A comparison of midazolam and diazepam for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in a prospective double-blind study

Sedation reversal trends at outpatient ambulatory endoscopic center vs in-hospital ambulatory procedure center using a triage protocol

BACKGROUND

Routine outpatient endoscopy is performed across a variety of outpatient settings. A known risk of performing endoscopy under moderate sedation is the potential for over-sedation, requiring the use of reversal agents. More needs to be reported on rates of reversal across different outpatient settings. Our academic tertiary care center utilizes a triage tool that directs higher-risk patients to the in-hospital ambulatory procedure center (APC) for their procedure. Here, we report data on outpatient sedation reversal rates for endoscopy performed at an in-hospital APC vs at a free-standing ambulatory endoscopy digestive health center (AEC-DHC) following risk stratification with a triage tool.

AIM

To observe the effect of risk stratification using a triage tool on patient outcomes, primarily sedation reversal events.

METHODS

We observed all outpatient endoscopy procedures performed at AEC-DHC and APC from April 2013 to September 2019. Procedures were stratified to their respective sites using a triage tool. We evaluated each procedure for which sedation reversal with flumazenil and naloxone was recorded. Demographics and characteristics recorded include patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type, and reason for sedation reversal.

RESULTS

There were 97366 endoscopic procedures performed at AEC-DHC and 22494 at the APC during the study period. Of these, 17 patients at AEC-DHC and 9 at the APC underwent sedation reversals (0.017% vs 0.04%; P = 0.06). Demographics recorded for those requiring reversal at AEC-DHC vs APC included mean age (53.5 ± 21 vs 60.4 ± 17.42 years; P = 0.23), ASA class (1.66 ± 0.48 vs 2.22 ± 0.83; P = 0.20), BMI (27.7 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs 23.7 ± 4.03 kg/m2; P = 0.06), and female gender (64.7% vs 22%; P = 0.04). The mean doses of sedative agents and reversal drugs used at AEC-DHC vs APC were midazolam (5.9 ± 1.7 mg vs 8.9 ± 3.5 mg; P = 0.01), fentanyl (147.1 ± 49.9 μg vs 188.9 ± 74.1 μg; P = 0.10), flumazenil (0.3 ± 0.18 μg vs 0.17 ± 0.17 μg; P = 0.13) and naloxone (0.32 ± 0.10 mg vs 0.28 ± 0.12 mg; P = 0.35). Procedures at AEC-DHC requiring sedation reversal included colonoscopies (n = 6), esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (n = 9) and EGD/colonoscopies (n = 2), whereas APC procedures included EGDs (n = 2), EGD with gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 2) and endoscopic ultrasound's (n = 4). The indications for sedation reversal at AEC-DHC included hypoxia (n = 13; 76%), excessive somnolence (n = 3; 18%), and hypotension (n = 1; 6%), whereas, at APC, these included hypoxia (n = 7; 78%) and hypotension (n = 2; 22%). No sedation-related deaths or long-term post-sedation reversal adverse outcomes occurred at either site.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the effectiveness of a triage tool used at our tertiary care hospital for risk stratification in minimizing sedation reversal events during outpatient endoscopy procedures. Using a triage tool for risk stratification, low rates of sedation reversal can be achieved in the ambulatory settings for EGD and colonoscopy.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Training and Competency in Sedation Practice in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The practice of endoscopic sedation requires a thorough understanding of preprocedural assessment, sedation pharmacology, intraprocedure monitoring, adverse event management, and postprocedural care. The training process has become increasingly standardized and entails knowledge and practice-based components. The use of propofol in particular requires a higher level of structured training owing to its narrow therapeutic window. Simulation has increased opportunities for practice-based training in a controlled environment. After completion of training, the endoscopist must demonstrate competence in theoretical understanding and technical ability to administer sedation. Although individual institutions have certification processes, there is a lack of validated, standardized methods to confirm competence.

Clinical analysis of moderate-to-deep-sedation by nonmedical sedation practitioners in 597 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether moderate-to-deep sedation with propofol and alfentanil can be administered safely by nonmedical sedation practitioners, and the outcomes of this practice in the Netherlands. We retrospectively analyzed the occurrence of sedation-related complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, 597 adult patients consecutively underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The health status of the patients was screened according to a standardized protocol, and the patients were sedated by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners. Their vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded. All patients received oxygen, and the depth of sedation was continuously assessed and recorded. Mild and severe complications were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients recovered uneventfully, and no mortality occurred. Overall, of the 597 sedated patients, 85 had mild and 4 had severe complications. Hypoxemia and upper airway obstruction, which were easily managed by trained nonmedical sedation practitioners, were the most common events. Hypotension was rare. No signs or symptoms suggestive of aspiration were reported.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-to-deep sedation has been and continues to be a risky medical procedure. Serious complications of propofol/opioid-based sedation, especially respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events, may occur. These complications need to be recognized rapidly and appropriately managed. Our study shows that well-trained nonmedical sedation practitioners can be entrusted to take responsibility for the safe administration of moderate-to-deep sedation.

Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?

OBJECTIVE

to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation.

METHODS

patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation.

RESULTS

thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background:

Traditionally, midazolam has been used for providing conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recently, dexmedetomidine has been tried, but very little evidence exists to support its use.

Objective:

The primary objective was to compare haemodynamic, respiratory and recovery profile of both drugs. Secondary objective was to compare the degree of comfort experienced by patients and the usefulness of the drug to endoscopist.

Study Design:

Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial.

Methods:

Subjects between 18 and 60 years of age with American Society of Anaesthesiologist Grade I-II requiring ERCP were enrolled in two groups (30 each). Both groups received fentanyl 1 μg/kg IV at the beginning of ERCP. Group M received IV midazolam (0.04 mg/kg) and additional 0.5 mg doses until Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score reached 3-4. Group D received dexmedetomidine at loading dose of 1 μg/kg over 10 min followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion until RSS reached 3-4. The vital parameters (heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), respiration rate, SpO₂), time to achieve RSS 3-4 and facial pain score (FPS) were compared during and after the procedure. In the recovery room, time to reach modified Aldrete score (MAS) 9-10 and patient and surgeon's satisfaction scores was also recorded and compared. Any complication during or after the procedure were also noted.

Results:

In Group D, patients had lower HR and FPS at 5, 10 and 15 min following the initiation of sedation (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in BP and respiratory rate. The procedure elicited a gag response in 29 (97%) and 7 (23%) subjects in Group M and Group D respectively (P<0.05). MAS of 9-10 at 5 min during recovery was achieved in 27 (90%) subjects in Group D in contrast to 5 (17%) in Group M (P<0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed higher patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine can be a superior alternative to midazolam for conscious sedation in ERCP.

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.

Endoscopic sedation: from training to performance

Adequate sedation and analgesia are considered essential requirements to relieve patient discomfort and pain and ultimately to improve the outcomes of modern gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The willingness of patients to undergo sedation during endoscopy has increased steadily in recent years and standard sedation practices are needed for both patient safety and successful procedural outcomes. Therefore, regular training and education of healthcare providers is warranted. However, training curricula and guidelines for endoscopic sedation may have conflicts according to varying legal frameworks and/or social security systems of each country, and well-recognized endoscopic sedation training systems are not currently available in all endoscopy units. Although European and American curricula for endoscopic sedation have been extensively developed, general curricula and guidelines for each country and institution are also needed. In this review, an overview of recent curricula and guidelines for training and basic performance of endoscopic sedation is presented based on the current literature.

Effects of anesthetics, sedatives, and opioids on ventilatory control

This article provides a comprehensive, up to date summary of the effects of volatile, gaseous, and intravenous anesthetics and opioid agonists on ventilatory control. Emphasis is placed on data from human studies. Further mechanistic insights are provided by in vivo and in vitro data from other mammalian species. The focus is on the effects of clinically relevant agonist concentrations and studies using pharmacological, that is, supraclinical agonist concentrations are de-emphasized or excluded.

Safety of midazolam for sedation of HIV-positive patients undergoing colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Because of concerns regarding interactions between midazolam and antiretroviral therapy (ART), alternative sedatives are sometimes used during procedural sedation. Our objective was to compare outcomes in patients on ART who received intravenous (iv) midazolam vs. iv diazepam, a second-line agent, during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult HIV-positive patients who underwent colonoscopy over a 3.5-year period. Primary outcomes were sedation duration, nadir systolic blood pressure (SBP), nadir oxygen saturation, abnormal cardiac rhythm, and change in level of consciousness using a standardized scale. We calculated rates of adverse events according to benzodiazepine use and identified risk factors for complications using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 136 patients for this analysis: 70 received midazolam-based sedation and 66 received a diazepam-based regimen. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to sedation duration (mean 48.0 vs. 45.7 minutes for the midazolam and diazepam groups, respectively; P = 0.68), nadir SBP (mean 97.0 vs. 101.6 mmHg; P = 0.06), nadir oxygen saturation (mean 94.6 vs. 94.8%; P = 0.72) or rate of abnormal cardiac rhythm (11.4 vs. 19.7%; P = 0.18). More patients in the midazolam group experienced a depressed level of consciousness (91% vs. 74% in the diazepam group; P = 0.0075), but no patient required reversal of sedation or became unresponsive.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that patients who received midazolam for procedural sedation had clinical outcomes statistically different from those who received diazepam. These findings should be confirmed in prospective studies or in a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? A randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam

BACKGROUND

This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.

AIMS

The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.

METHODS

Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.

RESULT

Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of moderate sedation for routine endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Numerous agents are available for moderate sedation in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare efficacy, safety, and efficiency of agents used for moderate sedation in EGD or colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Systematic review of computerized bibliographic databases for randomized trials of moderate sedation that compared 2 active regimens or 1 active regimen with placebo or no sedation.

PATIENTS

Unselected adults undergoing EGD or colonoscopy with a goal of moderate sedation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-related complications, patient assessments (satisfaction, pain, memory, willingness to repeat examination), physician assessments (satisfaction, level of sedation, patient cooperation, examination quality), and procedure-related efficiency outcomes (sedation, procedure, or recovery time).

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (N = 3918 patients) were included. Sedation improved patient satisfaction (relative risk [RR] = 2.29, range 1.16-4.53) and willingness to repeat EGD (RR = 1.25, range 1.13-1.38) versus no sedation. Midazolam provided superior patient satisfaction to diazepam (RR = 1.18, range 1.07-1.29) and less frequent memory of EGD (RR = 0.57, range 0.50-0.60) versus diazepam. Adverse events and patient/physician assessments were not significantly different for midazolam (with or without narcotics) versus propofol except for slightly less patient satisfaction (RR = 0.90, range 0.83-0.97) and more frequent memory (RR = 3.00, range 1.25-7.21) with midazolam plus narcotics. Procedure times were similar, but sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than midazolam-based regimens.

LIMITATIONS

Marked variability in design, regimens tested, and outcomes assessed; relatively poor methodologic quality (Jadad score </=3 in 23/36 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation provides a high level of physician and patient satisfaction and a low risk of serious adverse events with all currently available agents. Midazolam-based regimens have longer sedation and recovery times than does propofol.

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.

Sedation with midazolam for electrical cardioversion

BACKGROUND

Electrical cardioversion (ECV) usually requires the assistance of the anesthesiology team. To avoid this dependence, previous studies have considered the use of sedation with benzodiazepines administered by cardiologists. We describe our experience with intravenous Midazolam during cardioversion.

METHODS

We performed 280 ECV in 202 patients sedated with intravenous Midazolam, without anesthesiology supervision. In scheduled cardioversions, we tested two protocols of Midazolam administration: a bolus of 3 mg, followed by 2 mg each minute until necessary, and a loading dose of 0.09-0.1 mg/kg. In cardioversions performed during electrophysiology studies or defibrillator implant, Midazolam was administered by small repeated doses during the entire procedure.

RESULTS

Midazolam was effective to obtain adequate sedation in 99% of cases. All patients had amnesia with regards of the cardioversion. A loading dose of Midazolam allowed a shortening of the procedural time without serious adverse events. Intubation or the assistance of an anesthetist was never necessary.

CONCLUSION

Sedation with Midazolam for ECV is effective and well tolerated, with some cautions discussed. A loading dose of Midazolam is well tolerated and further reduces the procedural time.

Clinical analysis of propofol deep sedation for 1,104 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A three year prospective study

AIM: To analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of propofol on patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS: In this prospective study, conducted over a period of three years, 1,104 patients referred for a same day GI endoscopy procedure were analyzed. All patients were given a propofol bolus (0.5-1.5 mg/kg). Arterial blood pressure (BP) was monitored at 3 min intervals and heart rate and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded continuously by pulse oximetry. Analyzed data acquisition was carried out before, during, and after the procedure.

RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in mean arterial pressure was demonstrated (P <0.001) when compared to pre-intervention values, but severe hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure below 60 mmHg, was noted in only 5 patients (0.5%). Oxygen saturation decreased from 96.5% to 94.4 % (P<0.001). A critical decrease in oxygen saturation (<90%) was documented in 27 patients (2.4%).

CONCLUSION: Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant hemodynamic side effects if carefully titrated. All the patients (and especially ASA III group) require monitoring and care of an anesthesiologist.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Characteristics of??Medications Used for Moderate Sedation

The ability to deliver safe and effective moderate sedation is crucial to the ability to perform invasive procedures. Sedative drugs should have a quick onset of action, provide rapid and clear-headed recovery, and be easy to administer and monitor. A number of drugs have been demonstrated to provide effective sedation for outpatient procedures but since each agent has its own limitations, a thorough knowledge of the available drugs is required to choose the appropriate drug, dose and/or combination regimen for individual patients. Midazolam, propofol, ketamine and sevoflurane are the most frequently used agents, and all have a quick onset of action and rapid recovery. The primary drawback of midazolam is the potential for accumulation of the drug, which can result in prolonged sedation and a hangover effect. The anaesthetics propofol and sevoflurane have recently been used for sedation in procedures of short duration. Although effective, these agents require monitored anaesthesia care. Ketamine is an effective agent, particularly in children, but there is concern regarding emergence reactions. AQUAVAN injection (fospropofol disodium), a phosphorylated prodrug of propofol, is an investigational agent possessing a unique and distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Compared with propofol emulsion, AQUAVAN is associated with a slightly longer time to peak effect and a more prolonged pharmacodynamic effect. Advances in the delivery of sedation, including the development of new sedative agents, have the potential to further improve the provision of moderate sedation for a variety of invasive procedures.

Efficacy, safety, and limitations in current practice of sedation and analgesia

The ease and availability of endoscopy as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for gastrointestinal disorders has greatly increased the number of procedures performed in the United States. One of the main factors in achieving a flawless procedure is the use of sedation and analgesia in endoscopy. This article examines the efficacy, safety, and limitations inherent in the current practice of sedation and analgesia.

Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Safety of propofol for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures in high-risk patients-a prospective, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Propofol, a rapidly-acting hypnotic agent, is increasingly being used for endoscopic sedation. Serious adverse effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular depression, make many endoscopists reluctant to use propofol in critically ill patients. This study characterizes propofol's safety profile in consecutive high-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classes III and IV) compared with matched subjects (ASA classes I and II).

METHODS

During a 19-month period, 1370 at risk-patients were sedated with propofol, of whom 47% (614 ASA III, 28 ASA IV) were age matched with 642 consecutive patients of the same gender and age assigned to ASA classes I and II and undergoing the same endoscopic procedures (395 gastroscopies, 201 colonoscopies, 14 combined). Registered nurses performed all sedations by propofol dose titration while carefully monitoring arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure.

RESULTS

No major complications occurred among the critically ill patients. There was, however, an increased risk for a short relevant oxygen desaturation (<90%) of 3.6% for ASA III and IV versus 1.7% for ASA I and II (p = 0.036). In four versus one case, short mask ventilation was necessary. Also, a greater proportion of patients showed a > or =5% oxygen saturation decrease. There was no pronounced influence on arterial pressure or heart rate and no perforations in 336 colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

With careful monitoring, propofol sedation during GI endoscopies is safe, even for high-risk patients. Considering their higher comorbidity and tendency toward oxygen desaturation, they need particularly careful monitoring, and the required dose is, on mean, 10-20% lower than in ASA classes I and II.

Midazolam-induced sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: assessment of endoscopist and patient satisfaction

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy can be performed without intravenous sedation but the evidence suggests most patients and endoscopists prefer some form of premedication. Intravenous diazepam or midazolam are used by the majority of endoscopists in the United States, though it is not common practice in Turkey where this study was conducted. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midazolam in performing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A total of 352 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were sedated with midazolam given as a bolus injection over 5 seconds. Ages of the patients ranged between 16 and 79 years (average: 41.6 +/- 12.7 years). The course of endoscopy, anterograde memory, degree of cooperation, degree of sedation, side effects, and acceptability of further intervention were evaluated by a questionnaire given to the patients and endoscopists.

Sedation for endoscopy

A review of the recent literature reveals an increasing published opinion in favour of unsedated endoscopy. However, recent studies show that the majority of US patients are unwilling or unable to tolerate this. In order for there to be a shift towards unsedated endoscopy, physicians will have to change patients' expectations. The indications for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures continue to expand, involving increasingly complex techniques that require a high degree of patient cooperation. There is still a need to refine the sedative regimen for these cases.