Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

Comparison of Midazolam and Diazepam for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Double-Balloon Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Objective: The sedation method used in double-balloon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DB-ERCP) varies across countries and between healthcare facilities. No previous studies have compared the effects of different benzodiazepines on sedation during endoscopic procedures. This study aimed to compare the effects of midazolam and diazepam sedation on DB-ERCP outcomes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent DB-ERCP between January 2017 and February 2024. A total of 203 patients who were sedated with diazepam (n = 94) or midazolam (n = 109) were analyzed. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline group differences. The primary outcome was the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included inadequate sedation requiring additional sedatives and risk factors for sedation-related AEs. Results: Sedation-related AEs were more frequent with diazepam (28% [21/75]) than with midazolam (14% [11/75]; p = 0.046). Hypoxia occurred more frequently with diazepam (19% [14/75]) than with midazolam (5% [4/75]; p = 0.012). However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups for hypotension (p = 0.41) and bradycardia (p = 1.0). Poor sedation requiring other sedatives occurred significantly more often with diazepam (8% [6/75]) compared with midazolam sedation (0% [0/75], p = 0.012). Multivariate analysis identified diazepam sedation (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.3; p = 0.048) as the sole risk factor for sedation-related AEs. Conclusions: Midazolam is safer and more effective than diazepam sedation in patients undergoing DB-ERCP.

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): Challenges and Innovations in Endoscopic Surveillance

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face an elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Endoscopic surveillance is a cornerstone in CRC prevention, enabling early detection and intervention. However, despite recent advancements, challenges persist. Chromoendoscopy (CE), considered the gold standard for dysplasia detection, remains underutilized due to logistical constraints, prolonged procedural times, and the need for specialized training. New technologies, such as endomicroscopy, confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and molecular endoscopy (ME), promise unprecedented precision in lesion characterization but are limited to specialized centers. Artificial intelligence (AI) can transform the field; however, barriers to widespread AI adoption include the need for robust datasets, real-time video integration, and seamless incorporation into existing workflows. Beyond technology, patient adherence to surveillance protocols, including bowel preparation and repeat procedures, remains a critical hurdle. This review aims to explore the advancements, ongoing challenges, and future prospects in CRC prevention for IBD patients, focusing on improving outcomes and expanding the implementation of advanced surveillance technologies.

How to NAPS: A Discussion of the Safety and Implementation of a Nurse Administered Propofol Sedation (NAPS) Program

Anesthesia shortages impact patient accessibility to endoscopy procedures. The administration of midazolam and fentanyl by a nurse is an accepted practice of delivering procedural sedation, though there is still controversy around the safety of a nurse administered propofol sedation (NAPS) program. Applicable professional organizations have provided statements supporting NAPS by a trained and competent nurse under the direction of an appropriately credentialed proceduralist. Research demonstrates the safety of NAPS in comparison to procedural sedation provided by anesthesia personnel or administration of midazolam and fentanyl by a nurse. Research shows that patients, providers, and health care organizations can see procedural and financial benefit of implementing a NAPS program. An outline of implementation and development of a NAPS program is presented covering equipment, supplies, resources, provider credentialing, nurse education and training requirements, patient eligibility criteria, propofol administration order sets, and a quality assurance program.

Safety and tolerability outcomes of nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol using target-controlled infusion in routine GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is increasingly accepted, but data are limited on drug administration using target-controlled infusion (TCI) in clinical practice. TCI adjusts the drug infusion based on patient-specific parameters, maintaining a constant drug dose to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs) because of drug overdosing and to enhance patient comfort. The aims of this study were to assess the rate of AEs and to evaluate patient satisfaction with NAAP using TCI in a retrospective cohort of 18,302 procedures.

METHODS

Low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists score I and II) undergoing outpatient GI endoscopic procedures, including EGDs and colonoscopies, were sequentially enrolled at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) between May 2019 and November 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 7162 EGDs and 11,140 colonoscopies were analyzed. Mean patient age was 59.1 ± 14.8 years, and mean body mass index was 24.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2. The male-to-female ratio was equal at 8798 (48.1%):9486 (51.9%). AEs occurred in 240 procedures (1.3%) out of the total cohort, with no differences between EGDs and colonoscopies (100 [1.4%] and 140 [1.2%], respectively; P = .418). Most patients (15,875 [98.9%]) indicated they would likely repeat the procedure with the same sedation protocol. Age (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .008) was the only independent factor associated with overall AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

NAAP using TCI is an effective and safe sedation method for routine endoscopy. The proper propofol dosage based on individual patients and the presence of trained operators are crucial for NAAP sedation management.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative and postoperative hypotension occur commonly and are associated with organ injury and poor outcomes. Changes in arterial blood pressure (BP) during procedural sedation are not well described.

METHODS

Individual patient data from five trials of propofol sedation for colonoscopy and a clinical database were pooled and explored with logistic and linear regression. A literature search and focused meta-analysis compared the incidence of hypotension with propofol and alternative forms of procedural sedation. Hypotensive episodes were characterised by the original authors' definitions (typically systolic BP <90 mm Hg).

RESULTS

In pooled individual patient data (n=939), 36% of procedures were associated with episodes of hypotension. Longer periods of propofol sedation and larger propofol doses were associated with longer-lasting and more-profound hypotension. Amongst 380 patients for whom individual BP measurements were available, 107 (28%) experienced systolic BP <90 mm Hg for >5 min, and in 89 (23%) the episodes exceeded 10 min. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs identified an increased risk ratio for the development of hypotension in procedures where propofol was used compared with the use of etomidate (two studies; n=260; risk ratio [RR] 2.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.37-2.92]; P=0.0003), remimazolam (one study; n=384; RR 2.15 [1.61-2.87]; P=0.0001), midazolam (14 studies; n=2218; RR 1.46 [1.18-1.79]; P=0.0004), or all benzodiazepines (15 studies; n=2602; 1.67 [1.41-1.98]; P<0.00001). Hypotension was less likely with propofol than with dexmedetomidine (one study; n=60; RR 0.24 [0.09-0.62]; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypotension is common during propofol sedation for colonoscopy and of a magnitude and duration associated with harm in surgical patients.

The median effective concentration of propofol with different doses of esketamine during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

AIMS

Propofol may result in hypotension, bradycardia and loss of protective reflexes, especially in elderly patients, while esketamine, a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, has analgesic, anaesthetic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the median effective concentration (EC₅₀ ) of propofol and coadministration is less likely to produce hypotension during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients, aged 65-89 years, undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomly assigned into 3 groups: SK0 (control) group (0 mg/kg esketamine); SK0.25 group (0.25 mg/kg esketamine); and SK0.5 group (0.5 mg/kg esketamine). Anaesthesia was achieved by plasma target-controlled infusion of propofol with different bolus doses of esketamine. The EC₅₀ of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy was determined by using the up-and-down method of Dixon. The initial plasma target concentration is 2.5 μg/mL and the adjacent concentration gradient is 0.5 μg/mL. Cardiovascular variables were also measured.

RESULTS

Propofol EC₅₀ s and its 95% confidence interval for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients were 3.69 (2.59-4.78), 2.45 (1.85-3.05) and 1.71 (1.15-2.27) μg/mL in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .05). The average percent change from baseline mean arterial pressure was -19.7 (7.55), -15.2 (7.14) and -10.1 (6.73), in the SK0, SK0.25 and SK0.5 groups, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Combination medication of propofol with esketamine reduced the propofol EC₅₀ during gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients compared with administration of propofol without esketamine. Increasing doses of SK with propofol are less likely to produce hypotension with shorter recovery time.

Risk of adverse events in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Zero-inflated Poisson regression mixture model for count data and multinomial logit model for the type of event

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We analyze the possible predictive variables for Adverse Events (AEs) during sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.

METHODS

We consider 23,788 GI endoscopies under sedation on adults between 2012 and 2019. A Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Mixture (ZIPRM) model for count data with concomitant variables is applied, accounting for unobserved heterogeneity and evaluating the risks of multi-drug sedation. A multinomial logit model is also estimated to evaluate cardiovascular, respiratory, hemorrhagic, other AEs and stopping the procedure risk factors.

RESULTS

In 7.55% of cases, one or more AEs occurred, most frequently cardiovascular (3.26%) or respiratory (2.77%). Our ZIPRM model identifies one population for non-zero counts. The AE-group reveals that age >75 years yields 46% more AEs than age <66 years; Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥27 27% more AEs than BMI <21; emergency 11% more AEs than routine. Any one-point increment in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and the Mallampati score determines respectively a 42% and a 16% increment in AEs; every hour prolonging endoscopy increases AEs by 41%. Regarding sedation with propofol alone (the sedative of choice), adding opioids to propofol increases AEs by 43% and adding benzodiazepines by 51%. Cardiovascular AEs are increased by age, ASA score, smoke, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. Respiratory AEs are increased by BMI, ASA and Mallampati scores, emergency, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. Hemorrhagic AEs are increased by age, in-hospital, procedure duration, midazolam/fentanyl associated with propofol. The risk of suspension of the endoscopic procedure before accomplishment is increased by female gender, ASA and Mallampati scores, and in-hospital, and it is reduced by emergency and procedure duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, BMI, ASA score, Mallampati score, in-hospital, procedure duration, other sedatives with propofol increase the risk for AEs during sedation for GI endoscopy.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

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.

The Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Midazolam and propofol are both used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of midazolam versus propofol on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy are included. Two investigators have independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 552 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores during gastrointestinal endoscopy than midazolam [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.05 to -0.37; P<0.0001), but the comparison shows no remarkable influence on patient satisfaction scores between midazolam and propofol (Std. MD=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.88 to 0.20; P=0.21), procedure time (Std. MD=0.14; 95% CI=-0.13 to 0.42; P=0.31), hypoxia [risk ratio (RR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.53-1.38; P=0.53), and bradycardia (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.54-2.06; P=0.89). In addition, propofol shows higher incidence of hypotension than midazolam (RR=0.58; 95% CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores, but may increase the incidence of hypotension.

Use of computer-assisted drug therapy outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit. The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking. In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital's Executive Director.

[Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.

Safety of Target-Controlled Propofol Infusion by Gastroenterologists in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND

A target-controlled infusion (TCI) of a propofol system uses a pharmacokinetic model to achieve and maintain a selected target blood propofol concentration. The aim of this study was to assess whether the propofol TCI system could be safely used by gastroenterologists in patients undergoing endoscopic resection including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) compared with a manually controlled infusion (MCI) system.

METHODS

A total of 431 patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopy (178 ESD and 253 EMR) were consecutively included from November 2011 to August 2014. The patients were divided into the MCI (271) and TCI (160) propofol infusion groups. We compared adverse event rates in MCI and TCI groups and assessed independent risk factors for adverse events.

RESULTS

The total sedation-related adverse event rate was 5.8 % (25/431). Most of the events were minor, and the rate of major events was 0.5 % (2/431). There was no significant difference in adverse event rate between the MCI and TCI groups [5.5 % (15/271) vs. 6.3 % (10/160); P = 0.759]. In univariate analysis, the propofol infusion time was significantly associated with adverse events (94.88 vs. 59.45 min, P = 0.017). In the multivariate analysis, there were no significant factors associated with adverse events. TCI was not an independent risk factor for adverse events despite the fact that the TCI had a longer duration of infusion and higher total infusion dose (95 % CI, 0.343-2.216; P = 0.773).

CONCLUSIONS

TCI of propofol by gastroenterologists may provide safe sedation in patients undergoing ESD and EMR under careful respiratory monitoring.

Computer-Assisted and Patient-Controlled Sedation Platforms

As the number and complexity of endoscopic procedures increase, the role of sedation has been integral in patient and physician satisfaction. This article discusses the advances of computer-assisted and patient-controlled platforms. These computer-assisted and patient-controlled platforms use different anesthetics and analgesics, all with the intent of achieving improved consistency in the level of sedation, appropriate to the needs of patients, while also improving patient safety. These systems have been around for decades; however, few are approved for use in the United States, and several still require further study before broad clinical application.

Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy

AIM: To assess the use of dezocine combined with propofol for the anesthetization of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy.

METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients undergoing indolent colonoscopy in the Xinjiang People’s Hospital was conducted from April 1 to April 30, 2015. The survey collected patient general information and anesthesia data, including overall medical experience and pain management. Thirty minutes after colonoscopy surgery, samples of venous blood were collected and the biochemical indicators of gastrointestinal function were analyzed.

RESULTS: There were 98 female and 62 male respondents. Indolent colonoscopy was found to be more suitable for mid to older-aged patients. The necessary conditions for the diagnosis of digestive diseases were required in 65 of the 73 inpatients. Adverse reactions to the intraoperative process included two cases of body movement and two cases of respiratory depression. Gastrin and vasoactive intestinal peptide levels were slightly increased. However, somatostatin and endothelin levels were slightly decreased.

CONCLUSION: This study revealed that dezocine combined with propofol can be successfully used for the anesthetization of indolent colonoscopy patients without pain and should be widely used.

The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol with different doses of fentanyl during colonoscopy in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Propofol and fentanyl are the most widely administered anesthesia maintaining drugs during colonoscopy. In this study, we determined the median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol required for colonoscopy in elderly patients, and the purpose of this study was to describe the pharmacodynamic interaction between fentanyl and propofol when used in combination for colonoscopy in elderly patients.

METHODS

Ninety elderly patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated into three groups in a randomized, double-blinded manner as below, F0.5 group (0.5 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl), F1.0 group (1.0 μg.kg(-1) fentanyl) and saline control group. Anaesthesia was achieved by target-controlled infusion of propofol (Marsh model, with an initial plasma concentration of 2.0 μg.ml(-1)) and fentanyl. Colonoscopy was started 3 min after the injection of fentanyl. The EC50 of propofol for colonoscopy with different doses of fentanyl was measured by using an up-and-down sequential method with an adjacent concentration gradient at 0.5 μg.ml(-1) to inhibit purposeful movements. Anaesthesia associated adverse events and recovery characters were also recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol for colonoscopy in elderly patients were 2.75 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 2.50-3.02 μg.ml(-1)) in F0.5 group, 2.05 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 1.98-2.13 μg.ml(-1)) in F1.0 group and 3.08 μg.ml(-1) (95% CI, 2.78-3.42 μg.ml(-1)) in control group respectively (P < 0.05). Patients in the F1.0 group had a significantly longer awake time and length of hospital stay than those in control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Increasing doses of fentanyl up to 1.0 μg.kg(-1) reduces the propofol EC50 required for elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, and there was no significant difference in anaesthesia associated adverse events but prolonged awake and discharge time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR15006368. Date of registration: May 3, 2015.

Target-Controlled Infusion of Propofol in Training Anesthesiology Residents in Colonoscopy Sedation: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is widely used in sedation for colonoscopy, but its adverse effects on cardiovascular and respiratory systems are still concerning. The present study investigated whether target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol could provide a better sedation quality than manually controlled infusion (MCI) in training inexperienced anesthesiology residents.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Eighteen training residents were allocated into 2 groups receiving TCI and MCI training in their first month in the endoscopy center, while receiving MCI and TCI training instead in their second month. The last 2 patients at the end of each month were included to analyze the sedation quality of TCI and MCI techniques by comparing satisfaction of endoscopist and patients based on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MAP), SpO2, and recovery time were also compared as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The demographic data were similarly distributed among the TCI and MCI patients. Endoscopist's satisfaction score in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group, 81.3±7.2 versus 74.2±9.5 (P=0.003), but the patients' satisfaction score was similar between the 2 groups. More stable hemodynamic status was obtained in the TCI group, manifested as higher lowest MAP and lower highest MAP than in the MCI group. Lowest SpO2 in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group. Patients in the TCI group recovered earlier than in the MCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

TCI is a more effective and safer technique for anesthesiology residents in sedation for colonoscopy.