A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of droperidol as a sedative premedication for EUS

The Effect of Preoperative Anxiety and Pain Sensitivity on Preoperative Hemodynamics, Propofol Consumption, and Postoperative Recovery and Pain in Endoscopic Ultrasonography

INTRODUCTION

The present study investigates how preoperative anxiety and pain sensitivity affect the consumption of anesthetics, time elapsed until the desired sedation level is achieved, preoperative hemodynamics, postoperative recovery time, and postoperative pain.

METHODS

The present study includes 80 ASA 1-2 patients aged between 20 and 65 who were scheduled for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) under sedation. Patients were instructed to fill out the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ) before the procedure. For sedation, 0.03 mg  kg^-1 intravenous midazolam, 1 mg  kg^-1 lidocaine, 1 µ kg^-1 fentanyl, and then a bolus dose of 1 mg kg^-1 propofol were infused over a period of 60 s. The time elapsed until the bispectral index (BIS) value reached 75 was recorded. For anesthesia maintenance, 2 mg  kg^-1 h^-1 propofol infusion was administered. In the case of sedation failure, an additional dose of 0.1 mg  kg^-1 propofol (IV) was administered to ensure sedation depth with a BIS level of 65-75, and the propofol infusion was halted once the BIS value dropped below 65.

RESULTS

STAI-S and STAI-T scores were significantly positively correlated with PSQ minor pain and PSQ total scores. The time elapsed until reaching a BIS level of 75, propofol infusion dose used during sedation, and the need for additional doses of propofol, heart rate (HR), and duration of post-anesthesia care unit stay were significantly positively correlated with both preoperative anxiety and preoperative pain sensitivity. In terms of postoperative pain, the visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 h was more highly correlated with STAI-S and STAI-T than with PSQ. The VAS 2 h was only correlated with STAI-S and STAI-T.

CONCLUSION

The significant linear correlation between preoperative anxiety and pain sensitivity and anesthesia need can facilitate better preoperative management by predicting individual anesthetic consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with the number NCT03114735 on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Anaesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography is used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. It is relatively more complex than routine endoscopies and requires adequate patient sedation. Furthermore the patients often have co-morbidities. This article provides an overview of various anaesthetic drugs and the type of anaesthesiological support.

Prospective evaluation of adjunctive ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility in humans

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) at endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatogram (ERCP) is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is used as an adjunctive agent in patients who are difficult to sedate. Concerns regarding the safety profile of droperidol and its effects on sphincter of Oddi motility has resulted in the search for other potent sedative agents that do not influence SOM readings. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, is increasingly being used as an adjunctive agent for conscious sedation. This study evaluates the effect of ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility when used as an adjunctive sedative agent during ERCP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of 30 consecutive patients undergoing SOM who were difficult to sedate and required adjunctive ketamine. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam plus meperidine or a combination of diazepam plus meperidine and midazolam. After the initial two pull-throughs, 20 mg of ketamine was administered intravenously and the measurements were repeated 5 min later.

RESULTS

The basal pressures of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by ketamine. By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure >or=40 mmHg, concordance (normal vs abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after ketamine was seen in 28 patients (93%). Ketamine also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. No complication was associated with ketamine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine at 20 mg did not significantly affect SOM parameters. Further studies are required to confirm our preliminary findings before ketamine can be added to the armamentarium of agents used for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry.

Midazolam and pethidine versus propofol and fentanyl patient controlled sedation/analgesia for upper gastrointestinal tract ultrasound endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the standard regimen of midazolam and pethidine administered by the gastroenterologist versus patient controlled sedation with a propofol-fentanyl mixture during upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography. Our primary end-points were patient satisfaction and patient cooperation assessed by endoscopist.

METHODS

Fifty-four consecutive patients, undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography, received sedation with midazolam and pethidine (Group M: n=27) or propofol and fentanyl (Group P: n=27). Group M: pethidine 0.7mg/kg midazolam 0.04mg/kg before examination; boluses of same drugs if the sedation was insufficient plus a sham patient controlled sedation analgesia; Group P: propofol 17mg plus fentanyl 15microg before examination and a patient controlled sedation analgesia pump containing 170mg propofol plus 150microg fentanyl injecting 0.5ml every time the patient pressed the button (no "lock out"). Boluses of 1ml of the same mixture if the sedation was insufficient.

RESULTS

Group M: mean dosage of pethidine and midazolam 88.6 and 5mg, respectively. Group P: mean dosage of propofol and fentanyl 119.7mg and 106microg, respectively. Both groups were similar for duration and difficulty of the procedure, the grade of sedation (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score) and judgement by endoscopist and patient about cooperation and satisfaction. The only difference between groups was about the extra boluses administered during the procedure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a patient controlled sedation analgesia with propofol and fentanyl is an effective and safe technique for upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopic ultrasonography procedures and results in a high level of satisfaction both for patients and operator.

Target-controlled infusion during monitored anesthesia care in patients undergoing EUS: propofol alone versus midazolam plus propofol. A prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation.

AIM

To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion.

METHODS

Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation.

RESULTS

The mean propofol dose administered was 364+/-207 mg in group A and 394+/-204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32+/-17 min, group B: 35+/-22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39+/-30 min, group B: 38+/-24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant.

CONCLUSIONS

Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.

Endoscopic ultrasonography: equipment and technique

By definition, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combines endoscopy and high-frequency ultrasound, incorporating a small ultrasonic transducer into the tip of endoscopes. For the upper gastrointestinal tract, mostly oblique-viewing endoscopes are used, although recently, forward viewing instruments have become available. For colorectal EUS, rigid probes for the rectum and a flexible forward-viewing echocolonoscope are available. EUS generates ultrasound either mechanically or electronically, depending on the type of instrument used. The electronic technique potentially allows the incorporation of (color) Doppler ultrasound, which allows for additional processing and postprocessing functions. This generally is considered the EUS technique of the future.

Prospective evaluation of droperidol on sphincter of Oddi motility

BACKGROUND

Droperidol increasingly is used as an effective adjunct for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures. Given the concern for the effects of narcotics and benzodiazepines on sphincter of Oddi motility, and the potential difficulty in sedating patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry, droperidol could be an ideal agent in this setting.

METHODS

Over a 43-month period, consecutive patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry were studied prospectively. Sphincter of Oddi manometry was performed under general anesthesia in all but 10 patients. Standard retrograde pull-through techniques were used to examine the biliary and/or pancreatic sphincter, depending on the indication for sphincter of Oddi manometry. After the initial two pull-throughs, 5 mg of droperidol were given intravenously and measurements were repeated 5 minutes later.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were studied (42 women [76%], 13 men; mean age 43 years). The basal biliary sphincter pressures measured in 35 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 56 mm Hg and 48 mm Hg (p = 0.02); the basal pancreatic sphincter pressures measured in 22 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 92 mm Hg and 67 mm Hg (p = 0.29). By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure greater than 40 mm Hg, droperidol would have resulted in a change in diagnosis in 5 patients undergoing biliary manometry (one misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, 4 misclassified as normal), and 6 patients undergoing pancreatic sphincter manometry (5 misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, one misclassified as normal) (total 19% of procedures). No complication was associated with droperidol use.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol alters basal sphincter pressures, which in some patients was clinically significant and would have resulted in misclassification. Although safe and well tolerated, droperidol appears to have subtle but clinically significant effects on the sphincter of Oddi.

Effects of droperidol on the pancreatic and biliary sphincters

BACKGROUND

Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry at ERCP is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is frequently administered when adequate sedation cannot be achieved with a benzodiazepine and meperidine. This study examined the effects of droperidol on the biliary and pancreatic sphincters.

METHODS

A total of 31 patients were prospectively evaluated by sphincter of Oddi manometry in the conventional retrograde fashion. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam alone, diazepam plus meperidine or midazolam plus meperidine. Manometry was then repeated 5 minutes after droperidol was administered.

RESULTS

The basal pressure of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by droperidol. Concordance (normal vs. abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after droperidol was seen in 30 patients (97%). Droperidol also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. Thirteen manometry tracings (42%) were judged as being qualitatively better after droperidol, whereas two (6.5%; </= p 0.001) were qualitatively better before droperidol administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol does not significantly affect sphincter of Oddi manometric parameters. It appears that it can be added to the armamentarium of agents needed for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry. However, further study is needed to determine whether recent safety concerns with droperidol use are valid.

Conscious sedation for EUS of the esophagus and stomach: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing midazolam with placebo

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing EUS usually receive intravenously administered sedative medication. A double-blind, prospective, randomized trial was conducted to compare midazolam with a placebo for EUS of the esophagus and stomach and to assess patient tolerance and endoscopic feasibility.

METHODS

A total of 111 patients were randomized to receive midazolam or a placebo. Patients used a visual analogue scale to score pre-EUS anxiety and tolerance for the procedure. Endoscopists used a visual analogue scale to score ease of echoendoscope introduction and overall patient cooperation. Subsequent to EUS, patients were asked if they were willing to undergo the procedure under the same conditions.

RESULTS

The patients' visual analogue scale scores indicated that tolerance for the introduction of the echoendoscope and the procedure overall were both significantly better in the midazolam group. Overall patient tolerance was predicted by sedation (p < 0.001) and pre-EUS anxiety (p = 0.024). Endoscopists' visual analogue scale scores showed that ease of echoendoscope introduction was significantly better in the midazolam group. There was no significant difference in overall patient cooperation during the procedure. There were no significant differences in introduction time, total procedure time, or patients' willingness to undergo the procedure under the same conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS of the esophagus and stomach without intravenous sedation is feasible for endoscopists and patients. Patients prefer intravenous administration of midazolam. Assessment of anxiety before EUS may indicate whether administration of midazolam can improve tolerance for the individual patient.

Droperidol in the emergency department: is it safe?

Droperidol is an antipsychotic and antiemetic drug that has been used extensively by emergency physicians, psychiatrists, and anesthesiologists worldwide since 1967. It also has been used effectively for other diverse conditions, such as treatment of headache and vertigo. As of January 2001, Droperidol was no longer available in Europe after its founder, Janssen-Cilag Pharmaceuticals, discontinued its distribution. In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a black box warning on the use of Droperidol in response to an association between Droperidol and fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes, resulting from prolongation of the QT interval. In this review we closely examine the pharmacology, indications, use, and complications associated with Droperidol, and speculate on its future use in the Emergency Department.