Comparison of propofol administration techniques for sedation during monitored anesthesia care

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy: A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept

BACKGROUND

Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation (NAPS) for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy Target controlled infusion (TCI) is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under- or oversedation.

AIM

To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation.

METHODS

Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS. Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure. We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy, dosage of medication and adverse events.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group, compared to the NAPS group (8.2 ± 2.7 mg/min vs 9.3 ± 3.4 mg/min; P = 0.046). The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group (5.3 ± 2.7 min vs 7.7 ± 3.3 min; P < 0.001), nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups. No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy. This may translate into less adverse events. However, further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.

Operative Gynecological Laparoscopy Under Conscious Sedation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Operative laparoscopy is generally performed under general anesthesia. Local anesthesia and conscious sedation may be useful in select short procedures. In the present study, we evaluated safety and efficacy of operative laparoscopy under conscious sedation.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study evaluating patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy. Laparoscopy under conscious sedation was performed for each patient with umbilical direct insertion of a 12-mm port, followed by 2 ancillary ports at 1 cm medially to the anterior superior iliac spine. Conversion to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy was recorded. Conscious sedation was obtained using Remifentanil and Propofol, administered by an infusion system based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models. Local anesthesia was administered at port insertion sites and for paracervical block. Pain intensity was evaluated with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Adverse events and drug concentrations throughout the procedure were retrieved.

RESULTS

Our study population included 166 patients. They underwent laparoscopic unilateral versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, ovarian cystectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and omentectomy for a borderline ovarian tumor, myomectomy; or underwent surgery for unexplained infertility evaluation, pelvic pain, staging of ovarian cancer. Mean duration of pneumoperitoneum was 22.3 ± 7.2 min. Rate of conversion to laparoscopy under general anesthesia was 17/166 (10.2%) and there were only 3 cases of patients with low tolerability to the procedure. No severe adverse events occurred. Hospital discharge occurred in all unconverted cases after 6 to 18 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative laparoscopy under conscious sedation and local anesthesia appears to be a feasible technique in gynecologic surgery with no adverse patient outcomes.

The effect of audiovisual distraction on patient-controlled sedation under spinal anesthesia: a prospective, randomized trial

Audiovisual distraction (AVD) has been used to augment or replace procedural sedation. We investigated whether AVD in patients having total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) under spinal anesthesia would reduce self-administered propofol consumption during surgery. 50 participants were randomized equally into a patient-controlled sedation (PCS) group or AVD group. All participants were given a spinal block and a propofol PCS device prior to surgery. In addition, Group AVD participants selected and watched a movie or documentary film on a tablet device with noise-cancelling headphones during surgery. The primary outcome of this study was total propofol consumption standardized as mcg/kg/min. Secondary outcomes evaluated increased supplemental oxygen use, rescue airway interventions, hypotension, disruptive movement events during surgery, sedation, and satisfaction with anesthesia scores. Historical clinician-controlled propofol usage at our institution over the previous 2 years were recorded. There was no significant difference in median propofol consumption between Groups PCS and AVD, 8.4 mcg/kg/min (1.6-18.9) vs 4 mcg/kg/min (0-9) (P = 0.29), respectively. Historical clinician-controlled usage of propofol demonstrated a median of 39.3 mcg/kg/min (29.2-51.2). There were few differences in the secondary outcome measures. The use of AVD did not reduce patient-controlled propofol consumption in patients having a THA or TKA surgery under spinal anesthesia.

Establishing an anaesthetist-delivered propofol sedation service for advanced endoscopic procedures: implementing the RCA/BSG guidelines

BACKGROUND

Following recommendations from the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the British Society of Gastroenterology, we report our results of propofol sedation for complex endoscopic procedures delivered by a single consultant anaesthetist over a 5-year period.

METHODS

A weekly session was provided in the endoscopy department for procedures that were complex or could previously not be completed successfully. Deep sedation was provided by intermittent propofol bolus doses, supplemented with fentanyl where necessary, titrated to clinical effect. Patients were usually in semiprone or lateral positions and spontaneously breathed air supplemented with nasal oxygen. Service evaluation included patient recall, endoscopist satisfaction with conditions, procedural success and airway-related adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

We completed 1000 procedures, 42.5% of which were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the remainder comprising a diverse range of endoscopic procedures of 3-156 min duration. Procedural conditions were excellent in 79% of cases, 261 procedures were completed which had been previously abandoned, 246 patients (24.6%) had a better experience than previously and none recalled any part of their procedure. Three patients required transient bag and mask ventilation, and nasal airways were used in 12 patients, but none required tracheal intubation or vasopressor support.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines facilitated a propofol sedation service with considerable benefits for patients and endoscopists. Provision of deep propofol sedation by an anaesthetist, in patients with an unsecured airway, appears practical, effective and efficient. Small adjustments to the airway were fairly common, but the incidence of adverse events and requirement for airway instrumentation was low.

Intermittent Bolus versus Continuous Infusion of Propofol for Deep Sedation during ABR/Nuclear Medicine Studies

Objective  A comparison of intermittent bolus (IB) versus continuous infusion of propofol for deep sedation. Material and Methods  A retrospective review of patients sedated for Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR)/nuclear medicine studies between September 2008 and February 2015. A ketamine bolus (0.5 mg/kg < 20 kg, 0.25 mg/kg > 20 kg) followed by propofol bolus of 1 mg/kg over 2 minutes. In the IB group, maintenance of deep sedation was with incremental bolus of 10 to 20 mg of propofol. In continuous infusion group (CG), maintenance was with a continuous infusion of 83 mcg/kg/min of propofol. Results  Of the 326 cases completed, 181 were in CG group and 145 were in IB group. There were no statistical differences in patient's age, weight, and American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification. The cardiovascular and respiratory parameters in the two groups were not different statistically. Mean total propofol dose was higher in CG group versus IB group (CG 7.6 mg ± 3.6 mg, IB 6.5 mg ± 3.6 mg; p  = 0.008). Procedure time in CG group was longer by 8 minutes compared with IB group (CG 49.8 min ± 25.4 min versus 42.3 min ± 19.2 min; p  = .003). CG group has both shorter recovery time (CG 8.1 min ± 4.7 min versus IB 10.0 min ± 8.5 min; p  = 0.01) and discharge time. Conclusion  Satisfactory sedation and completion of the procedure was accomplished with both sedation protocols.

Propofol-Based Procedural Sedation with or without Low-Dose Ketamine in Children

Objective Examine comparative dosing, efficacy, and safety of propofol alone or with an initial, subdissociative dose of ketamine approach for deep sedation. Background Propofol is a sedative-hypnotic agent used increasingly in children for deep sedation. As a nonanalgesic agent, use in procedures (e.g., bone marrow biopsies/aspirations, renal biopsies) is debated. Our intensivist procedural sedation team sedates using one of two protocols: propofol-only (P-O) approach or age-adjusted dose of 0.25 or 0.5 mg/kg intravenous ketamine (K + P) prior to propofol. With either approach, an initial induction dose of 1 mg/kg propofol is recommended and then intermittent dosing throughout the procedure to achieve adequate sedation to safely and effectively perform the procedure. Approach: Retrospective evaluation of 754 patients receiving either the P-O or K + P approach to sedation. Results A total of 372 P-O group patients and 382 K + P group. Mean age (7.3 ± 5.5 years for P-O; 7.3 ± 5.4 years for K + P) and weight (30.09 ± 23.18 kg for P-O; 30.14 ± 24.45 kg for K + P) were similar in both groups (p = NS). All patients successfully completed procedures with a 16% combined incidence of hypoxia (SPO2 < 90%). Procedure time was 3 minutes longer for K + P group than P-O group (18.68 ± 15.13 minutes for K + P; 15.11 ± 12.77 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01), yet recovery times were 5 minutes shorter (17.04 ± 9.36 minutes for K + P; 22.17 ± 12.84 minutes for P-O; p < 0.01). Mean total dose of propofol was significantly greater in P-O than in K + P group (0.28 ± 0.20 mg/kg/min for K + P; 0.40 ± 0.26 mg/kg/min for P-O; p < 0.0001), and might explain the shorter recovery time. Conclusion Both sedation approaches proved to be well tolerated and equally effective. Addition of ketamine was associated with reduction in the recovery time, probably explained by the statistically significant decrease in the propofol dose.

Assessing the stability and safety of procedure during endoscopic submucosal dissection according to sedation methods: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely performed under sedation, the difference in ESD performance according to sedation method is not well known. This study attempted to prospectively assess and compare the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patient stability during ESD between two sedation methods.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-four adult patients scheduled for ESD were sedated by either the IMIE (intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopist) or CPIA (continuous propofol infusion by anesthesiologist) method. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the level of satisfaction of the endoscopists between the two groups. The secondary endpoints included level of satisfaction of the patients, patient's pain scores, events interfering with the procedure, incidence of unintended deep sedation, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Level of satisfaction of the endoscopists was significantly higher in the CPIA Group compared to the IMIE group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 63.2% vs. 87.2%, P=0.001). The incidence of unintended deep sedation was significantly higher in the IMIE Group compared to the CPIA Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; 17.1% vs. 5.1%, P=0.018) as well as the number of patients showing spontaneous movement or those requiring physical restraint (IMIE vs. CPIA; spontaneous movement; 60.5% vs. 42.3%, P=0.024, physical restraint; 27.6% vs. 10.3%, P=0.006, respectively). In contrast, level of satisfaction of the patients were found to be significantly higher in the IMIE Group (IMIE vs. CPIA; high satisfaction score; 85.5% vs. 67.9%, P=0.027). Pain scores of the patients, hemodynamic and respiratory events, and ESD outcomes and complications were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Continuous propofol and remifentanil infusion by an anesthesiologist during ESD can increase the satisfaction levels of the endoscopists by providing a more stable state of sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01806753.

Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve patient psychomotor skills

BACKGROUND

Early recovery of patients following sedation/analgesia and anesthesia is important in ambulatory practice. The aim of this study was to assess whether modafinil, used for the treatment of narcolepsy, improves recovery following sedation/analgesia.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two groups received a combination of fentanyl/midazolam with either modafinil or placebo. The remaining groups received remifentanil/propofol with either modafinil or placebo. Modafinil 200 mg was administered to the treatment group patients 1 h before sedation/analgesia. Groups were compared using the digital symbol substitution test (DSST), trail making test (TMT), observer scale of sedation and analgesia (OAA/S) and Aldrete score. Verbal rating scale (VRS) scores for secondary outcome variables e.g. energy, tiredness and dizziness were also recorded before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients successfully completed the study. Groups received similar doses of sedation and analgesic drugs. No statistically significant difference was found for DSST between groups. No significant adverse effects occurred in relation to modafinil. No statistically significant difference between groups was identified for TMT, OAA/S and Aldrete scores. The mean VRS score for tiredness was lesser in the modafinil/fentanyl/midazolam group [1.3 (2.0)] compared with the placebo group [3.8 (2.5)], P=0.02. Such a difference was not found between the remifentanil/propofol groups [placebo 2.6 (2.2) vs. modafinil 3.1(2.7)], p>0.05. Dizziness was greater in the modafinil/remifentanil/propofol group 1.7 (2.0) vs. placebo 0.0 (0.5), p<0.05.

CONCLUSION

Modafinil reduces patient-reported tiredness after sedation/analgesia but does not improve recovery in terms of objective measures of patient psychomotor skills.

Propofol infusion for sedation during spinal anesthesia

PURPOSE

The dose and time course of propofol infusion required to induce rapid sedation without oversedation during spinal anesthesia were investigated.

METHODS

Forty patients scheduled for spinal and epidural anesthesia were studied. After premedication with intramuscular midazolam 0.04 mg.kg(-1), an epidural catheter was inserted, followed by spinal anersthesia at L4-L5 with 0.5% hyperbaric tetracaine with epinephrine. The infusion of propofol was started with 10 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) and was decreased to 5 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) at spontaneous eye closure. According to the increase or decrease of the sedation level, the infusion does was decreased or increased to half or twice the initial dose, respectively, to keep the Observer's Assessment of Alertness Sedation (OAAS) score at 3 or 4.

RESULTS

Eye closure was observed at 1.0 +/- 0.4 min after the start of insusion. The maintenance insusion dose to keep the OAAS score at 3 or 4 was about 2.5 mg.kg(-1).h(-1).

CONCLUSION

Propofol infusion, starting with 10 mg.kg(-1).h(-1), decreasing to 5 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) after 1 minute, and then decreasing to 2.5 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) after another min induced rapid onset of sedation and kept the OAAS score at 3 or 4 during spinal anesthesia.

Fast-track concept for ambulatory anesthesia

Fast-tracking in the ambulatory setting refers to the ability to transfer suitably recovered patients from the operating room directly to the Phase II (step-down) recovery area, bypassing the postanesthesia care unit. This article describes the concept of fast-tracking after ambulatory surgery and reviews anesthetic techniques that have helped to facilitate this process. The prevention and management of postoperative pain and nausea are also discussed.