Hypoxia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is caused by sedation

Analysis of cardiopulmonary stress during endoscopy: is unsedated transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy appropriate for elderly patients?

BACKGROUND

Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) without sedation has been reported to be safe and tolerable. It has recently been used widely in Japan for the detection of upper gastrointestinal disease. Alternatively, transoral examination using a thin endoscope has also been reported to be highly tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cardiocirculatory effects of transoral versus transnasal EGD in an attempt to determine the most suitable endoscopic methods for patients ≥75 years of age.

METHODS

Subjects who underwent monitoring of respiratory and circulatory dynamics without sedation during endoscopic screening examinations were enrolled at the New Ooe Hospital (Kyoto, Japan) between April 2008 and March 2009. A total of 165 patients (age ≥75 years) provided written informed consent and were investigated in the present study. Patients were randomly divided into three subgroups: UO group--thin endoscope; SO group--standard endoscope; and UT group--transnasal EGD. Percutaneous arterial blood oxygen saturation, heart rate and blood pressure were evaluated just before EGD and at five time points during EGD. After transnasal EGD, patients who had previously been examined using transoral EGD with a standard endoscope were asked about preferences for their next examination.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in the characteristics among the groups. Percutaneous oxygen saturation in the UT group showed a transient drop compared with the SO and UO groups at the beginning of the endoscopic procedure. Heart rate showed no significant differences among the SO, UO and UT groups; Systolic blood pressure in the UO group was lower immediately after insertion compared with the SO and UT groups. The rate pressure product in the UO group was comparable with that in the UT group during endoscopy, and the SO group showed a continuously higher level than the UO and UT groups. More than one-half (54.4%) of patients were 'willing to choose transnasal EGD for next examination'.

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients, unsedated transnasal EGD failed to show an advantage over unsedated standard endoscopy. Transoral thin EGD was estimated to be safe and tolerable.

Classification of patients who experience a higher distress level to transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy than to transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND

In Japanese routine clinical practice, endoscopy is generally carried out without sedation. The present study aimed to identify the factors essential for appropriate selection of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TN-EGD) as an alternative to unsedated transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TO-EGD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects in this prospective cohort study comprised consecutive outpatients who underwent EGD at a single center. Factors predicting TO-EGD-induced distress were evaluated on a visual analog scale (VAS) and analyzed. Patients were classified into a two-layered system on the basis of these predictive factors, and the severity of distress between the TN-EGD and TO-EGD groups was compared using VAS and the change in the rate-pressure product as subjective and objective indices, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 728 outpatients (390 male, 338 female; mean age, 63.1 ± 0.5 years; TO-EGD group, 630; TN-EGD group, 98)met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that age <65 years (P < 0.01; odds ratio [OR], 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.52), gender (female; P < 0.01; OR,1.97; 95% CI, 1.34-2.91), marital status (single; P < 0.01; OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.18-3.27), and anxiety towards TO-EGD (P < 0.001; OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.44-5.37) were independently associated with intolerance. Both indices were significantly higher in the TO-EGD subgroup than in the TN-EGD subgroup in the high predictive class, but not in the low predictive class.

CONCLUSION

Predictive factors for detecting intolerance to unsedated TO-EGD may be useful to appropriately select patients who transpose unsedated TO-EGD to TN-EGD.

Comparability of localization data in transnasal and transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Background

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is an often-used and safe diagnostic method in gastroenterology. Transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy is now an established addition to the endoscopic instrumentarium. Although the two examination methods can be used alongside each other, there is a lack of studies on the comparability of the localization data obtained with the transoral and transnasal methods.

Methods

In 135 adult patients presenting for routine outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy, transoral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TOG) was carried out after transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (TNG), and the distance from the naris or incisors, respectively, to the esophagogastric junction was measured.

Results

The data for 135 patients were analyzed. With the transoral access route, the distance from the upper incisors to the cardia was a mean of 40.5 cm (SD ± 3.4 cm). In the transnasal examinations, the mean distance between the naris and the cardia was 45.6 cm (SD ± 3.5 cm). The correlation analysis showed a very close correlation between the peroral and transnasal data, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.925. On the basis of the regression line calculated using these data, the formula TNG (cm) = 1.1 × TOG (cm) was developed. Using this formula, localization details obtained with one method can be converted into those for the other method.

Conclusions

There is a strong correlation between the localization details obtained with the transnasal and transoral examination methods. The formula for converting localization details from one method to the other, presented here for the first time, is practicable for everyday use and allows rapid conversion.

Cardiac autonomic regulation during gastroscopy

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is sometimes associated with adverse cardiovascular events.

AIMS

We evaluated the effects of sedation and pharyngeal anaesthesia on cardiac autonomic regulation during gastroscopy.

PATIENTS

Two hundred thirteen outpatients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

The patients were assigned to 4 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam and placebo throat spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and pharyngeal anaesthesia with lidocaine (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo throat spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula nor throat spray (control group). Continuous electrocardiogram was recorded. Heart rate variability was assessed; the powers of low frequency (0.04-0.15 Hz) and high frequency (0.15-0.40 Hz) components as well as total power (0.0-0.4 Hz) were calculated.

RESULTS

Gastroscopy was associated with a decrease in high frequency normalized units, increases in low frequency normalized units and low frequency/high frequency ratio indicating activation of sympathetic and withdrawal of vagal modulation. Sympathetic activation resulted in a decrease in total power and all components of heart rate variability. The decrease was most prominent in the midazolam treated patients (p<0.001 vs the lidocaine group and p<0.01 vs placebo and control groups during the postendoscopy phase).

CONCLUSION

Gastroscopy induces a shift towards dominance of the sympathetic modulation of the heart. Premedication with midazolam potentiates this shift.

Sedation, topical pharyngeal anesthesia and cardiorespiratory safety during gastroscopy

GOALS

In a prospective, double-blind study, we examined the effects of routine sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia on cardiorespiratory parameters during gastroscopy.

BACKGROUND

Intravenous sedation and topical pharyngeal anesthesia are used to alleviate the discomfort during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Cardiorespiratory changes during gastroscopy are common.

STUDY

Two hundred fifty two consecutive outpatients undergoing gastroscopy were assigned into 4 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam and placebo throat spray (midazolam group), (2) placebo sedation and pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine throat spray (lidocaine group), (3) placebo sedation and placebo throat spray (placebo group), and (4) no intravenous cannula nor throat spray (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded before, during, and after the endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

Gastroscopy increased heart rate in all study groups. Premedication with intravenous midazolam or lidocaine spray alleviated this rise (P<0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance) and decreased the incidence of tachycardia. Similarly, sedation with midazolam or topical pharyngeal anesthesia decreased the rise in systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Midazolam produced lower SaO2 values during gastroscopy compared with lidocaine, placebo or control groups (P<0.001). However, episodes of desaturation (SaO2 </=92) were no more common in the midazolam group than in other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with midazolam alleviated the rise in heart rate and systolic blood pressure but induced a statistically significant decrease in arterial oxygen saturation. However, gastroscopy proved to be a safe procedure both with and without sedation.

[Sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Analysis of tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness]

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Sedation of patients is an important complement to endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze tolerance, complications and cost-effectiveness in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A total of 357 patients were prospectively studied: 138 non-sedated, 116 sedated with midazolam and 103 sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Subjective tolerance, tolerance perceived by the endoscopist, complications, and cost-effectiveness were evaluated. The Chi-square test was used for the statistical analysis. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Subjective tolerance was greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine than in the other groups (p < 0.05). Tolerance perceived by the endoscopist was greater in the group sedated with both drugs than in the group sedated with midazolam (p < 0.05). Subjective tolerance was better in sedated men and women but there was no association between sedation and perceived tolerance according to sex. Subjective tolerance was better in sedated patients older than 70 years than in those younger than 40 years (p < 0.05). Complications were more frequent in sedated patients and the most frequent complication in all the groups studied was mild desaturation; there was a significant difference between the group sedated with midazolam and meperidine and the non-sedated group (p < 0.05). Non-sedation had the best cost-effectiveness ratio but sedation with midazolam and meperidine was the most effective alternative.

CONCLUSION

From the point of view of the endoscopist, endoscopy can be performed without sedation, although subjective tolerance is greater in patients sedated with midazolam and meperidine. Non-sedation is more cost-effectiveness than sedation but if sedation is required midazolam and meperidine achieve better results in terms of effectiveness than midazolam alone.

Unsedated transnasal PEG placement

BACKGROUND

By using a small-diameter endoscope, EGD can be performed transnasally in adults. A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of transnasal PEG placement without conscious sedation.

METHODS

Unsedated transnasal PEG was attempted in 23 patients by using a 5.9-mm-diameter videoendoscope. The indication for PEG insertion, success or failure, reason(s) for failure, and adverse effects of the procedure were recorded. During the first month, all patients were monitored by telephone contact for complications and to verify functionality of the PEG.

RESULTS

Transnasal PEG insertion was successful in 21 (91%) patients. The cause for failure was the inability to transilluminate the abdominal wall. Complications included epistaxis (n=1), minor wound infection (n=1), and soiling around the stoma (n=1). Of the 21 patients in whom transnasal PEG placement was successful, all were alive, with a functional gastrostomy at the 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated transnasal PEG tube insertion is minimally invasive, is feasible in daily practice in selected patients, and rarely is associated with complications.

Sedación en la endoscopia digestiva. Resultados de una encuesta hospitalaria en Cataluña

INTRODUCTION

The need for sedation is increasing in digestive endoscopy units (DEU). There are no data on the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia (Spain).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of sedation in DEU in Catalonia.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A questionnaire on the practice of sedation was designed and sent to the heads of medical and nursing staff of the DEU of 63 public and private hospitals in Catalonia. Two mailings were sent with an interval of three months between each. The questionnaire included 62 items on the characteristics of the hospital and the DEU, number of explorations, frequency of sedation use, drugs employed, participation of an anesthesiologist, use of monitoring, and complications.

RESULTS

Forty-four DEU (70%) corresponding to 31 public hospitals and 13 private hospitals completed the questionnaire. Evaluation of sedation patterns was based on 105,904 explorations performed in the various DEU (56,453 gastroscopies, 47,278 colonoscopies and 2,173 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) in 2001. Sedation, sedation-analgesia or anesthesia was used in 17% of gastroscopies, 61% of colonoscopies and 100% of ERCP. Sedation was administered by an anesthesiologist in 7% of gastroscopies, 25% of colonoscopies and 38% of ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration was more frequent in private than in public centers (gastroscopies: 25% vs. 2%; colonoscopies: 57% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). No deaths associated with the use of sedation were reported. Eighty-nine percent of the DEU complied with standard recommendations for the practice of sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

In Catalonia, the use of sedation is highly variable, depending on the endoscopic procedure and the DEU. Use of sedation in infrequent in gastroscopy, fairly widespread in colonoscopy and routine in ERCP. Anesthesiologist administration is significantly more frequent in private hospitals. Most DEU follow standard sedation practices.

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.

Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

EGD can be performed transnasally in adults by using small-diameter endoscopes. A large prospective study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and tolerance of diagnostic transnasal EGD in daily practice.

METHODS

Unsedated transnasal EGD was attempted in 1100 consecutive patients, in 3 different institutions, by using a 5.9-mm or a 5.3-mm diameter endoscope. The operator determined whether the procedure was successful or unsuccessful, the reason for failures, and any side effects. The influence of gender, age, endoscope diameter, and type of topical anesthesia on the success or failure of the procedure was evaluated. Patients who previously had undergone peroral EGD were queried as to which procedure they preferred.

RESULTS

Transnasal EGD was feasible in 93.9% of the patients. The causes of failure were as follows: unsuccessful transnasal insertion (62.7%), patient refusal (19.4%), and nasal pain (17.9%). Female gender, young age (< or =35 years), and larger-endoscope diameter were significant predictive factors for procedure failure. Side effects included the following: epistaxis (2.3%), nasal pain (1.6%), and vaso-vagal reaction (0.3%). A majority (91%) of the patients who previously had undergone unsedated peroral EGD with a standard 9.8-mm diameter endoscope preferred transnasal EGD with a small-diameter endoscope.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal EGD is feasible in daily endoscopic practice and is preferred by patients. Side effects are rare.

Predicting which patients can undergo upper endoscopy comfortably without conscious sedation

BACKGROUND

Eliminating conscious sedation for diagnostic endoscopy may be advantageous for patient safety and cost containment. The aim of this study was to identify and validate independent predictors of a comfortable, technically adequate, unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy in Canadian patients.

METHODS

Patients were consecutively enrolled in a prospective fashion. Data collected on an initial cohort of 268 patients included demographics, a validated anxiety questionnaire, use of sedatives/analgesics, upper endoscopy experience, pharyngeal sensitivity, technical adequacy, and patient assessment of comfort after the procedure. The main outcome measure was "satisfactory upper endoscopy," a composite of optimal scores for patient comfort and technical adequacy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the optimal predictive model of a satisfactory unsedated diagnostic upper endoscopy. Once identified, 68 additional patients were enrolled in a similar fashion from an independent prospective sample for purposes of outcome validation. Multivariate analysis was then repeated with the total cohort (N = 336). These results were then compared for concordance with those obtained from the initial cohort.

RESULTS

Among the initial 268 patients (54.3% women; mean age 51 +/- 17 years), 49% were anxious, 15% regularly used sedatives and analgesics, 28% experienced increased pharyngeal sensitivity, and 41% had previously undergone upper endoscopy. Endoscopy was completed in 94.7% of patients without sedation and was technically adequate in 97%, and 80.1% were willing to repeat the procedure under similar conditions. Satisfactory upper endoscopy was achieved in only 59% of the initial cohort. The only independent and significant predictors of a satisfactory upper endoscopy were advancing age (OR 1.2: 95% CI [1.1, 1.4]) and decreased pharyngeal sensitivity (OR 0.5: 95% CI [0.27, 0.93]). Concordance of results were noted after validation with the second cohort. Satisfactory endoscopy was achieved in only 59.5% of the total cohort (n = 336); only 61% reported a comfortable procedural experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients who can comfortably undergo technically adequate unsedated upper endoscopy is modest. Unsedated upper endoscopy is most likely to be successful under these procedural conditions in patients of advancing age with decreased pharyngeal sensitivity. The generalizability of these findings to an American population requires further study and may assist in identifying a subgroup of patients in whom it is cost-effective to perform upper endoscopy comfortably without sedation.

Accuracy of a narrow-diameter battery-powered endoscope in sedated and unsedated patients

BACKGROUND

Esophagoscopy with a portable battery-powered endoscope could provide a safe, inexpensive, and minimally invasive way to screen for Barrett's esophagus or esophageal varices. The use of such an instrument in an unsedated fashion has not been previously evaluated.

METHODS

Patients referred for an EGD were recruited to undergo an additional examination with the battery-powered endoscope before EGD. In phase 1, (n = 42) patients received conscious sedation before the battery-powered endoscopic examination. In phase 2, (n = 56) patients were not sedated and were given the option of a peroral (n = 43) or transnasal (n = 13) endoscopy. Examiners were blinded to patient history and procedure indications. Esophageal findings, ease of intubation, optical quality, and patient comfort for the battery-powered endoscope and standard EGD were recorded by the endoscopist.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (60 men, 38 women, mean age 53 years) were recruited. The sensitivity for detecting Barrett's esophagus, esophageal tumors, and esophageal varices was 54.5%, 66.7%, and 80%, respectively. Ease of intubation and patient comfort as perceived by the endoscopist were not significantly different between the battery-powered endoscope and EGD. Optical quality was ranked as less than 4 (on a 5-point scale with 5 = standard EGD and 1 = poor) in 42% of battery-powered endoscopic examinations. There were no complications.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of esophageal examination with a 3.1-mm endoscope is substantially inferior to standard EGD. Thus, the battery-powered endoscope would not be useful for screening patients for Barrett's esophagus or varices unless improvements in optical quality and visualization are made.

Unsedated transnasal laryngo-esophagogastroduodenoscopy: an alternative to conventional endoscopy

The introduction, refinement, and subsequent widespread use of flexible fiberoptic endoscopes have revolutionized the diagnosis and management of upper gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. There has been a simultaneous increase in the cost of managing upper GI disorders, which is in part attributed to the high price of endoscopy. Unfortunately, in the current cost-conscious health-care environment, the high cost of endoscopy has resulted in the underuse of this valuable clinical tool. Unsedated transnasal laryngo-esophagogastroduodenoscopy (T-EGD) is a new technique for upper endoscopy that uses an ultrathin endoscope and has a comparable yield to conventional upper endoscopy but obviates the need for conscious sedation because it is better tolerated. Studies have found that T-EGD is a feasible alternative to conventional endoscopy in terms of safety, efficacy, and cost containment. This article reviews these factors, the technique of T-EGD, patient and endoscopist considerations, tissue sampling, and the characteristics of ultrathin endoscopes used for T-EGD.

Unsedated small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD): less expensive and less time-consuming than conventional EGD

BACKGROUND

A significant portion of the costs and complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) are related to the use of sedation. The feasibility and tolerability of small-caliber EGD (scEGD) without sedation has been evaluated; however, there is limited data concerning times and costs associated with this procedure as compared with conventional EGD (cEGD) with sedation.

STUDY

Sixteen patients underwent scEGD with the Pentax EG-1840 (outside diameter, 6 mm) without sedation. A control group of 16 patients was matched for age, sex, day, and indication of procedure. The time of procedure, time in procedure room, time in recovery room, and procedure costs were determined in both the study and control groups. After the procedure, scEGD patients completed surveys consisting of visual-analogue scales to assess tolerance and preference regarding sedation for future procedures.

RESULTS

Procedure time, procedure room time, and recovery room time was 5.2, 16.3, and 9 minutes for scEGD and 13.5, 34.9, and 41.3 minutes for cEGD, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The mean cost of scEGD, excluding physician fees, was $462.00, which was significantly lower than the $587.00 for cEGD (p < 0.001). Survey results revealed good tolerance for the unsedated procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated scEGD was well tolerated and resulted in a shorter time of procedure, less time spent in procedure room, reduced recovery room time, and lower costs as compared with cEGD with sedation.

Prospective evaluation of transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: feasibility and study on performance and tolerance

BACKGROUND

With a pediatric endoscope, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be performed via a nasal route in adults. To evaluate this new procedure, we conducted a randomized comparative study of the feasibility of diagnostic transnasal EGD and assessed the factors influencing its quality and tolerance (endoscope diameter or route).

METHODS

Transnasal EGD was attempted in 100 patients to assess its feasibility. For the analysis of quality and tolerance, 150 patients were randomized as follows into 3 groups according to the route of examinations: (1) oral route with 9.8 mm diameter standard videoendoscope; (2) oral route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope; (3) transnasal route with 6.0 mm diameter pediatric videoendoscope. The operator assessed the quality of examination by standard scores. Patients quantified pain intensity, nausea, and choking sensation.

RESULTS

Transnasal EGD was feasible in 82% of patients. The quality of the examination was significantly lower with pediatric endoscope. No difference was noted concerning pain intensity, but nausea and choking sensation were significantly reduced when the nasal route was used.

CONCLUSIONS

Transnasal EGD is feasible in the routine practice of diagnostic EGD. The nasal route, and not endoscope diameter (6.0 mm vs 9.8 mm diameter), is the determining factor that explains increased patient tolerance during transnasal EGD. Technical improvements in pediatric videoendoscopes are required.

Predictive factors of oxygen desaturation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in nonsedated patients

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia can occur during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with or without pharmacologic sedation. We investigated possible predictive factors of severe oxygen desaturation (SaO2 < 90%) in nonsedated patients undergoing endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 481 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy without sedation were monitored with continuous pulse oximetry. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors related to the patient, the examination, and the monitoring data that would predict severe desaturation.

RESULTS

Mild desaturation (SaO2 between 90% and 94%) was found in 23.7% of the patients, and severe desaturation (SaO2 < 90%) was found in 6.4%. The variables found to predict severe desaturation were basal SaO2 < 95% (odds ratio 67.7), respiratory disease (odds ratio 30.5), more than one attempt needed for intubation (odds ratio 39.4), emergency procedure (odds ratio 14.9), and American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III or IV (odds ratio 3.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive variables analyzed in this study can be used to identify patients who are at increased risk for desaturation. Such patients require very close monitoring (pulse oximetry at a minimum). Endoscopists and assistants should be especially alert to the possibility of respiratory depression in these patients.

Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is generally performed with the patient sedated and receiving analgesics. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of intravenous midazolam and pethidine on patient tolerance and pain and its cardiorespiratory risk have not been fully defined.

METHODS

In this double-blind prospective study, 150 outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either (1) low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and pethidine (700 micrograms/kg in 48 patients, 500 micrograms/kg in 102 patients), (2) midazolam and placebo pethidine, or (3) pethidine and placebo midazolam.

RESULTS

Tolerance (visual analog scale, 0 to 100 points: 0 = excellent; 100 = unbearable) did not improve significantly more in group 1 compared with group 2 (7 points; 95% confidence interval [-2-17]) and group 3 (2 points; 95% confidence interval [-7-12]). Similarly, pain was not significantly improved in group 1 as compared with the other groups. Male gender (p < 0.001) and shorter duration of the procedure (p = 0.004), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance and less pain. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Oxygen desaturation and hypotension occurred in 33% and 11%, respectively, with a similar frequency in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the combination of low-dose midazolam and pethidine does not improve patient tolerance and lessen pain during colonoscopy as compared with either drug given alone. When applying low-dose midazolam, oxygen desaturation and hypotension do not occur more often after combined use of both drugs. For the individual patient, sedation and analgesia should be based on the endoscopist's clinical judgement.

Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Most patients receive conscious sedation for gastroscopy. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of low-dose intravenous midazolam and topical lidocaine on patient tolerance remains poorly defined and has not been shown to outweigh cardiorespiratory risks. To respond to these issues, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study was performed.

METHODS

Two hundred outpatients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were assigned to receive either (1) midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray (100 mg), (2) midazolam and placebo lidocaine, (3) placebo midazolam and lidocaine, or (4) placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine.

RESULTS

Tolerance (visual analogue scale, 0-100 points; 0, excellent; 100, unbearable) improved as compared with placebo midazolam and placebo lidocaine by 23 points (95% confidence interval, 15-32) in group 1, 15 points (95% confidence interval, 7-24) in group 2, and 10 points (95% confidence interval, 2-18) in group 3. Increasing age (P < 0.001), low anxiety (P < 0.001), and male sex (P < 0.03), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance. Oxygen desaturation (< 1 minute) occurred in 8.2% and was not more frequent after midazolam treatment. Hypotension was rare (2.1%), and no adverse outcome occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Both low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and lidocaine spray have an additive beneficial effect on patients tolerance and rarely induce significant alterations in cardiorespiratory monitoring parameters, thus supporting the widespread use of conscious sedation.