More Questions Than Answers: Comparison of the Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol is increasingly being used for sedation in colonoscopy; however, its benefits over midazolam (± short-acting opioids) are not well quantified. The objective of this study was to compare safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes of propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids) in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library (to July 30, 2018) for randomized controlled trials of colonoscopies performed with propofol versus midazolam (± short-acting opioids). We pooled odds ratios for cardiorespiratory outcomes using mixed-effects conditional logistic models. We pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for patient and endoscopist satisfaction and efficiency outcomes using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Nine studies of 1427 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in cardiorespiratory outcomes (hypotension, hypoxia, bradycardia) between sedative groups. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, with most patients reporting willingness to undergo a future colonoscopy with the same sedative regimen. In the meta-analysis, patients sedated with propofol had greater satisfaction than those sedated with midazolam (± short-acting opioids) (SMD, .54; 95% confidence interval [CI], .30-.79); however, there was considerable heterogeneity. Procedure time was similar between groups (SMD, .15; 95% CI, .04-.27), but recovery time was shorter in the propofol group (SMD, .41; 95% CI, .08-.74). The median difference in recovery time was 3 minutes, 6 seconds shorter in patients sedated with propofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both propofol and midazolam (± short-acting opioids) result in high patient satisfaction and appear to be safe for use in colonoscopy. The marginal benefits to propofol are small improvements in satisfaction and recovery time.

Safety of non-anesthesia provider administered propofol sedation in non-advanced gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of non-anesthesia provider (NAPP) administered propofol sedation in patients undergoing non-advanced gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational trials involving non-advanced endoscopic procedures. From a total of 608 publications, 25 [colonoscopy (9), upper GI endoscopy (5), and combined procedures (11)] were identified to meet inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Data was analyzed for hypoxia rates, airway intervention rates, and airway complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 137,087 patients were involved. A total of 2931 hypoxia episodes (defined as an oxygen saturation below 90%) were reported with a pooled hypoxia rate of 0.014 (95% CI being 0.008-0.023). Similarly, pooled airway intervention rates and pooled airway complication rates were 0.002 (95% CI being 0.006-0.001) and 0.001 (95% CI being 0.000-0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of adverse events in patients undergoing non-advanced GI endoscopic procedures with NAPP sedation are extremely small. Similar data for anesthesia providers is not available. It is prudent for anesthesia providers to demonstrate their superiority in prospective randomized controlled trials, if they like to retain exclusive ownership over propofol sedation in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.