Use of diphenhydramine as an adjunctive sedative for colonoscopy in patients on chronic opioid therapy: a randomized controlled trial

Baseline Cannabinoid Use Is Associated with Increased Sedation Requirements for Outpatient Endoscopy

Background and Aims: Given the underlying properties of cannabinoids, we aimed to assess associations between cannabinoid use and sedation requirements for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted at three endoscopy units. Adult outpatients undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with endoscopist-directed conscious sedation (EDCS) were given questionnaires on cannabinoid use and relevant parameters. Outcomes included intraprocedural midazolam, fentanyl, and diphenhydramine use, procedural tolerability, and adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of outcomes. Results: A total of 419 patients were included. Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with high midazolam use, defined as ≥5 mg, during EGD (AOR 2.89, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.19-7.50), but not during colonoscopy (AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41-1.91). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with the administration of any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.04, 95% CI: 1.29-7.30) with a similar nonsignificant trend for colonoscopy (AOR 2.36, 95% CI: 0.81-7.04). Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with increased odds of requiring high total sedation, defined as any of midazolam ≥5 mg, fentanyl ≥100 mcg, or any diphenhydramine during EGD (AOR 3.72, 95% CI: 1.35-11.68). Cannabinoid use was not independently associated with fentanyl use, intraprocedural awareness, discomfort, or adverse events. Conclusions: Baseline cannabinoid use was associated with higher sedation use during endoscopy with EDCS, particularly with midazolam and diphenhydramine. Given increasingly widespread cannabinoid use, endoscopists should be equipped with optimal sedation strategies for this population. As part of the informed consent process, cannabis users should be counseled that they may require higher sedation doses to achieve the same effect.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Midazolam dose is associated with recurrence of paradoxical reactions during endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Midazolam is commonly used for sedation during gastrointestinal procedures. However, some patients experience paradoxical reactions characterized by excessive movement or excitement.

AIM

To investigate the rate of recurrence of paradoxical reactions to midazolam during an upper endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 122152 sedative endoscopies among a total of 58553 patients at the Seoul National University Hospital, Healthcare System Gangnam Center, from July 2013 to December 2018. Among them, 361 patients with a history of paradoxical reaction during sedative upper endoscopy were enrolled. The characteristics of patients in the recurrent and non-recurrent groups were compared via multivariable analysis using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Paradoxical reactions occurred in 0.86% (1054/122152) of endoscopies, and in 1.51% (888/58553) of patients. Among the 361 subjects with previous paradoxical reactions in sedative endoscopies, 111 (30.7%) experienced further paradoxical reactions. Univariable analysis revealed that the total midazolam dose used was higher in the recurrent group (6.74 ± 2.58 mg) than in the non-recurrent group (5.49 ± 2.04 mg; P < 0.0001). Patients were administered a lower dose of midazolam than previous doses: 1 mg less in the recurrent group and 2 mg less in the non-recurrent group. Multivariable analysis showed that the midazolam dose difference was an independent risk factor for recurrent paradoxical reaction (odds ratio: 1.213, 95%CI: 1.099-1.338, P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of recurrence of paradoxical reactions is significantly associated with midazolam dosage. The dose of midazolam administered to patients with previous paradoxical reactions should be less than that previously used.

Development and validation of a patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing the tolerability of endoscopic procedures are scarce. In this study, we designed and validated a PREM to assess tolerability of endoscopy using conscious sedation.

METHODS

The patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures (PRO-STEP) consists of questions within 2 domains and is administered to outpatients at discharge from the endoscopy unit. Domain 1 (intraprocedural) consists of 2 questions regarding discomfort/pain and awareness, whereas domain 2 (postprocedural) consists of 4 questions on pain, nausea, distention, and either throat or anal pain. All questions are scored on a Likert scale from 0 to 10. Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency of the questions. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of higher scores, reported using adjusted odds ratios and confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients (91 colonoscopy, 73 gastroscopy, and 91 ERCP) were included. Colonoscopy was the least tolerable procedure by recall, with mean intraprocedural awareness and discomfort scores of 5.1 ± 3.8, and 2.6 ± 2.7, respectively. Consistency between intraprocedural awareness and discomfort/pain yielded an acceptable Cronbach's alpha of .71 (95% confidence interval, .62-.78). Higher use of midazolam during colonoscopy was inversely associated with an intraprocedural awareness score of 7 or higher (per additional mg: adjusted odds ratio, .23; 95% confidence interval, .09-.54).

CONCLUSIONS

PRO-STEP is a simple PREM that can be administered after multiple endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation. Future work should focus on its performance characteristics in adverse event prediction.

The Influence of Adding Diphenhydramine Before Initiation of Moderate Sedation with Midazolam and Pethidine for Improving Quality of Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Combination of Intravenous benzodiazepines with opiates appears to be essential in order to guarantee high quality of moderate sedation during colonoscopy. Diphenhydramine is recommended for endoscopic procedures in difficult-to-sedate patients However, the studies supporting its use have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value of adding diphenhydramine hydrochloride before initiation of moderate sedation with midazolam and pethidine for Improving Quality of Sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 150 Patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Of 150 patients, data were analyzed for 100 patients randomized into two groups: Diphenhydramine group (n = 53) received 50 mg of diphenhydramine intravenously before initiation of moderate sedation with pethidine and midazolam while in placebo group (n = 47) received placebo in addition to pethidine and midazolam. Amount of pethidine and midazolam used and Quality of sedation were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean doses of pethidine was significantly higher in placebo group as compared to diphenhydramine group (69.9 ± 35.4 mg vs 61.2 ± 21.0 mg, p < 0.01) However, no significant difference between the two groups regarding midazolam mean dose (4.9.±2.1 mg vs 4.8 ± 2.0 mg,p = 0.786). More patients in diphenhydramine group were being very satisfied with the procedure as compared to those in placebo group (88.67% vs 59.57%,p < 0.001).Furthermore more endoscopist in diphenhydramine group were being very satisfied with the procedure as compared to those in placebo group (77.35% vs 51.06%,p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous diphenhydramine hydrochloride given before initiation of midazolam and pethidine offers a significant Improvement of Quality of moderate Sedation during colonoscopy without increasing the number of sedation related complications.