Pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of sedatives and analgesics

Preclinical characterization of the efficacy and safety of biologic N-001 as a novel pain analgesic for post-operative acute pain treatment

Inhibition of actin remodeling in nerves modulates action potential propagation and therefore could be used to treat acute pain. N-001 is a novel protein analgesic engineered from several C. Botulinum toxins. N-001 targets sensory neurons through ganglioside GT1b binding and ADP-ribosylates G-actin reducing actin remodeling. The activity and efficacy of N-001 was evaluated previously in vitro and in a mouse inflammatory pain model. To assess the relevance of N-001 for treatment of acute post-surgical pain, the current study evaluated the efficacy of N-001 in a mouse hind-paw incision model by peri-incisional and popliteal nerve block administration combined with mechanical testing. N-001 provided relief of pain-like behavior over 3 days and 2 days longer than the conventional long-acting anesthetic bupivacaine. Preclinical safety studies of N-001 indicated the drug produced no toxic or adverse immunological reactions over multiple doses in mice. These results combined with past targeting results encourage further investigation of N-001 as an analgesic for post-operative pain management with the potential to function as a differential nociceptor-specific nerve block.

Pilot Study: Personalized Medicine in Endoscopy, Can Pharmacogenomics Predict Response to Conscious Sedation?

BACKGROUND

Adequate response to moderate (conscious) sedation varies significantly between individuals. Polymorphisms in genes encoding drug metabolizing enzymes can lead to inter-individual variability in drug efficacy, potentially influencing sedation requirements during endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the potential role of inter-individual variation in inherited polymorphisms of drug-metabolizing enzymes, cytochrome P450 (CYP450), specifically CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, in sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of sedation requirements and pharmacogenomics data in 106 unique patients who received outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, or both between December 2011 and February 2019 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on their sedation requirements during endoscopy (high vs. normal sedation).

RESULTS

Patients with reduced a CYP2C19 metabolism (poor + intermediate metabolizers) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.91, p = 0.03), poor CYP3A5 metabolism (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.095-0.65, p = 0.0046), and poor UGT1A1 (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.07-7.13, p = 0.08) had higher odds of requiring normal sedation compared to those with CYP2C19 increased metabolism, CYP3A5 intermediate metabolism, and UGT1A1 intermediate metabolism.

CONCLUSION

Information about inter-individual variation in (CYP450) genes may be useful for determining the sedation requirements for outpatient endoscopic procedures. We found that patients with reduced CYP2C19 metabolism, poor CYP3A5 metabolism, and poor UGT1A1 metabolism were more likely to require normal sedation requirements during outpatient endoscopic procedures.

Safety Profile of Endoscopist-directed Balanced Propofol Sedation for Procedural Sedation: An Experience at a Hospital-based Endoscopy Unit

BACKGROUND

Nurse-administered propofol sedation was restricted to anesthesiologists in 2009, a practice that has contributed to spiraling health care costs in the United States.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of endoscopist-directed balanced propofol sedation (EDBPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing endoscopy with EDBPS from January 1, 2017, to June 20, 2017, and abstracted their medical records. Adverse events (AEs) included: hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%); hypotension [(a) systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg, (b) systolic blood pressure decline of >50 mm Hg, (c) decline in mean arterial pressure of >30%]; bradycardia (heart rate of < 40 beats/min). Logistic regression identified factors independently associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 1897 patients received EDBPS during the study period [mean age: 55 y (SD=11.4 y); 56.4% women]. Patients received median doses of 50 µg fentanyl, 2 mg of midazolam, and a mean propofol dose of 160±99 mg. There were no major complications (upper 95% confidence interval, 0.19%). Overall, 334 patients (17.6%) experienced a clinically insignificant AE: 65 (3.4%) experienced transient hypoxia, 277 patients (14.6%) experienced hypotension, 2 had transient bradycardia. In bivariate analysis, older age was associated with risk for hypotension, propofol dose was associated with transient hypoxemia, and procedure duration was associated with both hypotension and transient hypoxia. In multivariate analysis, only procedure length was associated with AEs (odds ratio scale 10; odds ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EDBPS is safe for endoscopic sedation. Given the higher cost of anesthesia-administered propofol, endoscopists should reinstate EDBPS by revising institutional sedation policies.

The effect of an eye mask on midazolam requirement for sedation during spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Midazolam is frequently used for sedation during spinal anesthesia. However, external environmental factors, such as bright surgical lights, may hamper patient relaxation, which may lead to an increase in the dose of midazolam required and the likelihood of adverse drug effects. We investigated whether using an eye mask to block the external environment could reduce midazolam requirements during spinal anesthesia.

Methods

Participants aged 18–‒80 years, scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia, were randomly divided into a masked group (wearing eye masks during surgery, n = 20) and a control group (no mask, n = 18). The sedation level was assessed using a modified Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale. Midazolam (1 mg) was incrementally administered every 5 min until moderate sedation (MOAA/S score of 3) was achieved. The bispectral index (BIS) was monitored, and the onset and maintenance times of a BIS < 80 were recorded.

Results

The two groups had similar demographic characteristics. The midazolam requirements were significantly lower in the masked group than in the control group (2.8 mg vs. 3.7 mg, P = 0.024). However, the onset and maintenance times for a BIS < 80 were similar. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidence of side effects or patient satisfaction between the two groups.

Conclusions

Blocking the external environment with an eye mask during spinal anesthesia can reduce the requirement for sedatives, such as midazolam.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (No. KCT0005528, 15/10/2020) entitled “Can we reduce an amount of sleeping pills just by blocking light?”.

Baclofen therapeutics, toxicity, and withdrawal: A narrative review

Baclofen is an effective therapeutic for the treatment of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, and other spinal cord pathologies. It has been increasingly used off-label for the management of several disorders, including musculoskeletal pain, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and alcohol use disorder. Baclofen therapy is associated with potential complications, including life-threatening toxicity and withdrawal syndrome. These disorders require prompt recognition and a high index of suspicion. While these complications can develop following administration of either oral or intrathecal baclofen, the risk is greater with the intrathecal route. The management of baclofen toxicity is largely supportive while baclofen withdrawal syndrome is most effectively treated with re-initiation or supplementation of baclofen dosing. Administration of other pharmacologic adjuncts may be required to effectively treat associated withdrawal symptoms. This narrative review provides an overview of the historical and emerging uses of baclofen, offers practical dosing recommendations for both oral and intrathecal routes of administration, and reviews the diagnosis and management of both baclofen toxicity and withdrawal.

Time Is Brain: Acute Control of Repetitive Seizures and Status Epilepticus Using Alternative Routes of Administration of Benzodiazepines

Time plays a major role in seizure evaluation and treatment. Acute repetitive seizures and status epilepticus are medical emergencies that require immediate assessment and treatment for optimal therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines are considered the first-line agent for rapid seizure control. Thus, various routes of administration of benzodiazepines have been studied to facilitate a quick, effective, and easy therapy administration. Choosing the right agent may vary based on the drug and route properties, patient’s environment, caregiver’s skills, and drug accessibility. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of benzodiazepines are essential in the decision-making process. Ultimately, agents and routes that give the highest bioavailability, fastest absorption, and a modest duration are preferred. In the outpatient setting, intranasal and buccal routes appear to be equally effective and more rapidly administered than rectal diazepam. On the other hand, in the inpatient setting, if available, the IV route is ideal for benzodiazepine administration to avoid any potential absorption delay. In this article, we will provide an overview and comparison of the various routes of benzodiazepine administration for acute control of repetitive seizures and status epilepticus.

Comparison of Fentanyl versus Meperidine in Combination with Midazolam for Sedative Colonoscopy in Korea

Background/Aims

Combination of midazolam and opioids is used widely for endoscopic sedation. Compared with meperidine, fentanyl is reportedly associated with rapid recovery, turnover rate of endoscopy room, and quality of endoscopy. We compared fentanyl with meperidine when combined with midazolam for sedative colonoscopy.

Methods

A retrospective, cross-sectional, 1:2 matching study was conducted. Induction and recovery time were compared as the primary outcomes. Moreover, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time of colonoscopy, paradoxical reaction, adenoma detection rate, and adverse effect of midazolam or opioids were assessed as the secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 129 subjects (43 fentanyl vs. 86 meperidine) were included in the analysis. The fentanyl group showed significantly more rapid induction time (4.5±2.7 min vs. 7.5±4.7 min, p<0.001), but longer recovery time (59.5±25.6 min vs. 50.3±10.9 min, p=0.030) than the meperidine group. In multivariate analysis, the induction time of the fentanyl group was 3.40 min faster (p<0.001), but the recovery time was 6.38 min longer (p=0.046) than that of the meperidine group. There was no difference in withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate between the two groups.

Conclusions

The fentanyl group had more rapid sedation induction time but longer recovery time than the meperidine group.

Efficacy of Sedation by Midazolam in Association With Meperidine or Fentanyl and Role of Patient Distress During Elective Colonoscopy

Meperidine and fentanyl are opioids currently used in addition to midazolam for sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy in Italy. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of patients' psychological state before elective colonoscopy on the efficacy of the sedation regimens. Eighty outpatients who underwent an elective colonoscopy were included in our study. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire was self-administered to evaluate basal anxiety and depression state. The rate of baseline discomfort was evaluated by a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. Sedation was obtained alternatively with a midazolam-meperidine or midazolam-fentanyl combination. There were no statistically significant differences between the fentanyl and meperidine groups on body mass index, age, and gender composition. Patients in the meperidine group reported less pain during colonoscopy than patients in the fentanyl group. There were statistically significant positive correlations in the meperidine group with the distress, anxiety, and depression. Our study has pointed out greater effectiveness of the midazolam plus meperidine regimen, equal recovery times, and no significant differences in the duration of the endoscopic examinations. The evaluation of patients' psychological status seems to predict the efficacy of sedation when the nociceptive component of pain is well controlled.

Discharge Readiness after Propofol with or without Dexmedetomidine for Colonoscopy

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background

Enhanced recovery protocols employ various approaches to minimize detrimental side effects of anesthetizing agents. The authors tested the hypothesis that adding low-dose dexmedetomidine to propofol for anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopies, compared with propofol alone, would lower the propofol requirement, improve the intra-procedure hemodynamic state, and not increase time-to-discharge.

Methods

In this noninferiority, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, patients having colonoscopies received total IV anesthesia either with propofol and placebo (n = 50), or propofol and a bolus dose of dexmedetomidine, 0.3 μg/kg (n = 51). Additional propofol was administered to maintain a Bispectral Index score of 60. Following the procedure, readiness for discharge was assessed regularly using the Modified Post Anesthetic Discharge Scoring System until discharge criteria were met. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients meeting discharge criteria within 30 min from procedure end-time.

Results

Twenty-six of 51 (51%) patients receiving propofol-dexmedetomidine were ready for discharge by 30 min from procedure end time, compared with 44 of 50 (88%) receiving propofol (P &lt; 0.001). Propofol consumption was lower in subjects receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (140 μg · kg-1 · min-1) compared to those receiving propofol (180 μg · kg-1 · min-1) with P = 0.011. The lowest mean arterial pressure decreased further from baseline in those receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine (−30%; mean decrease −30 ±10.5 mmHg) compared to propofol (−21%; mean decrease, −22 ± 14.2 mmHg) with P = 0.003. There was no difference in incidence of bradycardia, with sustained bradycardia occurring in 3 of 51 (6%) patients receiving propofol–dexmedetomidine compared to 1 of 50 (2%) patients receiving propofol (P = 0.62). No apnea episodes requiring positive-pressure ventilation occurred in either group.

Conclusions

For anesthesia in ambulatory colonoscopy, combining low-dose dexmedetomidine with propofol delayed discharge readiness and provoked hypotension compared to propofol alone.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Safety of applying midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation combination under the supervision of endoscopy nurse with patient-controlled analgesia pump in colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the results of midazolam-ketamine-propofol sedation performed by an endoscopy nurse and anaesthetist during colonoscopy in terms of patient satisfaction and safety.

METHODS

American Statistical Association (ASA) I-II 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation were randomly divided into two groups: sedation under the supervision of an anaesthetist (SSA) and sedation under the supervision of an endoscopy nurse (SSEN). Both groups were initially administered 1 mg midazolam, 50 mg ketamine and 30-50 mg propofol. Continuation of sedation was performed by the anaesthetist in the SSA group and the nurse with a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in the SSEN group. The total propofol consumption, procedure duration, recovery times, pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction score of the patients, and side effects were recorded. In addition, the patients were asked whether they remembered the procedure and whether they would prefer the same method in the case of re-endoscopy.

RESULTS

Total propofol consumption in the SSEN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than that in the SSA group. When the groups were compared in terms of VAS score, recovery time, patient satisfaction, recall of the procedure, re-preference for the same method in case of re-endoscopy, and side effects, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the two groups. No long-term required intervention side effects were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy sedation in ASA I-II patients can be safely performed by an endoscopy nurse using PCA pump with the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction levels similar to sedation under anaesthetist supervision.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam.

RESULTS

The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

Procedural sedation by advanced care paramedics for emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

At the QEII Health Sciences Centre Emergency Department (ED) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for many indications, including orthopedic procedures. We have begun using ACPs as sedationists for emergent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. This study compares ACP-performed ED PSA for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures in terms of adverse events, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

METHODS

A data set was built from an ED PSA quality control database matching 61 UGI endoscopy PSAs to 183 orthopedic PSAs by propensity scores calculated using age, gender, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Outcomes assessed were hypotension (systolic BP30 sec), vomiting, arrhythmias, death, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use.

RESULTS

UGI endoscopy patients experienced hypotension more frequently than orthopedic patients (OR=4.11, CI: 2.05-8.22) and required airway repositioning less often (OR=0.24, CI: 0.10-0.59). They received ketamine more frequently (OR=15.7, CI: 4.75-67.7) and fentanyl less often (OR=0.30, CI: 0.15-0.63) than orthopedic patients. Four endoscopy patients received phenylephrine, and one required intubation. No patient died in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACP-led sedation for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures, adverse events were rare with the notable exception of hypotension, which was more frequent in the endoscopy group. Only endoscopy patients required vasopressor treatment and intubation. We provide preliminary evidence that ACPs can manage ED PSA for emergent UGI endoscopy, although priorities must shift from pain control to hemodynamic optimization.

Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension may be a concern in the propofol-based sedation. We aimed to analyze whether administration of midazolam would improve safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in EGD.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients who were scheduled to undergo diagnostic EGD were randomly assigned to either midazolam plus propofol (MP) or propofol alone groups. In the MP group, 2 mg of midazolam and 10 mg of propofol were given initially. In the propofol alone group, 40-60 mg of propofol was given initially. In both groups, 20 mg of propofol was given repeatedly to maintain moderate sedation as needed. Vital signs including oxygen saturation were monitored every 2 min. After the patients fully recovered, satisfaction score was investigated from endoscopists, nurses, and patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics did not differ between the MP and propofol alone groups. The mean required doses of propofol was (mean ± standard deviation) 0.3 ± 0.3 and 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/kg in the MP and propofol alone groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In addition, sedation-related adverse events and recovery time did not differ between the two groups. The proportion of satisfactory did not differ between the two groups (MP vs propofol alone; proportion; patient, 95.0% vs 93.3%, P > 0.999; endoscopist, 73.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.064; nurse, 73.3% vs 76.7%, P = 0.551).

CONCLUSION

Adding midazolam to propofol did not reduced the safety and efficacy, and sedation using propofol alone could be suitable for sedation during diagnostic EGD.

Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continue to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals (monitored anesthesia care) or whether properly trained non-anesthesia personnel can use propofol safely via the modalities of nurse-administered propofol sedation, computer-assisted propofol sedation or nurse-administered continuous propofol sedation. The deployment of non-anesthesia administered propofol sedation for low-risk procedures allows for optimal allocation of scarce anesthesia resources, which can be more appropriately used for more complex cases. This can address some of the current shortages in anesthesia provider supply, and can potentially reduce overall health care costs without sacrificing sedation quality. This review will discuss efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction issues with various modes of sedation for non-advanced, non-emergent endoscopic procedures, mainly esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

Impact of pharmaceutical care on pain and agitation in a medical intensive care unit in Thailand

Background Currently, a lack of pharmaceutical care exists concerning pain and agitation in medical intensive care units (MICU) in Thailand. Pharmaceutical care focusing on analgesics/sedatives would improve clinical outcomes. Objective To investigate the impact of pharmaceutical care of pain and agitation on ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ventilator days and mortality. Setting The MICU of a university hospital. Method A before/after study was conducted on mechanically ventilated patients receiving analgesics/sedatives. Medical chart reviews and data collection were conducted in the retrospective group (no pharmacists involved). In the prospective group, pharmacists involved with the critical care team helped select analgesics/sedatives for individual patients. Main outcome measure ICU LOS Results In total, 90 and 66 patients were enrolled in retrospective and prospective groups, respectively. The median duration of ICU LOS was reduced from 10.00 (2.00-72.00) in the retrospective group to 6.50 days (2.00-30.00) in the prospective group (p = 0.002). The median hospital stay was reduced from 30.50 days (2.00-119.00) in the retrospective group to 17.50 days (2.00-110.00) in the prospective group (p < 0.001). Also, the median ventilator days was reduced from 14.00 days (2.00-90.00) to 8.50 days (1.00-45.00), p = 0.008. Mortality was 53.03% in the prospective group and 46.67% in the retrospective group (p = 0.432). Conclusion Pharmacist participation in a critical care team resulted in a significant reduction in the duration of ICU LOS, hospital LOS and ventilator days, but not mortality.

Conscious Intravenous Sedation in Dentistry: A Review of Current Therapy

Several sedation options are used to minimize pain, anxiety, and discomfort during oral surgery procedures. Minimizing or eliminating pain and anxiety for dental care is the primary goal for conscious sedation. Intravenous conscious sedation is a drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands. No interventions are required to maintain a patent airway, and spontaneous ventilation is adequate as well as cardiovascular function. Patients must retain their protective airway reflexes, and respond to and understand verbal communication. The drugs and techniques used must therefore carry a broad margin of safety.

Sedation in Critically Ill Children with Respiratory Failure

This article discusses the rationale of sedation in respiratory failure, sedation goals, how to assess the need for sedation as well as effectiveness of interventions in critically ill children, with validated observational sedation scales. The drugs and non-pharmacological approaches used for optimal sedation in ventilated children are reviewed, and specifically the rationale for drug selection, including short- and long-term efficacy and safety aspects of the selected drugs. The specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of sedative drugs in the critically ill child and consequences for dosing are presented. Furthermore, we discuss different sedation strategies and their adverse events, such as iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium. These principles can guide clinicians in the choice of sedative drugs in pediatric respiratory failure.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

Sedation regimens for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Sedation allows patients to tolerate unpleasant endoscopic procedures by relieving anxiety, discomfort, or pain. It also reduces a patient's risk of physical injury during endoscopic procedures, while providing the endoscopist with an adequate setting for a detailed examination. Sedation is therefore considered by many endoscopists to be an essential component of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopic sedation by nonanesthesiologists is a worldwide practice and has been proven effective and safe. Moderate sedation/analgesia is generally accepted as an appropriate target for sedation by nonanesthesiologists. This focused review describes the general principles of endoscopic sedation, the detailed pharmacology of sedatives and analgesics (focused on midazolam, propofol, meperidine, and fentanyl), and the multiple regimens available for use in actual practice.

Tramadol versus fentanyl during propofol-based deep sedation for uterine dilatation and curettage: a prospective study

AIM

Dilatation and curettage (D&C) is a common day-care procedure in obstetrics and gynecology, with patients discharged after a brief hospital stay on the same day of the surgery. Although it has a short duration, severe pain occurs during the procedure. Therefore, this surgical procedure requires an anesthetic to provide adequate analgesia, rapid onset, and rapid recovery. The main objective of the present study was to compare the analgesic effectiveness and safety of tramadol with those of fentanyl during D&C.

METHODS

The study comprised 100 women with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-II who were scheduled for a D&C procedure. Baseline anesthesia was maintained with 1 mg/kg propofol, and the patients were then randomly allocated to receive tramadol 1 mg/kg (Group T, n = 50) or fentanyl 1 μg/kg (Group F, n = 50). Hemodynamic variables, sedation, pain, the Aldrete recovery score, and side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

SpO₂ levels in Group F in the 5th min and at the end of the procedure were significantly lower than those in Group T (P = 0.024 and 0.021, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Tramadol provides similar analgesic efficacy to fentanyl. Furthermore, tramadol may provide better respiratory stability in patients undergoing a D&C procedure.

Pancreatitis in tigecycline Phase 3 and 4 clinical studies

Objectives

To examine the incidence of pancreatitis among subjects enrolled in the tigecycline clinical trial programme, summarize cases and examine concomitant use of other pancreatitis-causing medications.

Methods

Subject data from Phase 3 and 4 comparative tigecycline studies were included in the analysis; investigator-reported adverse events of ‘pancreatitis’, ‘necrotizing pancreatitis’ or ‘pancreas disorder’ were reviewed. Data were summarized and cases were reported. No statistical comparisons were made. The incidence of overall pancreatitis with 95% CIs was calculated. The Wilson score method was used to calculate CIs.

Results

Nineteen subjects with investigator-determined pancreatitis were identified from the programme database, which included 3788 subjects treated with tigecycline and 3646 subjects treated with a comparator. There were 9 cases identified among the tigecycline-treated subjects [9 of 3788 (0.24%; 95% CI, 0.11–0.45)] and 10 cases among the comparator-treated subjects [10 of 3646 (0.27%; 95% CI, 0.13–0.50)]. The demographic characteristics of the subjects with pancreatitis were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of tigecycline therapy was 8.0 days compared with 11.0 days of comparator treatment. Concomitant or prior exposure to a Badalov class I medication was evident in the majority of subjects who developed pancreatitis. A numerically higher number of tigecycline-treated subjects were exposed to furosemide prior to the onset of pancreatitis than comparator-treated subjects.

Conclusions

Pancreatitis was uncommon in subjects treated with tigecycline, with an occurrence of <1%. Concomitant medications known to cause pancreatitis should be considered when prescribing tigecycline, but may not identify those at risk of developing pancreatitis.

Impact of fentanyl in lieu of meperidine on endoscopy unit efficiency: a prospective comparative study in patients undergoing EGD

BACKGROUND

Turnaround time is an important component of endoscopy unit efficiency. Any reduction in the total time from patient arrival in the endoscopy room to departure from the recovery area may translate into better endoscopy unit efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects on endoscopy unit efficiency of a change in narcotic choice for moderate sedation in patients undergoing EGD at an ambulatory surgery center.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative, quality-improvement project.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

We enrolled consecutive patients (n = 1963) who underwent outpatient EGD by 1 of 5 endoscopists between November 2008 and November 2010.

INTERVENTION

Moderate sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl versus meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency and total procedure time (induction-to-intubation, intubation-to-extubation, and extubation-to-discharge).

RESULTS

Fentanyl was associated with reduced total procedure time by 10.1 minutes resulting from both shorter induction-to-intubation time and extubation-to-discharge time (P < .001). The mean (± SD) sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency was 3.2 (± 1.9) procedures per hour for the meperidine group and 3.9 (± 2.7) procedures per hour for the fentanyl group (P = .012); this would translate into possibly increasing the endoscopy suite efficiency by 22%. Based on dosage equivalency conversion, equal doses of fentanyl and meperidine were used. No sedation-related complications or need for reversal agents were recorded.

LIMITATIONS

No randomization was performed.

CONCLUSION

Compared with meperidine, fentanyl in combination with midazolam was associated with significantly shorter total procedure time. By improving the turnaround time, sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency may be improved by 22%.

The Diagnostic Yield of Navigational Bronchoscopy Performed with Propofol Deep Sedation

Objective. To describe the diagnostic yield of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) utilizing propofol for procedural deep sedation. Methods. We conducted a structured retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients who underwent ENB with propofol for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules and masses. We analyzed the relationships between lesion size and location, variance (CT-to-body divergence), and positron emission tomography findings on diagnostic yield. Diagnoses were established by histopathological evaluation and clinical-radiographic followup. Results. 41 patients underwent ENB during the study period. The overall diagnostic yield was 89% (42 of 47 target lesions). Among the 42 positive specimens, the diagnoses were squamous cell carcinoma (n=10), adenocarcinoma (n=14), small cell carcinoma (n=2), adenocarcinoma in situ (n=2), coccidioidomycosis (n=1), and inflammatory processes (n=13). Average lesion size was 3.01±0.21 cm and variance 3.6±0.15 mm. The diagnostic yield was greater when the lesion size was >4 cm (100%) and when variance was ≤4 mm (91% versus 87%, P=0.003). Conclusion. The diagnostic yield of ENB utilizing propofol for procedural deep sedation at our center was excellent. ENB with deep sedation may result in superior diagnostic yield compared with ENB performed with moderate sedation.

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in child A and B cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND

Effective and safe sedation for patients with liver cirrhosis is problematic.

AIM

To examine the safety and effectiveness of low-dose propofol sedation during and after esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Study 1 was a prospective study in cirrhotic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD under propofol sedation. Propofol was given by bolus injection with an age-adjusted standard protocol consisting of 40 mg for patients <70 years, 30 mg for patients aged 70-89 years; additional injections of 20 mg propofol were given up to a maximum of 120 mg. The principal parameter was the occurrence of adverse events within 24 h after EGD. Secondary parameters included successful procedures, complications, and full recovery within 60 min. In Study 2, the residual effects of propofol were evaluated using a driving simulator and blood propofol concentrations in a subset of cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD and compared with healthy individuals. The principal parameter was driving ability.

RESULTS

Study 1: Consecutive cirrhotic patients were entered and all 163 successfully completed EGD. The mean dose of propofol was 46 mg (range 30-120 mg). No complications occurred. Full recovery had occurred in 100 % 60 min after the procedure. No adverse events occurred within 24 h after EGD. Study 2: There were no significant differences in blood propofol levels between cirrhotic patients (n = 21) and healthy individuals (n = 20) after sedation. In cirrhotic patients, there was no deterioration in driving ability as compared with healthy individuals.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose propofol sedation provided safe and effective sedation for EGD in cirrhotic patients with rapid recovery.

Pre- and post-intervention study to assess the impact of a sedation protocol in critically ill surgical patients

INTRODUCTION

Sedation and pain management for mechanically ventilated critically ill surgical patients pose many challenges for the intensivist. Even though daily interruption of sedatives and opioids is appropriate in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, it may not be feasible in the surgical patients with pain from surgical incision or trauma. Therefore we developed an analgesia/sedation based protocol for the surgical ICU population.

METHODS

We performed a two-phase prospective observational control study. We evaluated a prescriber driven analgesia/sedation protocol (ASP) in a 12-bed surgical ICU. The pre-ASP group was sedated as usual (n = 100) and the post-ASP group was managed with the new ASP (n = 100). Each phase of the study lasted for 5 mo. Comparisons between the two groups were performed by χ(2) or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for nonparametric variables. A P value <0.05 was statistically significant.

RESULTS

We found a significant reduction in the use of fentanyl (P < 0.001) and midazolam (P = 0.001). We achieved sedation goals of 86.8% in the post-ASP group compared to 74.4% in the pre-ASP (P < 0.001). Mean mechanical ventilations days in pre- and post-ASP group were 5.9 versus 3.8 (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of critically ill surgery patients implementation of an ASP resulted in reduced use of continuously infused benzodiazepines and opioids, a decline in cumulative benzodiazepine and analgesic dosages, and a greater percentage of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores at goal. We also showed reduced mechanical ventilation days.

Low effect-site concentration of propofol target-controlled infusion reduces the risk of hypotension during endoscopy in a Taiwanese population

OBJECTIVE

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is an effective way of delivering propofol during endoscopy. However, the ideal effect-site concentration (Ce) of propofol has not yet been defined in an Asian population. This study aimed to determine the ideal Ce of propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy in a Taiwanese population.

METHODS

A total of 121 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopy were recruited for this study. The endoscopic procedure was carried out within 1 h. TCI of propofol was utilized during the procedure. All patients received the same regimen to induce conscious sedation, including a bolus of midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and fentanyl (0.5 μg/kg). The Ce of propofol was calculated using the Schneider model. Patients were randomly assigned to either the low Ce group (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) or high Ce group (3.0-4.0 μg/mL). Their cardiovascular and respiratory events were monitored during the procedure and the patients' post-procedure satisfaction was evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean requirement for propofol was 232.02 mg in the low Ce group and 329.56 mg in the high Ce group, respectively (P < 0.0001). No unexpected event was observed in either group. However, more episodes of hypotension were observed in the high Ce group (P = 0.026). The post-procedure satisfaction rate between the two groups was comparable.

CONCLUSION

A low Ce of propofol TCI (1.5-2.5 μg/mL) achieved adequate anesthesia, reduced the risk of hypotension, and attained a high satisfaction rate in a Taiwanese population undergoing diagnostic painless endoscopy.

Sedation in the intensive care setting

Critically ill patients are routinely provided analgesia and sedation to prevent pain and anxiety, permit invasive procedures, reduce stress and oxygen consumption, and improve synchrony with mechanical ventilation. Regional preferences, patient history, institutional bias, and individual patient and practitioner variability, however, create a wide discrepancy in the approach to sedation of critically ill patients. Untreated pain and agitation increase the sympathetic stress response, potentially leading to negative acute and long-term consequences. Oversedation, however, occurs commonly and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including longer time on mechanical ventilation, prolonged stay in the intensive care unit, and increased brain dysfunction (delirium and coma). Modifying sedation delivery by incorporating analgesia and sedation protocols, targeted arousal goals, daily interruption of sedation, linked spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, and early mobilization of patients have all been associated with improvements in patient outcomes and should be incorporated into the clinical management of critically ill patients. To improve outcomes, including time on mechanical ventilation and development of acute brain dysfunction, conventional sedation paradigms should be altered by providing necessary analgesia, incorporating propofol or dexmedetomidine to reach arousal targets, and reducing benzodiazepine exposure.

Safety and efficacy of deep sedation with propofol alone or combined with midazolam administrated by nonanesthesiologist for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.

Methods

A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).

Results

The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).

Conclusions

Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.

Sedation during upper GI endoscopy in cirrhotic outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial comparing propofol and fentanyl with midazolam and fentanyl

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cirrhosis frequently undergo diagnostic or therapeutic upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and the liver disease might impair the metabolism of drugs usually administered for sedation.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING

To compare sedation with a combination of propofol plus fentanyl and midazolam plus fentanyl in cirrhotic outpatients undergoing UGIE.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between February 2008 and February 2009.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy (proportion of complete procedures using the initial proposed sedation scheme), safety (occurrence of sedation-related complications), and recovery time were measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten cirrhotic patients referred for UGIE were randomized to 2 groups: midazolam group (0.05 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously) or propofol group (0.25 mg/kg plus fentanyl 50 μg intravenously). There were no differences between groups regarding age, sex, weight, etiology of cirrhosis, and Child-Pugh or American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Sedation with propofol was more efficacious (100% vs 88.2%; P < .001) and had a shorter recovery time than sedation with midazolam (16.23 ± 6.84 minutes and 27.40 ± 17.19 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Complication rates were similar in both groups (14% vs 7.3%; P = .172).

LIMITATIONS

Single-blind study; sample size.

CONCLUSION

Both sedation schemes were safe in this setting. Sedation with propofol plus fentanyl was more efficacious with a shorter recovery time compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. Therefore, the former scheme is an alternative when sedating cirrhotic patients undergoing UGIE.

Conscious sedation for upper digestive endoscopy performed by endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Conscious sedation in the ambulatory setting albeit common is not risk-free. The present study aimed at evaluating the blood pressure, heart rate and peripheral oxygen saturation in patients submitted to conscious sedation for upper digestive endoscopy performed by endoscopists.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients of both sexes were selected, aged 18 and older, physical status ASA I to III, submitted to upper digestive endoscopy under conscious sedation. The patients were monitored through noninvasive blood pressure measurements, pulse oximetry and heart rate recorded before, during and after the examination. The sedation was carried out with midazolam or meperidine.

RESULTS

The variations in oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate throughout time were not statistically significant. However, an incidence of hypoxia of 41.9% was observed; 53.3% of the cases presented arterial hypotension and 25.6% presented tachycardia. Obese patients were more prone to hypoxia and hypotension than those non obese.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of hypoxia and arterial hypotension is common in upper digestive endoscopic examinations under conscious sedation when midazolam and meperidine are associated. Obese patients demonstrated to be more susceptible to hypoxemia and arterial hypotension.

A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of fospropofol disodium for sedation during colonoscopy

GOALS

This double-blind, multicenter study evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous fospropofol (6.5 mg/kg vs. 2 mg/kg) for moderate sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

In all, 314 patients >or=18 years (American Society of Anesthesiologists PS1 to PS3) were randomized to receive fospropofol 2 mg/kg, fospropofol 6.5- mg/kg, or midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, after pretreatment with intravenous fentanyl 50 mcg. Supplemental doses of study medication were permitted to achieve a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale score <or=4 and to enable the investigator to begin a procedure. The study end points included sedation success, recovery, memory retention, physician satisfaction, and safety.

RESULTS

Sedation success was higher in the fospropofol 6.5 mg/kg versus 2 mg/kg group (87% vs. 26%; P<0.001) and was 69% in the midazolam group. Patients in the 6.5-mg/kg group were significantly less likely to remember being awake during the procedure (51% vs. 100% in the 2-mg/kg group, P<0.001; 60% for the midazolam group). Patients in the fospropofol groups had similar memory retention (70% and 82% for the 6.5 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg groups, respectively) compared with 41% for the midazolam group. Mean physician satisfaction scores were higher in the fospropofol 6.5-mg/kg group (7.7) than the 2-mg/kg group (4.5), P<0.001. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity; the most common treatment-related adverse events were paresthesias (68% vs. 60%) and pruritus (16% vs. 26%) in the fospropofol 6.5 and 2 mg/kg groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The fospropofol 6.5-mg/kg dosing regimen was well tolerated and effective for sedation during colonoscopy and was associated with higher rates of sedation success, memory retention, and physician satisfaction than the fospropofol 2-mg/kg dose.

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.

Clinical trial: a randomized, study comparing meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl in adult gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence to guide choice between meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl for sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

To compare meperidine with fentanyl in terms of procedure time and analgesia.

METHODS

Single centre randomized controlled trial. Patients received narcotic doses and midazolam at the discretion of the attending endoscopist who was unaware of narcotic assignment. Endoscopy and recovery times were then recorded. The main outcome was total procedure time, defined as endoscopy time plus recovery time. Patient discomfort was assessed prior to discharge via visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients were randomized to meperidine [44 colonoscopy and 11 esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] and 56 to fentanyl (45 colonoscopy and 11 EGD). Total procedure time was shorter for those receiving fentanyl (mean = 87.7 min) than for those receiving meperidine (mean = 102.9 min) (P = 0.05). The difference between the groups was explained by a shorter mean recovery time in the fentanyl group (63.0 min) than in the meperidine group (76.2 min) (P = 0.07). Based on post procedure pain scores, examinations with meperidine (mean = 1.99) were less painful when compared with those receiving fentanyl (mean = 2.86, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl shortened total procedure time by reducing recovery time. A simple change in narcotic choice could increase endoscopy unit efficiency.

Safety of nurse-administered propofol sedation using PCA pump for outpatient colonoscopy in Chinese patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

To determine the safety and effectiveness of nurse-administered propofol sedation using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump in outpatient colonoscopy in a Chinese population.

METHODS

From April to June 2005, 50 consecutive ASA class I or II patients aged 18-65 undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in an endoscopy centre of a regional hospital were prospectively recruited in this study. After a loading dose of 40-60 mg intravenous propofol, a mixture containing 14.3 mg propofol and 35 microg alfentanil were delivered via a patient-controlled syringe pump as bolus dose by an endoscopy nurse under the supervision of an endoscopist during the procedure. Lockout time was set to be zero. We aimed to achieve conscious sedation, with an Observers Scale for Sedation and Alertness (OSSA) score of 3. The primary outcome measure was complications from sedation, which included hypotension, bradycardia and desaturation. Other outcome measures included onset time, patients pain score, endoscopists and nurses satisfaction on the level of sedation, patients satisfaction regarding the procedure (measured by 10 cm visual analogue scale), and their willingness to repeat the procedure.

RESULTS

The mean lowest systolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 103.2 +/- 12.4 mmHg and 78.3 +/- 11.0 mmHg, respectively. The mean percentage drop in MAP was 15.7 +/- 11.9%. Six patients (12.2%) developed transient hypotension. Three patients (6.1%) had bradycardia. There was no episode of desaturation. The median onset time to reach OSSA score of 3 was 1 minute (range, 0.5-20.5). The OSSA score of 3 could be maintained throughout the procedure. The mean loading dose of propofol was 48.9 +/- 6.7 mg. The mean total dosages of propofol and alfentanil given were 124.2 +/- 38.1 mg and 184.3 +/- 93.7 mug, respectively. Endoscopists, endoscopy nurses and patients were highly satisfied with the sedation. The median pain score was 1 (range, 0-10; 0 = no pain, 10 = very painful), and the mean recovery time was 2.8 +/- 2.8 minutes. Most patients (93.9%) were willing to repeat the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-administered propofol sedation using PCA pump is safe and effective in sedation and pain control in outpatient colonoscopy in a healthy Chinese population.

Understanding modes of moderate sedation during gastrointestinal procedures: a current review of the literature

Recommendations for routine screening for colorectal cancer with colonoscopy are likely to substantially increase the demand for provision of sedation for these procedures. Because of this burgeoning caseload and associated economic constraints, it is unlikely that anesthesiologists will be available for all such procedures, particularly those involving average-risk patients. Thus, sedative agents that can be safely administered by nonanesthesiologists, appropriately trained in monitoring and managing the patient's airway, are desperately needed. New concepts in sedation for colonoscopy include enhanced mechanisms for drug delivery such as patient-controlled sedation/analgesia and target-controlled infusion, along with the development of new drugs such as a modified cyclodextrin-based formulation of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan Injection), a water-soluble prodrug of propofol.

[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.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with special attention to patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, and postprocedure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a large multicenter clinical trial, nurse-administered propofol sedation had a complication rate of less than 0.2%. The optimal management for an ulcer with adherent clot was confirmed by a meta-analysis to be clot removal and endoscopic treatment of the underlying lesion. A number of prospective studies have demonstrated that capsule endoscopy is the most sensitive imaging modality for identifying lesions in the small bowel and that double-balloon enteroscopy is the least invasive modality available for the management of these lesions.

SUMMARY

This update describes many recent advances in the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, clearly, much work needs to be done in this field. Since propofol is not available for use in all endoscopy units, is there a better alternative for deep sedation? Rebleeding occurs in 20% of patients after endoscopic therapy, and so can we provide better outcomes with newer technologies (endoscopic suturing devices)? Finally, what is the best management for Helicobacter pylori-negative, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-negative ulcer patients?