Fentanyl for sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Meperidine for patients expected to have poor tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background

Anxious patients and those with poor tolerance to previous esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) usually have poor tolerance for EGD.

Aims

To investigate the effect of meperidine on these patients during EGD.

Methods

A total of 110 patients undergoing diagnostic EGD were randomized to receive either meperidine (n = 55) or placebo (n = 55) before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores during esophageal intubation.

Results

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 5.0 and interquartile range (IQR) 1.5-7.0) compared with the control (median score of 6.0, IQR 5.0-8.5, P = .003). Patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during the procedure (median score of 2 (IQR 1.0-3.0) versus 3 (IQR 1.0-4.0), P = .048), and the endoscopists reported higher overall satisfaction scores (median score of 9 (IQR 7.0-9.0) versus 8 (IQR 7.0-9.0), P = .043). There was significantly less increase in heart rate and blood pressure during the procedure in the meperidine group than in the placebo group (23 bpm (IQR 9-32) versus 30 bpm (IQR 18-52); P = .006); (7 mmHg (IQR 1-14) versus 18 mmHg (IQR 2-30); P = .008). Connect-the-numbers test showed comparable results before and after EGD between the two groups.

Conclusion

For patients expected to have poor tolerance during EGD, meperidine reduced discomfort, decreased cardiovascular distress, and improved endoscopist satisfaction, without adverse effects on their psychomotor function after the procedure.

Efficacy and safety of remifentanil and sulfentanyl in painless gastroscopic examination: a prospective study

We aim to assess efficacy and safety of remifentanil or sulfentanyl combined with propofol during painless gastroscopic examination in patients. In this study, 270 patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: propofol was given only in group P; propofol and remifentanil in group PR; propofol and sulfentanyl in group PS during the gastroscopic examination. Efficiency of group P was significantly higher than that of group PR and PS (P<0.01) [corrected]. Efficiency of group PR was lower than that of group PS (P<0.05). Incidence of chest wall rigidity and oxygen desaturation in group PR were higher than group P and PS (P<0.05), whereas there was no difference between groups P and PS (P>0.05). Propofol combined with remifentanil could provide satisfying anesthesia and more respiratory depression, whereas sulfentanyl at equivalent dose combined with propofol could also provide with satisfying anesthesia and less respiratory depression. Combined sufentanyl with propofol would be an effective anesthesia technique in the daytime procedure.

The safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl for endoscopy screening and endoscopic variceal ligation in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the safety of combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl in patients with liver cirrhosis during screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (SEGD) and a secondary prophylaxis for esophageal varices, endoscopic gastrointestinal ligation (EVL).

METHODS

A total of 309 patients with liver cirrhosis were enrolled and divided into the sedated SEGD group (n = 83), the sedated EVL group (n = 137) and the conscious EVL group (n = 89), respectively, and 100 participants with no liver diseases who underwent endoscopy for gastritis were regarded as the sedated control group. Patients in the sedated groups were administrated with propofol plus fentanyl during the endoscopic procedures and their minimal hepatic encephalopathy and sedation-related complications, including aspiration, hypoxia, hypotension and bradycardia, were evaluated and compared. The assessments of patient satisfaction and patient cooperation in the sedated and the conscious EVL groups were conducted.

RESULTS

The incidences of complications during the endoscopic procedures were not significantly different among the sedated groups (20.5% in the sedated SEGD group, 22.6% in the sedated EVL group and 19.0% in the sedated control group). No minimal hepatic encephalopathy was induced in the sedated groups. More patients in the sedated EVL group were satisfactory with the procedure compared with the conscious EVL group, as evaluated by both endoscopists and the cirrhotic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined sedation with propofol plus fentanyl is safe for EVL as well as for SEGD in cirrhotic patients. Sedation might make it easier for endoscopists to perform procedures and might be more acceptable for cirrhotic patients.

Analysis of cardiopulmonary stress during endoscopy: is unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy appropriate for elderly patients?

BACKGROUND

Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) without sedation has been reported to be safe and tolerable. It has recently been used widely in Japan for the detection of upper gastrointestinal disease. Alternatively, transoral examination using a thin endoscope has also been reported to be highly tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cardiocirculatory effects of transoral versus transnasal EGD in an attempt to determine the most suitable endoscopic methods for patients ≥75 years of age.

METHODS

Subjects who underwent monitoring of respiratory and circulatory dynamics without sedation during endoscopic screening examinations were enrolled at the New Ooe Hospital (Kyoto, Japan) between April 2008 and March 2009. A total of 165 patients (age ≥75 years) provided written informed consent and were investigated in the present study. Patients were randomly divided into three subgroups: UO group--thin endoscope; SO group--standard endoscope; and UT group--transnasal EGD. Percutaneous arterial blood oxygen saturation, heart rate and blood pressure were evaluated just before EGD and at five time points during EGD. After transnasal EGD, patients who had previously been examined using transoral EGD with a standard endoscope were asked about preferences for their next examination.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in the characteristics among the groups. Percutaneous oxygen saturation in the UT group showed a transient drop compared with the SO and UO groups at the beginning of the endoscopic procedure. Heart rate showed no significant differences among the SO, UO and UT groups; Systolic blood pressure in the UO group was lower immediately after insertion compared with the SO and UT groups. The rate pressure product in the UO group was comparable with that in the UT group during endoscopy, and the SO group showed a continuously higher level than the UO and UT groups. More than one-half (54.4%) of patients were 'willing to choose transnasal EGD for next examination'.

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients, unsedated transnasal EGD failed to show an advantage over unsedated standard endoscopy. Transoral thin EGD was estimated to be safe and tolerable.

Meperidine as the single sedative agent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In Taiwan, unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is widely used, but it is uncomfortable for some patients. While meperidine has been adopted in colonoscopy, its use in EGD has not received extensive attention. This was a prospective study to investigate the use of meperidine as a single sedative agent during EGD.

METHODS

One hundred and forty patients were randomized to receive either 25-mg meperidine (n = 70) or placebo (n = 70) by intramuscular injection before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores. The secondary outcomes included patient, endoscopist, and EGD-related variables.

RESULTS

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 2.0 and interquartile range [IQR] of 0-4.0 vs median score of 4.8 and IQR of 1.7-7.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and during the procedure (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-3.1] vs 3.5 [IQR 0-5.6], P = 0.001) than patients in the placebo group. The endoscopist found patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during esophageal intubation (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-2.0] vs 2.0 [IQR 1.0-3.0], P = 0.021) and during the procedure (median score of 0 [IQR 0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR 0-3.0], P < 0.001). After the procedure more patients in the meperidine group (71.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001) experienced self-limited dizziness that prolonged recovery by ∼3.7 min.

CONCLUSIONS

After receiving meperidine injection, patients had better tolerance and less discomfort during diagnostic EGD (NCT01547520).

[Role of pulse oximetric monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Prospective multicenter study of the Gastroenterology Working Group of the Veszprém Regional Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (VEAB)]

INTRODUCTION

Recent guidelines recommend routine pulse oximetric monitoring during endoscopy, however, this has not been the common practice yet in the majority of the local endoscopic units.

AIMS

To draw attention to the importance of the routine use of pulse oximetric recording during endoscopy.

METHOD

A prospective multicenter study was performed with the participation of 11 gastrointestinal endoscopic units. Data of pulse oximetric monitoring of 1249 endoscopic investigations were evaluated, of which 1183 were carried out with and 66 without sedation.

RESULTS

Oxygen saturation less than 90% was observed in 239 cases corresponding to 19.1% of all cases. It occurred most often during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (31.2%) and proximal enteroscopy (20%). Procedure-related risk factors proved to be the long duration of the investigation, premedication with pethidine (31.3%), and combined sedoanalgesia with pethidine and midazolam (34.38%). The age over 60 years, obesity, consumption of hypnotics or sedatives, severe cardiopulmonary state, and risk factor scores III and IV of the American Society of Anestwere found as patient-related risk factors.

CONCLUSION

To increase the safety of patients undergoing endoscopic investigation, pulse oximeter and oxygen supplementation should be the standard requirement in all of the endoscopic investigation rooms. Pulse oximetric monitoring is advised routinely during endoscopy with special regard to the risk factors of hypoxemia.

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.

Comparison of glucagon and scopolamine butylbromide as premedication for colonoscopy in unsedated patients

PURPOSE

Premedication with glucagon or hyoscyamine is reported to be effective in reducing colonic spasm. However, these drugs can be associated with unfavorable events. This prospective study was designed to compare the effects of premedication with glucagon with those of scopolamine butylbromide on cardiopulmonary parameters, intubation time, and patient discomfort in unsedated patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive adult patients (65 males) undergoing colonoscopy without sedation were randomized to receive 1 mg of glucagon (n = 50) or 20 mg of scopolamine butylbromide (n = 50), intramuscularly. Physiologic changes, including systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, were monitored before colonoscope insertion and at three-minute intervals during colonoscopy. The percentages of completed procedure and time to cecal intubation were recorded. Patients were asked to rate pain by using a five-point pain score (0 = no pain; 4 = severe pain).

RESULTS

The percentages of completed procedure (96 vs. 98 percent), time to cecal intubation (16.3 vs. 14.5 minutes), and pain score (1.7 vs. 1.5) did not differ significantly between two groups. An increase in heart rate of more than ten beats per minute from baseline during colonoscopy occurred significantly more often in scopolamine group (44 percent of 50 patients) than in the glucagon group (12 percent of 50 patients; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between the two study groups with regard to changes in systolic blood pressure and decrease in oxygen saturation during colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with 1 mg of glucagon facilitates favorable examination with respect to physiologic changes compared with 20 mg of scopolamine. These features favor glucagon as the preferred premedication for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Safety and efficacy of glucagon as a premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy--a comparative study with butyl scopolamine bromide

BACKGROUND

Glucagon inhibits digestive motility and is used for endoscopic premedication; however, its effect on cardiopulmonary function during endoscopy has not yet been fully investigated.

AIM

To clarify the efficacy and safety of glucagon compared with butyl scopolamine bromide as upper gastrointestinal endoscopy premedication.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty consecutive patients over 40 years of age, referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, without any complications, were studied. These patients were randomly premedicated with butyl scopolamine bromide (SC group) or glucagon (G group). Time course changes in blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate and the number of retching episodes during endoscopy were examined. The efficacy of glucose tablets after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to prevent hypoglycaemia caused by glucagon was evaluated. Cardiopulmonary parameters were also examined in 77 complicated patients with glucagon premedication (GC group).

RESULTS

A continuous increase in heart rate during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was observed in the SC group, but not in the G and GC groups. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation and number of retching episodes were not different between the groups. Hypoglycaemia-related symptoms were frequent in the G group without glucose tablets, but were prevented by the administration of glucose.

CONCLUSIONS

Glucagon has a weaker effect on cardiopulmonary function during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy than butyl scopolamine bromide. Glucose administration prevents hypoglycaemia-related symptoms caused by glucagon.

Perioperative morbidity and mortality of high-dose-rate gynecologic brachytherapy

PURPOSE

To determine the 30-day morbidity and mortality rates for patients with an intact uterus undergoing high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and to assess risk factors which may predict for these potentially life-threatening complications.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From August 1989 to December 1994, 128 cervical and 41 medically inoperable endometrial cancer patients were treated with 5 outpatient weekly HDR brachytherapy insertions. Patients with cervical cancer also were treated with external beam radiotherapy. Acute events that resulted in either hospitalization (morbidity) or death (mortality) within 30 days of the implant were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall there were 16 acute events in 169 patients (9.5%). The overall morbidity and mortality rates for the cervical and endometrial patients were 5.5%, 1.6%, 7.3%, and 9.8%, respectively. The following factors were significant by univariate analysis: age per decade, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), significant medical history, diagnosis of cervical vs. endometrial cancer, and mean time exceeding 160 minutes for the procedure. Since age was the most significant predictive factor (p = 0.0003), bivariate analyses were performed by adjusting for age. In these analyses only ASA and KPS maintained significance, while a positive medical history was of borderline significance (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The morbidity and mortality rates observed in gynecologic patients selected for HDR brachytherapy were similar to low-dose-rate, but higher than other HDR reports. Reasons for this include a higher risk population, especially those with medically inoperable endometrial cancer. In the cervical cancer patients, some of the complications may have also been a result of the external beam portion of the radiation. In order to minimize the acute complications observed in the present HDR brachytherapy system, the following changes have been implemented: appropriate patient selection, anesthesiology involvement to monitor conscious sedation for high-risk patients, external beam radiotherapy alone in patients at extremely high risk, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, use of intraoperative ultrasound, shorter duration in the brachytherapy suite, and preradiation treatment plans (plans executed prior to the insertion) if applicable. Finally, this analysis suggests that these procedures should be performed in a hospital-based setting where appropriate support is available.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under general anesthesia: indications and results

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation is usually used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Little is known about the indications and outcomes for ERCP in patients who cannot undergo conscious sedation and therefore require general anesthesia. We retrospectively evaluated the indications and outcome for patients undergoing ERCP who required general anesthesia at four teaching hospitals over a 2-year period.

METHODS

Of 1200 ERCPs performed over a 2-year period, 65 patients required general anesthesia. Retrospective chart analysis was undertaken to determine indications and outcomes of ERCP performed under general anesthesia. Eleven patients underwent sphincter of Oddi manometry.

RESULTS

The major indication for general anesthesia was substance abuse. Therapeutic intervention was successful in 45 of 48 patients; 6 of the 63 patients had complications, all mild and not related to the anesthesia. Sphincter of Oddi manometry was normal in 7 patients; 4 patients had elevated basal pressures.

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP under general anesthesia may be considered when conscious sedation fails to achieve a satisfactory level of sedation for a successful and safe ERCP. Procedure-related complication rates appear to be comparable if not lower with general anesthesia.