Hypnotic technique for sedation of patients during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

The effectiveness of clinical hypnosis in the digestive endoscopy: a multiple case report

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and viability of hypnosis before and during a gastrointestinal endoscopy. Six Gastroscopies and 22 colonoscopies were carried out under hypnosis in a group of patients. The patients ranged in age from 20 and 67 years and have a history of previously incomplete and poorly tolerated examinations or expressed an active demand for sedation. For 6 of the patients who underwent a gastroscopy under hypnosis, the procedure was successfully completed, reaching the second part of the duodenum without difficulty for the endoscopist. Colonoscopy of the cecum was completed in 19 of 20 patients. All patients, except 1, considered their tolerance level as "good." Hypnosis facilitated an adequate endoscopy intervention without any discomfort in 85% of the cases examined. Avoidance of anaesthesia reduces risk to the patient. Hence, hypnosis for gastrointestinal endoscopy appears to provide a promising strategy.

Slow-wave photic stimulation relieves patient discomfort during esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although pretreatment with a sedative drug is effective in relieving pain during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), such drugs can cause significant side-effects. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of slow-wave photic stimulation on discomfort and/or pain felt during EGD.

METHODS

Forty consecutive patients (25 men and 15 women) who underwent diagnostic EGD in our hospital were included in the study. Twenty patients received photic stimulation for 25 min, and underwent electroencephalographic recording, in addition to the usual premedications. Twenty control patients received the same treatment but without photic stimulation. All patients evaluated the discomfort/pain felt during endoscopy against a five-grade scale in comparison with what they had experienced in their previous examination.

RESULTS

Patients with an improved discomfort/pain score were 18/20 and 3/20 in the treated and control groups, respectively. Overall comparison of pain scores between both groups was significant (P<0.0001). The proportion of slow-wave activity recorded in patients' electroencephalograms significantly increased in the treated group compared to control values (36.6+/-6.8% vs 29.1+/-3.4%, P<0.001). There was a close correlation between the degree of discomfort/pain felt during endoscopy and the proportion of slow-wave activity (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Slow-wave photic stimulation shows promise as a treatment for relieving the discomfort and/or pain felt by patients undergoing EGD.

Hypnosis in contemporary medicine

Hypnosis became popular as a treatment for medical conditions in the late 1700s when effective pharmaceutical and surgical treatment options were limited. To determine whether hypnosis has a role in contemporary medicine, relevant trials and a few case reports are reviewed. Despite substantial variation in techniques among the numerous reports, patients treated with hypnosis experienced substantial benefits for many different medical conditions. An expanded role for hypnosis and a larger study of techniques appear to be indicated.

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.

Sedation with intranasal midazolam in adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

The use of intranasal (IN) midazolam in adults for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy has been evaluated in a controlled clinical study. Eighty-one patients with a mean age of 37.02 +/- 12.50 years who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for various reasons were included in the study. Three groups were formed according to the sedation regimen. In the first group (n = 30), patients received IN midazolam. In the second group (n = 28) intravenous (IV) midazolam was given for sedation, and the third group of patients (n = 23) received placebo before the procedures. Patients were monitored (using a pulse oximeter with an interval of 5 minutes until the 45th minute after the procedure) for arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, systolic and diastolic arterial blood pressure, and respiratory rate. Efficacy of sedation, amnesia, side effects, and patients' preferences were evaluated. Superior results regarding the efficacy of sedation has been documented with the use of IV midazolam (p < 0.001), and this was the preferred route for drug application according to the patients' answers (p < 0.01). However, regarding amnesia, IN midazolam was found to be almost equally effective as IV midazolam (p < 0.05); moreover, IN route of drug application caused significantly fewer side effects than did the IV form (p < 0.001 ). Intranasal application of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy appeared to be an interesting alternative to the IV route, the usage of which might be limited because of its potentially serious side effects. In contrast to the IV application of midazolam, the IN route may not even necessitate the monitoring of the patient during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.