A comparison of target-controlled therapy with patient-controlled administration of propofol combined with midazolam for sedation during dental surgery

Efficacy and cost analysis of intravenous conscious sedation for long oral surgery procedures

The aim of this study was to determine what is considered a long oral surgery and conduct a cost-effective analysis of sedative agents used for intravenous sedation (IVS) and sedation protocols for such procedures. Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were used to identify human studies employing IVS for extractions and implant-related surgeries, between 2003 and July/2023. Sedation protocols and procedure lengths were documented. Sedative satisfaction, operator satisfaction, and sedation assessment were also recorded. Cost estimation was based on The British National Formulary (BNF). To assess bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were employed. This review identified 29 randomised control trials (RCT), six cohorts, 14 case-series, and one case-control study. The study defined long procedures with an average duration of 31.33 minutes for extractions and 79.37 minutes for implant-related surgeries. Sedative agents identified were midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam. Cost analysis revealed midazolam as the most cost-effective option (<10 pence per procedure per patient) and propofol the most expensive option (approximately £46.39). Bias analysis indicated varying degrees of bias in the included studies. Due to diverse outcome reporting, a comparative network approach was employed and revealed benefits of using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam over midazolam. Midazolam, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam demonstrated safety and efficacy as sedative agents for conscious IVS in extended procedures like extractions or implant-related surgeries. While midazolam is the most cost-effective option, dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remimazolam offer subjective and clinical benefits. The relatively higher cost of propofol may impede its widespread use. Dexmedetomidine and remimazolam stand out as closely priced options, necessitating further clinical investigations for comparative efficacy assessment.

Comparison of propofol and the combination of propofol and alfentanil during bronchoscopy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

propofol is an excellent sedative agent for use in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. The addition of an opioid to propofol can be advantageous because of the antitussive effect of the opioid and the possible improvement in sedation quality. However, it may increase the risk of hypoxaemia. To investigate the effect of the addition of alfentanil to propofol, we performed a prospective study to compare propofol-only sedation with propofol-alfentanil combination sedation in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.

METHODS

patients were randomly assigned either to the propofol-only (group P, n=32) or to the propofol-alfentanil combination group (group PA, n=32). The average peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO(2) ) and the lowest SpO(2) during the sedation were compared. Patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction as well as the degree of coughing were compared using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, where 0 indicated the least and 100 indicated the most satisfied.

RESULTS

group P had the higher average SpO(2) (%) during the procedure than group PA (97.8 ± 1.6 and 96.4 ± 1.1, P<0.01) as well as the lowest SpO(2) (%) (95.4 ± 2.7 and 94.0 ± 2.4, P<0.05). Patient satisfaction (92.2 ± 13.5 and 92.3 ± 18.2), bronchoscopist satisfaction (76.6 ± 18.1 and 72.8 ± 19.1), and degree of cough (73.4 ± 22.7 and 72.2 ± 18.5; group P and group PA, respectively) were not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

the combination of propofol and alfentanil resulted in a greater respiratory depression than propofol alone; furthermore, the addition of an opioid did not improve the quality of sedation. In conclusion, we do not recommend sedation with propofol and alfentanil during bronchoscopy.

The effect of midazolam premedication on patient satisfaction during fiberoptic bronchoscopy under patient-controlled sedation

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with propofol is a safe and effective method of attenuating discomfort during fiberoptic bronchoscopy. The purpose was to evaluate the usefulness of midazolam in addition to PCS for fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 155 patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy to two groups. Group M (n = 79) received 0.03 mg/kg of midazolam for premedication while group P (n = 76) received a loading dose (0.05 ml/kg) of PCS solution composed of 200 mg (20 ml) of propofol and 1 mg (2 ml) of alfentanil. Both groups received the PCS solution 0.2 ml/kg/hr with a bolus of 1 ml and a lockout time of 1 min. Vital signs, pulmonologist satisfaction, patient satisfaction and amnesia were evaluated.

RESULTS

After the insertion of the bronchoscope, there was a slight decrease of SpO2 and an increase of blood pressure and heart rate in both groups with no significant differences between the two groups. The group P required more bolus injections (1.6 +/- 1.7 in the group M vs 2.5 +/- 2.2 in group P; P < 0.05). There was no difference in the satisfaction of pulmonologists, but the satisfaction of patients was higher in the group M (P < 0.05). More patients in the group P (93%) remembered the procedure than in the group M (70%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PCS is an effective method for sedating patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy and midazolam provides more patient satisfaction and amnesia.

Sedation and regional anaesthesia in the adult patient

This review discusses sedation for regional anaesthesia in the adult population. The first section deals with general aspects of sedation and shows that the majority of patients receiving sedation for regional anaesthesia are satisfied and would choose it again. Methods of assessing the level of sedation are discussed with emphasis on clinical measures. The pharmacology of the drugs involved in sedation is discussed, with propofol and remifentanil appearing to be the combination of choice for sedation in regional anaesthesia. The techniques for administering sedation are discussed and replacement of the traditional repeated boluses or continuous infusion with pharmacokinetic and patient-controlled systems is supported. Patient satisfaction studies suggest that patient-controlled systems are preferred.