[Use of Diprivan for digestive system endoscopy]

Safety and efficacy of target-controlled infusion versus intermittent bolus administration of propofol for sedation in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of Target-Controlled Infusion (TCI) versus intermittent bolus of propofol for colonoscopy sedation.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized (1:1), single-blind, parallel-group superiority trial with fifty ASA I or II patients, both sexes, aged 18 to 65 years, Body Mass Index ≤ 30 kg.m-2, undergoing colonoscopy, allocated to receive propofol by TCI (effect-site, 2 μg.mL-1 plus 0.5 μg.mL-1 until unconsciousness and as necessary for agitation) or intermittent bolus (1 mg.kg-1 plus 0.5 mg.kg-1 every 5 minutes or as above). The primary safety outcome was the need for airway maneuvers and the primary efficacy outcome was the need for interventions to adjust the level of sedation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of agitation, propofol dose, and time to recovery.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) number of airway maneuvers and interventions needed to adjust sedation was 0 (0‒0) vs. 0 (0‒0) (p = 0.239) and 1 (0‒1) vs. 3 (1‒4) (p < 0.001) in the TCI and control groups, respectively. Agitation was more common in the intermittent bolus group ‒ 2 (0‒2) vs. 1 (0‒1), p < 0.001. The mean ± SD time to recovery was 4.9 ± 1.4 minutes in the TCI group vs. 2.3 ± 1.6 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). The total propofol dose was higher in the TCI group (234 ± 46 µg.kg-1.min-1 vs. 195 ± 44 µg.kg-1.min-1 (p = 0.040)).

CONCLUSIONS

During colonoscopy, TCI is as safe as intermittent bolus of propofol while reducing the incidence of agitation and the need for dose adjustments. However, intermittent bolus administration was associated with lower total propofol dose and earlier recovery.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy

Recently, the need for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasing. However, the National Health Insurance Drug Price list in Japan does not include any drug specifically used for the sedation. Although benzodiazepines are the main medication, their use in cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been approved. This has led the Japan Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society to develop the first set of guidelines for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy on the basis of evidence-based medicine in collaboration with the Japanese Society for Anesthesiologists. The present guidelines comprise 14 statements, five of which were judged to be valid on the highest evidence level and three on the second highest level. The guidelines are not intended to strongly recommend the use of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but rather to indicate the policy as to the choice of appropriate procedures when such sedation is deemed necessary. In clinical practice, the final decision as to the use of sedation should be made by physicians considering patient willingness and physical condition.

Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anaesthesia care during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We conducted an open, prospective, randomized study to compare the efficacy, safety and recovery characteristics of remifentanil or propofol during monitored anaesthesia care in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (1 mg kg(-1) followed by 10 mg kg (-1) h(-1), n = 20) or remifentanil (0.5 microg kg(-1) followed by 0.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1), n = 20). The infusion rate was subsequently adapted to clinical needs.

RESULTS

In the propofol group, arterial pressure and heart rate decreased significantly from the baseline. These variables remained unchanged in the remifentanil group, but hypoventilation occurred in 55% of patients. Early recovery was delayed in the propofol group (P < 0.002). Recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions was faster in the remifentanil group. Fifteen minutes after anaesthesia, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test score was 28.6 +/- 12.8 versus 36.2 +/- 9.4 and the Trieger Dot Test score was 25.6 +/- 8.1 versus 18.7 +/- 4.1 in the propofol and remifentanil groups, respectively (both P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction, using a visual analogue scale, was higher in the propofol group (96 +/- 7 versus 77 +/- 21, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil proved efficient in reducing pain during colonoscopy. Emergence times were shorter and the recovery of cognitive function was faster with remifentanil compared with propofol. Remifentanil provided a smoother haemodynamic profile than propofol; however, the frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced hypoventilation requires the cautious administration of this agent.

Deep sedation with inhaled sevoflurane for pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Sevoflurane is an inhaled anesthetic agent with ideal properties for achieving deep sedation during pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. This is a comparison of experience with this gas and other sedation methods used in the authors' hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review and statistical analysis of data from children receiving inhaled sevoflurane administered by an anesthesiologist through laryngeal insufflation, intravenous propofol, or intravenous midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine in any combination to achieve deep sedation for outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. Anesthesia was administered in a dedicated procedure room. The intravenous drugs were administered by pediatric intensivists in the intensive care unit. The same endoscopist performed all the procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 248 procedures were reviewed (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 67, propofol 114, and sevoflurane 67). All patients were adequately sedated with sevoflurane, and no intravenous access was required. Time (in minutes) to awakening (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 47.15, propofol 36.12, sevoflurane 5.70), discharge (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 141.99, propofol 91.20, sevoflurane 53.34), and total time, including induction and procedure (midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine 163.97, propofol 119.40, sevoflurane 73.93), were significantly lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The complication rate for sevoflurane (4.5%) was lower (P < 0.05) than for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (13.4%) and for propofol (17.5%). Charges for room use and medications were also lower for sevoflurane (P < 0.01). The total charges for sedation (U.S.$) were comparable for sevoflurane (688.10) and propofol (723.08) but were higher for midazolam-fentanyl-ketamine (855.10, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Deep sedation with inhaled sevoflurane for pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy is as safe as conventional sedation techniques, potentially less expensive, increases endoscopy unit productivity, and eliminates the inconvenience associated with obtaining intravenous access in children.