Efficiency issues in sedation and monitoring

Propofol vs pentobarbital for sedation of children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: results from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

BACKGROUND

Pentobarbital and propofol are commonly used to sedate children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) was created in 2003 to improve pediatric sedation process and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To use PSRC records to compare the effectiveness, efficiency and adverse events of propofol vs pentobarbital for sedation of children undergoing MRI.

METHODS

Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium records of children aged 6 months to 6 years who were primarily sedated with either i.v. pentobarbital or propofol were included. Participating PSRC investigators obtained institutional review board approval before data collection.

RESULTS

Of 11 846 sedations for MRI, 7079 met inclusion criteria (propofol: n = 5072; pentobarbital: n = 2007). Demographic details were similar between the two groups. Ideal sedation was produced in 96.45% of the pentobarbital group and in 96.8% of the propofol group (P = 0.478), but pentobarbital was more likely to result in poor sedation cancelling the procedure (OR 5.88; CI 2.24, 15.40). Propofol resulted in physiologic changes more frequently than did pentobarbital (OR 5.69; CI 1.35, 23.97). Pentobarbital was associated with prolonged recovery (OR 16.82; CI 4.98, 56.8), unplanned admission (OR 5.60; CI 1.02, 30.82), vomiting (OR 36.76; CI 4.84, 279.2) and allergic complication (OR 9.15; CI 1.02, 82.34). The incidence of airway complications was not significantly different between the two. The median recovery time for patients receiving propofol was 30 min, whereas for pentobarbital it was 75 min (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among institutions contributing data to the PSRC, it is found that propofol provides more efficient and effective sedation than pentobarbital for children undergoing MRI. Although apnea occurred with a greater frequency in patients who received propofol, the rate of apnea and airway complications for propofol was not statistically different from that seen in patients who received pentobarbital.

Monitored anesthesia care with propofol versus surgeon-monitored sedation with benzodiazepines and narcotics for preoperative endoscopy in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND

Although still controversial, upper endoscopy is frequently performed before bariatric surgery. This study investigated the hypothesis that morbidly obese patients would prefer anesthesiologist-monitored sedation (AMS) compared to surgeon-monitored sedation (SMS) during preoperative endoscopy.

METHODS

All patients who underwent endoscopy before their bariatric surgery were given a post-procedure survey regarding their experience with the preoperative endoscopy. The survey inquired about issues during and after the procedure. We compared patients who had AMS with IV propofol versus SMS IV narcotics and benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

There were 100 patients (SMS=49 and AMS=51). Few patients complained of pain in the abdomen or throat during the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=2 vs. 8% and 2 vs. 10%, respectively; p=NS). More patients complained about throat pain after the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=37 vs. 45%; p=NS). More patients in the SMS group remembered the scope being placed in the mouth versus AMS (33 vs. 10%; p<0.02). More patients remembered gagging during the procedure in the SMS group versus the AMS group, but this did not reach statistical significance (24 vs. 10%; p=0.06). There was a trend that more patients in the AMS group felt they recovered in less than 1 h (53%) compared to the SMS group (37%; p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo upper endoscopy with either AMS or SMS seem to tolerate the procedure well. The preliminary benefits seen with AMS need to be further explored. AMS should be considered for patients undergoing preoperative upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery.

Safety of intravenous midazolam and fentanyl for pediatric GI endoscopy: prospective study of 1578 endoscopies

BACKGROUND

Data on safety of intravenous sedation in pediatric GI endoscopy are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate safety of intravenous sedation for GI endoscopy.

DESIGN/SETTING

Single-center prospective series of outpatient GI endoscopies performed from February 2003 to February 2004 at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The recorded information included demographic, medication, and adverse event data.

PATIENTS

A total of 1226 patients were studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Description of adverse events relating to intravenous sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 2635 endoscopies were performed, of which 1717 were outpatient procedures with the patient under intravenous sedation. Sedation data were available on 1578 procedures (92%, M/F 674/552): 758 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) alone, 116 colonoscopies (COL) alone, and 352 combined EGD and COL. The median dose of fentanyl was 2.77 microg/kg (SD 0.97, range 0-6.73), and of midazolam was 0.11 mg/kg (SD 0.06, range 0-0.39). The mean recovery time was 118 minutes (SD 47.3, range 31-375). Ten patients (0.8%) failed intravenous sedation. Serious adverse events (apnea) were noted in 2 patients (0.2%). Mild or moderate adverse events included desaturation below 92% for less than 20 seconds (100 patients, 9%), vomiting (64 patients, 5%), agitation (15 patients, 1%), desaturation below 92% for greater than 20 seconds (12 patients, 0.7%), and rash (8 patients, 0.7%). No cardiopulmonary resuscitation or sedation reversal was necessary. No patients required hospitalization. Patients younger than 6 years were more likely to develop respiratory adverse event (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous sedation with midazolam and fentanyl is safe for pediatric GI endoscopy. Serious adverse events are rare and no patient required hospitalization.

Sedation in endoscopic practice

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