Remifentanil vs. meperidine for patient-controlled analgesia during colonoscopy: a randomized double-blind trial

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.

The Comparison of Two Different Techniques of Remifentanil Administration During Implantable Vascular Access Device Procedures

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of two different techniques of intravenous remifentanil administration in patients undergoing vascular; access device procedures with monitored anesthesia care.

DESIGN

A randomized, single-blinded controlled study.

METHODS

The patients (N = 92) were 30-80 years old and of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III. The first group was the continuous infusion group (group CI). Intravenous continuous remifentanil was infused after starting at a dosage of 0.1 mcg/kg/min, and the dose was raised incrementally up to 1 mcg/kg/min if required. The second group was intravenous bolus patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) with remifentanil infusion at a dose of 0.05 mcg/kg per minute and bolus of 0.1 mcg/kg with lock-out time of 3 minutes. In both groups, a bolus dose of 0.1 mcg/kg remifentanil was administered. The data evaluated include level of pain and sedation, total amount of remifentanil consumption, bolus doses of remifentanil, patient and surgeon satisfaction, hemodynamic data, and adverse events.

FINDINGS

In comparison between techniques, pain and sedation scores during procedure, duration of procedure, patient and surgeon satisfaction, additional rescue medication, and bolus doses were not statistically different (P > .05). The total amount of remifentanil administered was significantly lower in the infusion group than that in the bolus group (P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

For central venous access device procedures under monitored anesthesia care, remifentanil use in both infusion and bolus techniques could provide sufficient sedation and analgesia without serious adverse effects. Total remifentanil consumption amount in infusion group is lower than that in the bolus group.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation

Providing sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy continues to be a debated topic in both anesthesia and gastroenterology circles. Sedation approaches are widely varied across the globe. While propofol administration is embraced by more endoscopists and patients, its administration evolves controversy. Whereas trained nurses and gastroenterologists are allowed to administer propofol for GI endoscopy sedation in Europe and Asia, it is the sole privilege of anesthesia providers in the USA. However, the costs of anesthesia providers are significant and threaten to derail the screening colonoscopy practice. Efforts were made by both drug and device manufacturers to find alternatives. Fospropofol was one such effort that did not live up to the expectations due to respiratory depressant properties that were similar to propofol. Use of a new tool to administer propofol in the form of Sedasys® was the next experiment that tried to find alternative to anesthesia providers. The device did not succeed due to inadequate sedation. The latest effort is remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine that has quicker recovery profile. In the interim, many drug combinations such as propofol-dexmedetomidine and propofol-ketamine are improving the safety without compromising the quality of sedation. This review attempts to discuss the new drug innovations and drug combinations of existing sedatives for the benefit of readers.

Continuous intravenous versus intermittent bolus midazolam with remifentanil during arteriovenous fistula placement with monitored anesthesia care in chronic renal failure patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited data on the use of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) versus intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam for conscious sedation in patients with chronic renal failure. Unexpected adverse events can occur in chronic renal failure patients undergoing short procedures.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate and compare the sedoanalgesic and adverse effects of intravenous continuous infusion (CI) use of midazolam with intravenous intermittent bolus (IB) doses of midazolam while using intravenous remifentanil as a rescue medication, and assess patient and surgeon satisfaction.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled study.

SETTINGS

Two tertiary care hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Study included patients aged 43-81 years with a diagnosis of chronic renal failure who were referred for an arteriovenous fistula procedure with modified anesthesia care between August 2012 and April 2016. The patients were randomized to intravenous CI or IB doses of midazolam. IB doses of remifentanil were used as a rescue medication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were amounts of midazolam and remifentanil medications during the operation, the amount of remifentanil as a rescue medication, and the satisfaction of patient and surgeon.

SAMPLE SIZE

116 assessed for eligibility; 99 randomized to CI (n=50) or IB doses (n=49 of midazolam).

RESULTS

The total dose of midazolam by CI was greater than with midazolam by IB (P=.002). The total dose of remifentanil was higher with IB doses of midazolam in comparison to CI of midazolam (P=.001). The groups were similar in sedation and pain control, duration of procedure, recovery time, patient satisfaction and adverse events; surgeon satisfaction was greater with CI versus IB (P=.035).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous CI midazolam during MAC provides better surgeon satisfaction then IB midazolam and can be used safely for arteriovenous fistula procedures.

LIMITATIONS

Two different surgeon groups.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Comparison of the Sedation Quality of Etomidate, Propofol, and Midazolam in Combination with Fentanyl During Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

According to the favorable effects of combination therapy to provide better sedation during phacoemulsification and lack of any studies investigating the sedative effect of etomidate, propofol, and midazolam in combination with fentanyl during the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

The current study aimed at comparing the sedative properties of the mentioned three combination therapies in this field.

METHODS

The current double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients referred for elective phacoemulsification surgery under sedation. They were randomly allocated to the three groups to receive fentanyl plus one of the following medications: Propofol, midazolam, and etomidate. Demographic characteristics, medical condition, and hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after surgery, sedation level, anesthetic complications, sedation-related adverse events, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction were evaluated and recorded by the anesthesiologist and compared in the three studied groups.

RESULTS

In the current study, out of 150 enrolled patients, 98 completed the study. Frequency of different levels of Ramsay scores was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.41). Frequency of Ramsay scores 3 and 4 was 92%, 79.4%, and 88.2% in etomidate, midazolam and propofol groups, respectively (P = 0.32). The median recovery time was significantly higher in the midazolam group than the propofol group (P = 0.04); intergroup comparisons indicated that the patients' mean score of satisfaction in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the etomidate group (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study findings indicated that though the quality of sedation during phacoemulsification cataract surgery was acceptable in the three agents and the results had no significantly differences among the groups, and considering other factors including recovery time, hemodynamic evaluation, sedation-related complications, and patients' satisfication scores, it is suggested that propofol was superior to the other two agents.

Female Patients Require a Higher Propofol Infusion Rate for Sedation

Sedation may minimize physiologic and behavioral stress responses. In our facility, the infusion rate of propofol is adjusted according to the bispectral index (BIS) in all cases of implant-related surgery; multivariate analysis of retrospective data enabled us to extract independent factors that affect the dose of propofol in sedation that are considered useful indicators for achieving adequate sedation. The study population comprised all patients undergoing implant-related surgery under intravenous sedation in Okayama University Hospital from April 2009 to March 2013. The infusion rate of propofol was adjusted to maintain the BIS value at 70-80. The outcome was the average infusion rate of propofol, and potential predictor variables were age, sex, body weight, treatment time, and amount of midazolam. Independent variables that affected the average infusion rate of propofol were extracted with multiple regression analysis. One hundred twenty-five subjects were enrolled. In the multiple regression analysis, female sex was shown to be significantly associated with a higher average infusion rate of propofol. Females may require a higher infusion rate of propofol than males to achieve adequate sedation while undergoing implant-related surgery.

Brain measures of nociception using near-infrared spectroscopy in patients undergoing routine screening colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an invaluable tool for the screening and diagnosis of many colonic diseases. For most colonoscopies, moderate sedation is used during the procedure. However, insufflation of the colon produces a nociceptive stimulus that is usually accompanied by facial grimacing/groaning while under sedation. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a nociceptive signal elicited by colonic insufflation could be measured from the brain. Seventeen otherwise healthy patients (age 54.8 ± 9.1; 6 female) undergoing routine colonoscopy (ie, no history of significant medical conditions) were monitored using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). Moderate sedation was produced using standard clinical protocols for midazolam and meperidine, titrated to effect. Near-infrared spectroscopy data captured during the procedure was analyzed offline to evaluate the brains' responses to nociceptive stimuli evoked by the insufflation events (defined by physician or observing patients' facial responses). Analysis of NIRS data revealed a specific, reproducible prefrontal cortex activity corresponding to times when patients grimaced. The pattern of the activation is similar to that previously observed during nociceptive stimuli in awake healthy individuals, suggesting that this approach may be used to evaluate brain activity evoked by nociceptive stimuli under sedation, when there is incomplete analgesia. Although some patients report recollection of procedural pain after the procedure, the effects of repeated nociceptive stimuli in surgical patients may contribute to postoperative changes including chronic pain. The results from this study indicate that NIRS may be a suitable technology for continuous nociceptive afferent monitoring in patients undergoing sedation and could have applications under sedation or anesthesia.

Randomized comparison of recovery time after use of remifentanil alone versus midazolam and meperidine for colonoscopy anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although the combination of midazolam-meperidine has been widely used as a sedation regimen for colonoscopy, its residual effect which is longer than the duration of a colonoscopy procedure can delay patient recovery and discharge. Remifentanil, an ultra-short-acting opioid, has a very brief duration of action. We hypothesized that using remifentanil alone for colonoscopy would provide shorter recovery time compared with the midazolam-meperidine combination.

METHODS

Time to achieve Aldrete score = 10 was determined and compared in patients who were randomly allocated to receive remifentanil alone (group-R, n = 27) or a midazolam-meperidine combination (group-MM, n = 27) for colonoscopy. Intergroup differences in sedation, recall analgesia, cardio-respiratory profiles, and satisfaction of patient and endoscopist were also determined during and after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Group-R showed a significantly shorter recovery time than group-MM (median [25-75%], 0 [0-10] vs 30 [15-30] min, P < 0.001). Group-R showed significantly higher bispectral-index values during colonoscopy (92 [85-96] vs 84 [80-87], P = 0.001); a higher incidence of recall of explanations given during and after colonoscopy (100 vs 48% and 96 vs 52%, both P < 0.001); and a lower distress score (visual analog scale 30/100 vs 37/100 mm, P = 0.002), than did group-MM. Neither extent of pain, incidence of hemodynamic instability nor incidence of respiratory depression differed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil for colonoscopy afforded faster recovery compared to midazolam-meperidine combination. It also provided greater patient-endoscopist communication and satisfaction with comparable patient analgesia and cardiorespiratory profile during colonoscopy.

Patient-Controlled Remifentanil Analgesia as Alternative for Pethidine with Midazolam During Oocyte Retrieval in IVF/ICSI Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pethidine with midazolam-induced conscious sedation for pain relief during transvaginal oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures is associated with residual pain and oversedation. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with remifentanil may serve as an alternative for pethidine. We investigated whether PCA remifentanil with diclofenac was associated with improved periprocedural pain relief than pethidine analgesia during IVF/ICSI procedures, with sedation scores, safety profiles, and patient satisfaction as secondary endpoints.

METHODS

Seventy-six women were randomized to receive pethidine (2 mg/kg i.m.) and midazolam (7.5 mg)-induced conscious sedation (n = 40) or PCA with remifentanil and diclofenac (50 mg; n = 36). The Numeric Rating Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Ramsey Sedation Scale, and a 5-day pain-and-discomfort diary were used to evaluate pain and sedation levels.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics and reproductive outcomes between both groups. Periprocedural pain scores were comparable for remifentanil and pethidine groups (4 [3 to 7] vs. 6 [4 to 8]; P = 0.13). Pain scores in the pethidine group were significantly lower at 30 minutes after the procedure (1 [0 to 3] vs. 2 [1 to 5]; P = 0.016), but at cost of higher sedation levels when compared to remifentanil (4 [2 to 4] vs. 2 [2 to 2]; P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was higher, and MPQ scores were lower in the remifentanil group. There were no differences in safety profiles between both analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil showed a similar reduction in pain scores than pethidine with midazolam during oocyte retrieval, while pethidine induced the highest pain relief after the procedure. However, PCA remifentanil was associated with less sedation and a better patient satisfaction profile than pethidine.

Two dosages of remifentanil for patient-controlled analgesia vs. meperidine during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY: Combined use of opiates and benzodiazepines often results in delayed discharge after colonoscopy.

AIMS

To compare sedation quality of two dosages of patient controlled analgesia remifentanil with one another and with that of a midazolam-meperidine association during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups. Group M received a meperidine bolus (0.7 mg/kg) and sham patient controlled analgesia. Group R1 received remifentanil 0.5 μg/kg and group R2 remifentanil 0.8 μg/kg together with a patient-controlled analgesia pump injecting further boluses (2-min lock-out). Technical difficulties of the examination, gastroenterologist's and patient's satisfaction with sedoanalgesia were evaluated after colonoscopy on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Patient's satisfaction was assessed 24 h later.

RESULTS

Group M had more adverse events (p = 0.044), required more rescue boluses (p = 0.0010), had lower Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale score at the end of the procedure (p = 0.0016) and longer discharge time (p = 0.0001). Groups R1 and R2 did not differ with respect to these variables. Patient's degree of pain and satisfaction with sedo-analgesia, endoscopist's technical difficulty and satisfaction were not different among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is a safe approach to sedation for colonoscopy.

Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy

The safe sedation of patients for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures requires a combination of properly trained physicians and suitable facilities. Additionally, appropriate selection and preparation of patients, suitable sedative technique, application of drugs, adequate monitoring, and proper recovery of patients is essential. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) vary widely. The majority of GIE patients are ambulatory cases. Most of this procedure requires a short time. So, short acting, rapid onset drugs with little adverse effects and improved safety profiles are commonly used. The present review focuses on commonly used regimens and monitoring practices in GIE sedation. This article is to discuss the decision making process used to determine appropriate pre-sedation assessment, monitoring, drug selection, dose of sedative agents, sedation endpoint and post-sedation care. It also reviews the current status of sedation and monitoring for GIE procedures in Thailand.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Comparison between the recovery time of alfentanil and fentanyl in balanced propofol sedation for gastrointestinal and colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

Background

There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.

It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl.

Methods

A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared.

Results

260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups.

Conclusions

This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case.

Trial registration

Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575)

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

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.

[Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Sedative and analgesic premedication is frequently used during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sedation improves patient's compliance, helping the examinations and their safe completion, but it lengthens the procedures, increases the costs, and complications can occur. Sedative drugs are applied during upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and also at ERCP. The review summarizes the different forms of sedation, drugs, future techniques and possibilities of improvements. Moreover, sedation practice in Hungary is also described.

Remifentanil, a different opioid: potential clinical applications and safety aspects

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Opioids play an important role in every aspect of modern anesthetic practice. Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid featuring a unique pharmacokinetic profile allowing clinical versatility and improved control of its action. In this review, we assess the pharmacology of remifentanil, its clinical uses as well as safety issues on its action on the major organ systems and in particular clinical settings.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

A synthesis of evidence from a MEDLINE search for articles from 1993 to 2009 for available up-to-date information on remifentanil and its current applications and safety profile.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A synopsis of the unique pharmacokinetic properties of remifentanil and its action on major organ systems will provide insight on the safe and effective use of the drug in a variety of clinical settings.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Remifentanil is a valuable opioid in the armamentarium of the clinician, providing great clinical flexibility and safety but vigilance is required to avoid pitfalls.

Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: What’s new?

Various types of sedation and analgesia technique have been used during gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. The best methods for analgesia and sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy are still debated. Providing an adequate regimen of sedation/analgesia might be considered an art, influencing several aspects of endoscopic procedures: the quality of the examination, the patient’s cooperation and the patient’s and physician’s satisfaction with the sedation. The properties of a model sedative agent for endoscopy would include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level of sedation, rapid recovery and an excellent safety profile. Therefore there is an impulse for development of new approaches to endoscopic sedation. This article provides an update on the methods of sedation today available and future directions in endoscopic sedation.