a 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution.

BACKGROUND

Characteristics and side effects of bowel purgatives deter patients from undergoing screening colonoscopy. Published data demonstrated comparable bowel cleansing with NaP tablets and a 4-L PEG solution in 2 phase for 3 studies. This report presents data on patient tolerability and acceptance.

STUDY

Two identically designed, randomized, investigator-blinded, and multicenter trials were performed. Tolerability and patient acceptance were based on purgative regimen compliance, incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events, and patient responses to questionnaires.

RESULTS

Eight hundred forty-five patients were assessed (420 and 425 in the tablet and PEG solution groups, respectively). Patient compliance with the tablet regimen was greater: 94% of patients took all the tablets compared with 57% completing the PEG solution regimen (P<0.0001). Nausea, vomiting, and bloating occurred significantly less often in patients taking NaP tablets (P<0.0001). Among patients taking tablets, 88.4% rated them "easy" or "slightly difficult" to take, compared with 60.6% of patients taking the PEG solution. The preparation's taste was rated "barely tolerable" or "not tolerable" by 1% of patients treated with NaP tablets and 23.6% treated with PEG solution. Drinking the required volume of clear liquid for the tablet or PEG preparation was rated "easy" or "slightly difficult" by 92.2% and 66.9% of patients, respectively. Almost all (90.7%) patients taking the tablets indicated they would take the same preparation in the future, compared with 67.1% of patients taking the PEG solution (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

CONCLUSIONS

Tolerability and patient acceptance of a NaP tablet purgative were superior to 4-L PEG solution.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

Sedation impacts every aspect of endoscopy practice--the quality fo the examination, the satisfaction of endoscopist and of patient, the efficiency and cost of delivering services, and the compliance of patients with surveillance guidelines. New sedation agents and improved patient-monitoring and drug-delivery technologies are challenging traditional practices. Increasing demand for endoscopic services, shrinking reimbursements, and competing diagnostic technologies are prompting recognition that new approaches to sedation can improve practice efficiency and patient outcome. This article discusses new developments in endoscopic sedation and their implications for practice management.

Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Propofol by nonanesthesiologists is controversial because the drug is commonly used to produce deep sedation or general anesthesia. Propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines can be titrated to moderate sedation, which might be safer.

AIM

To compare recovery time, patient satisfaction, and other end points with propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol combination therapy with opioids and/or benzodiazepines.

METHOD

A randomized controlled clinical trial of propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus fentanyl plus propofol versus midazolam plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam plus propofol in 200 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Each combination regimen was titrated to moderate sedation.

RESULTS

Patients receiving propofol alone received higher doses of propofol and had deeper sedation scores compared with combination therapy (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving combination regimens were discharged more quickly (median 13.0-14.7 versus 18.1 min) than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.01). There were no differences in vital signs or oxygen saturations among the study arms. There were no significant differences in pain or satisfaction among the study arms in the recovery area. At a follow-up phone call, patients receiving fentanyl and propofol remembered more of the procedure than those in the other regimens (p < 0.005) and remembered more pain than those receiving propofol alone (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol in combination with fentanyl and/or midazolam can be titrated to moderate levels of sedation without substantial loss of satisfaction and with shorter recovery times compared with propofol titrated to deep sedation throughout the procedure.