Synergistic sedation with oral midazolam as a premedication and intravenous propofol versus intravenous propofol alone in upper gastrointestinal endoscopies in children: a prospective, randomized study

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

Procedural Sedation for Pediatric Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Korea

BACKGROUND

Sedative upper endoscopy is similar in pediatrics and adults, but it is characteristically more likely to lead to respiratory failure. Although recommended guidelines for pediatric procedural sedation are available within South Korea and internationally, Korean pediatric endoscopists use different drugs, either alone or in combination, in practice. Efforts are being made to minimize the risk of sedation while avoiding procedural challenges. The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze data on the sedation methods used by Korean pediatric endoscopists to help physicians perform pediatric sedative upper endoscopy (PSUE).

METHODS

The PSUE procedures performed in 15 Korean pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic units within a year were analyzed. Drugs used for sedation were grouped according to the method of use, and the depth of sedation was evaluated based on the Ramsay scores. The procedures and their complications were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 734 patients who underwent PSUE were included. Sedation and monitoring were performed by an anesthesiologist at one of the institutions. The sedative procedures were performed by a pediatric endoscopist at the other 14 institutions. Regarding the number of assistants present during the procedures, 36.6% of procedures had one assistant, 38.8% had 2 assistants, and 24.5% had 3 assistants. The average age of the patients was 11.6 years old. Of the patients, 19.8% had underlying diseases, 10.0% were taking medications such as epilepsy drugs, and 1.0% had snoring or sleep apnea history. The average duration of the procedures was 5.2 minutes. The subjects were divided into 5 groups as follows: 1) midazolam + propofol + ketamine (M + P + K): n = 18, average dose of 0.03 + 2.4 + 0.5 mg/kg; 2) M + P: n = 206, average dose of 0.06 + 2.1 mg/kg; 3) M + K: n = 267, average dose of 0.09 + 0.69 mg/kg; 4) continuous P infusion for 20 minutes: n = 15, average dose of 6.6 mg/kg; 5) M: n = 228, average dose of 0.11 mg/kg. The average Ramsay score for the five groups was 3.7, with significant differences between the groups (P < 0.001). Regarding the adverse effects, desaturation and increased oxygen supply were most prevalent in the M + K group. Decreases and increases in blood pressure were most prevalent in the M + P + K group, and bag-mask ventilation was most used in the M + K group. There were no reported incidents of intubation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A decrease in oxygen saturation was observed in 37 of 734 patients, and it significantly increased in young patients (P = 0.001) and when ketamine was used (P = 0.014). Oxygen saturation was also correlated with dosage (P = 0.037). The use of ketamine (P < 0.001) and propofol (P < 0.001) were identified as factors affecting the Ramsay score in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although the drug use by Korean pediatric endoscopists followed the recommended guidelines to an extent, it was apparent that they combined the drugs or reduced the doses depending on the patient characteristics to reduce the likelihood of respiratory failure. Inducing deep sedation facilitates comfort during the procedure, but it also leads to a higher risk of complications.

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.

AIM

To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.

RESULTS

A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I²: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I²: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I²: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I²: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I²: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I²: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I²: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I²: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I²: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11–+87.60, I²: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.002–+0.02, I²: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: −0.05–+0.13, I²: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08–+0.22, I²: 95%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Oral Lorazepam is not Superior to Placebo for Lowering Stress in Children Before Digestive Endoscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Digestive endoscopies must be performed within a safe and comfortable environment. We have previously shown that the quality of intravenous sedation is influenced by preoperative stress.

AIM

Our primary objective was to compare the effects of oral lorazepam and placebo on the salivary cortisol response of children undergoing a digestive endoscopy. Secondary objectives were the assessment of procedural pain and comfort as well as the occurrence of adverse events.

METHODS

Participants were randomized and received either lorazepam, placebo, or no premedication. Saliva was collected upon arrival at the hospital and 1 h following randomization. The sedation protocol included midazolam and fentanyl ± ketamine. Procedural pain was evaluated with the Nurse Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). Patients completed a postoperative questionnaire. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L.

RESULTS

101 participants (54 females) were included. The rate of children having a cortisol decrease ≥ 15 nmol/L was 27.3%, 35.3%, and 19.4% for lorazepam, placebo, and no premedication, respectively (p = 0.356). The median (IQR) NAPCOMS pain score was 3.0 (0-6) for lorazepam, 4.4 (0-6) for placebo, and 3.4 (3-4) for no premedication (p = 0.428). With lorazepam, 75.9% of children reported experiencing a comfortable procedure, compared with 41.9% taking placebo and 34.5% with no premedication (p = 0.013). Transient tachycardia was the most frequent intraoperative adverse event, particularly with lorazepam (62.5%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral lorazepam had no effect on patients' preoperative stress, as measured by salivary cortisol, but was associated with a higher rate of comfortable procedures.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT03180632.

The pearls of pediatric sedation: polish the old and embrace the new

Over the past decade, as the complexity and breadth of pediatric procedures increases, the actual choices of approved sedatives have remained relatively stagnant. Since the introduction of midazolam, there has not been a sedative approved for pediatric labelling until December 2018. This December, the European approval of ADV6209 (Ozalin) for pediatric usage marked the newest addition to the pediatric sedative armamentarium in over a decade. This review is timely and significant because it will provide a balanced evaluation of the most common sedatives in use today, the most recent sedative to be approved and, most importantly, a critical look at the literature supporting the latest approaches to the most commonly performed procedures.

Haloperidol-Induced Dystonia due to Sedation for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Pediatric Case Report

Dystonia is a movement disorder characterized by sustained muscle tone. Antipsychotic agents sometimes cause acute dystonia that can rapidly worsen within a few hours or days. Because healthy children rarely receive antipsychotic agents, it is unusual to see antipsychotic agent-induced dystonia in pediatric emergency departments. We report a rare case of a 12-year-old healthy boy who presented with acute dystonia after administration of haloperidol for sedation. He was suspected of laryngeal dystonia because stridor and desaturation were present. The symptoms disappeared with the administration of hydroxyzine. Rapid diagnosis was important in this case because laryngeal dystonia is a potential life-threatening complication due to upper airway obstruction. Considering the risk of side effects, doctors who are not accustomed to administering pediatric anesthesia should consult a pediatrician and/or an anesthesiologist prior to administration of anesthetics to pediatric patients.

Safety of Propofol versus Nonpropofol-Based Sedation in Children Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of children who undergo gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy require anesthesia or procedural sedation for comfort, cooperation, and procedure efficiency. The safety profile of propofol is not well established in children but has been studied in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety of propofol-only sedation for GI endoscopy procedures to other anesthetic regimes in the pediatric population.

METHODS

A search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohorts were included in the study.

RESULTS

No significant difference was noted in total complications between the two cohorts with a pooled OR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.57-3.04, chi2 = 0.053, I2 = 54.31%). The pooled rate of complications in the studies was 23.4% for those receiving propofol only and 18.2% for those receiving other anesthetic regimens. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing a study with a very different control comparison compared to the rest of the studies included. Once excluded, there was minimal heterogeneity in the remaining studies and a significant difference in overall complications was detected, with more complications seen in the propofol-only group compared to the other anesthetic groups (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09-3.20).

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher incidence of cardiorespiratory complications was noted in the propofol-only versus other anesthetic regimens in pediatric patients undergoing GI endoscopy in this meta-analysis. However, the overall quality of the evidence is very low.

HOW TO APPLY THIS KNOWLEDGE FOR ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE

Clinicians providing sedation to a pediatric population for GI endoscopy should consider there may be increased risks when using a propofol-only regimen, but further study is needed.

Sedation in Pediatric Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has become an established diagnostic and therapeutic modality in pediatric gastroenterology. Effective sedation strategies have been adopted to improve patient tolerance during pediatric EGD. For children, safety is a fundamental consideration during this procedure as they are at a higher risk of severe adverse events from procedural sedation compared to adults. Therefore, a detailed risk evaluation is required prior to the procedure, and practitioners should be aware of the benefits and risks associated with sedation regimens during pediatric EGD. In addition, pediatric advanced life support by endoscopists or immediate intervention by anesthesiologists should be available in the event that severe adverse events occur during pediatric EGD.

Effect of Different Sedation Regimes on Cognitive Functions in Colonoscopy

Aim:

To compare the effects of propofol/remifentanil and meperidine/midazolam on postprocedure cognitive function.

Materials and methods:

A total of 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score I to III patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were taken into the study and divided into two groups. Exclusion criteria were patient refusal, mini mental test (MMT) <26, The Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) >10, advanced cardiopulmonary or psychiatric disease, chronic alcohol abuse, morbid obesity, and known allergy to study drugs. In group MM, 2 mg midazolam and 20 mg meperidine was given intravenously and additional 1 to 2 mg midazolam and 20 mg meperidine (with a maximum total of 5 mg midazolam and 50 mg meperidine) was given when bispectral index (BIS) was >80. In group RP, 100 μg/kg/minute propofol infusion and 1 μg/kg remifentanil bolus was administered and additional 0.5 μg/kg remifentanil bolus was given when BIS was >80. Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (OAA/S) and Facial Pain Score (FPS) values were recorded. Cognitive function was measured by Trieger Dot Test (TDT) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST).

Results:

The study was concluded with 100 patients. Heart rate was slower and BIS values were lower in group RP throughout the procedure. Blood pressure was lower in group RP without clinical significance. There was no difference concerning recovery time and visual analog scores (VASs). In group MM, TDT scores were higher and DSST scores were lower. Satisfaction was higher in group RP.

Conclusion:

Propofol/remifentanil combination is better than meperidine/midazolam combination concerning cognitive function in sedation for colonoscopy.

Clinical significance:

The addition of BIS monitorization to evaluate the depth of sedation and the negative effects of midazolam meperidine combination on postprocedural cognitive function.

How to cite this article: Ekmekci P, Erkan G, Yilmaz H, Kazbek BK, Koksoy UC, Doganay G, Tüzüner F. Effect of Different Sedation Regimes on Cognitive Functions in Colonoscopy. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(2):158-162.

Comparison of oral midazolam with intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication for children undergoing CT imaging: a randomized, double-blind, and controlled study

BACKGROUND

Children undergoing computerized tomography (CT) frequently require sedation to allay their anxiety, and prevent motion artifacts and stress of intravenous (IV) cannulation.

AIMS

The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of oral midazolam and intranasal dexmedetomidine as sole premedicants in children for carrying out both IV cannulation as well as CT scanning, without the need for additional IV sedatives.

METHODS

Fifty-nine children, aged 1-6 years, scheduled to undergo CT imaging under sedation were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg·kg^-1 oral midazolam (group M) or 2.5 mcg·kg^-1 intranasal dexmedetomidine (group D). After 20-30 min, intravenous cannulation was performed and response to its placement was graded using the Groningen Distress Rating Scale (GDRS). After cannulation, children were transferred on the CT table, and assessed using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). CT imaging was performed without any further sedative if the RSS was ≥4. If there was movement or decrease in sedation depth (RSS ≤ 3), ketamine 1 mg·kg^-1 IV was given as an initial dose, followed by subsequent doses of 0.5 mg·kg^-1 IV if required.

RESULTS

A Significantly higher proportion of children in group D (67%) achieved RSS ≥ 4 as compared to group M (24%) (P-0.002). The risk ratio (95% CI) was 2.76 (1.38-5.52). Significantly lower GDRS scores were noted in group D (1(1-2)) as compared to group M (2(1-2)) at the time of venipuncture (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In the doses and time intervals used in our study, intranasal dexmedetomidine (2.5 μg·kg^-1 ) was found to be superior to oral midazolam (0.5 mg·kg^-1 ) for producing satisfactory sedation for CT imaging.

A comparison of sedation with midazolam-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl during endoscopy in children: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.

RESULTS

The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15 mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55 mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

In children, UGE procedures can be quite comfortable when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Complications in pediatric endoscopy

The experience of the "endoscopic community" in pediatric patients is limited, but during recent years increased skills of the endoscopists and technological improvements lead to a standardization of pediatric endoscopy and the development of specialized pediatric endoscopy unit. Adverse events related to diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in children are usually rare. Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of complications in pediatric endoscopy is crucial when dealing with benign diseases in children. The complication rate of diagnostic EGD and colonoscopy in children are extremely low. Therapeutic procedures have obviously an increased rate of adverse events. Esophageal dilations are the most common indication for endoscopic therapy in children and can lead to perforations which requires prompt diagnosis and management. Complications of ERCP in pediatric age are similar to those reported in adults. The experience in pediatric emergency endoscopy (mainly foreign body removal) is consolidated and related adverse events extremely rare. Sedation of children during endoscopy maybe needs further evaluation and standardization, to reduce the rate of specific complications.

Procedural sedation for MRI in children with ADHD

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood, affecting 5-8% of children. It has been observed that these children have poor sedation experiences; however, to date there is minimal research on procedural sedation in this population.

AIM

To examine whether children with ADHD required larger doses of propofol for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sedation.

METHODS

The hospital's administrative billing database was used to identify all billing codes for MRI brain scans (with and without contrast) in children aged between 5 and 12 years over the preceding 5.5 years. The hospital's electronic medical record database provided baseline demographics. The sedation record was reviewed for propofol dose, psychostimulant use, and prescribed dose. All children received a standard weight-based dose of midazolam prior to receiving the necessary amount of propofol. Primary outcome was the dose of propofol administered (mg·kg(-1) ) to achieve adequate sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 258 procedures met the inclusion criteria. The sample was 52% male, 74% White, 7.8% Black, 7.8% Hispanic, 4.3% Asian, and 6.2% other. ADHD was documented for 49 procedures with a prevalence of 18.5%. Patients with ADHD were older, more likely to be male, Hispanic, or to report race as 'Refused/Unknown'. Indications for MRI for patients with ADHD varied significantly, with 'Behavioral' and 'Neurocutaneous' being significantly overrepresented in the ADHD group. The average sedative dose for all patients was 2.8 mg·kg(-1) (95% CI 2.62-2.94). Sedative dose was similar among children with and without ADHD diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study illustrates that children with ADHD do not have higher sedative requirements to achieve a successful brain MRI.

Propofol-ketamine and propofol-fentanyl combinations for nonanesthetist-administered sedation

OBJECTIVES

There is a need to compare propofol requirement between propofol-ketamine (PK) and propofol-fentanyl (PF) given as nonanesthetist-administered propofol sedation during pediatric esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

The study was a parallel-group, randomized, double-blind comparison of the need for additional doses of propofol in the first minute after sedation induction between PK and PF, administered by rotating trainees in pediatrics for sedation during pediatric EGD. A total of 95 children with American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III between 3 and 12 years undergoing EGD were included and randomized to either of the groups. After midazolam premedication, children received either 0.5 mg/kg ketamine (PK) or 1 μg/kg of fentanyl (PF) followed by a mandatory 1 mg/kg of propofol. Additional doses of propofol of 0.5 mg/kg each were given to achieve sedation induction (modified Ramsay scale level 6), and further doses were administered during the procedure as required. A total of 92 children (PK, n = 47; PF, n = 45) were analyzed. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the propofol dose required for successful scope introduction and also in the need for additional propofol doses and the total additional propofol doses required in the first minute after sedation induction. Propofol injection pain was higher in the PF group (odds ratio 1.78). The adverse events and recovery time were similar. There was no escalation of care, airway intubations, death, or disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonanesthetist-administered propofol sedation is feasible in teaching hospitals. Propofol requirement is similar in both PK and PF combination regimens, but the lower frequency of propofol injection pain may favor the use of PK.

Procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric patients

A spectrum of conditions requires sedation and analgesia in pediatric population. Ineffective treatment of pain may result in physiological and behavioral responses that can adversely affect the developing nociceptive system. The recognition of pain in children can be facilitated by different pain scales. This article reviews the procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) practices in children along with pharmacology of the drugs used for this purpose.

Modifications in endoscopic practice for pediatric patients

We recommend that endoscopy in children be performed by pediatric-trained endoscopists whenever possible. We recommend that adult-trained endoscopists coordinate their services with pediatricians and pediatric specialists when they are needed to perform endoscopic procedures in children. We recommend that endoscopy be performed within 24 hours in symptomatic pediatric patients with known or suspected ingestion of caustic substances. We recommend emergent foreign-body removal of esophageal button batteries, as well as 2 or more rare-earth neodymium magnets. We recommend that procedural and resuscitative equipment appropriate for pediatric use should be readily available during endoscopic procedures. We recommend that personnel trained specifically in pediatric life support and airway management be readily available during sedated procedures in children. We recommend the use of endoscopes smaller than 6 mm in diameter in infants and children weighing less than 10 kg. We recommend the use of standard adult duodenoscopes for performing ERCP in children who weigh at least 10 kg. We recommend the placement of 12F or 16F percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in children who weigh less than 50 kg.

Efficacy of simethicone and N-acetylcysteine as premedication in improving visibility during upper endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Simethicone and N-acetylcysteine have been widely used in improving endoscopic visibility. However, the optimal dose, volume, and dosing time for the premedication regimen are still unclear.

AIM

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of premedication in improving endoscopic visibility and determine the contributions of dose, volume, and premedication time.

METHODS

A total of 1849 patients were prospectively treated in three groups: group A: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 5 mL water; group B: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 100 mL water; and group C: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 100 mL water containing 200 mg N-acetylcysteine. Mucosa visibility was assessed at seven sites of upper gastrointestinal tract. The sum of scores was considered as total mucosal visibility score (TMVS).

RESULTS

The upper body of stomach had the worst visibility score for all groups. TMVS of groups B and C were significantly lower than those of group A. Group C had a significantly fewer patients requiring endoscopic flushing than groups A and B. The TMVS for groups B and C were significantly lower than for group A within 30 min of beginning premedication. Beyond 30 min of premedication, there was no significant difference in the TMVS among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication using 100 mg simethicone in 100 mL of water improves endoscopic visibility. Addition of N-acetylcysteine to simethicone in 100 mL of water reduces the need for endoscopic flushing. For patients unable to tolerate a large fluid volume, a 5-mL simethicone suspension administered more than 30 min prior to upper endoscopy is suggested.

Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background/Aims

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation.

Results

The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046).

Conclusions

The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.

A 2 year experience of nurse led conscious sedation in paediatric burns

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine and midazolam have been used safely by anaesthetists in paediatric burns and have a good safety profile. We believed that this could be developed to a nurse led conscious sedation protocol, without direct anaesthetic attendance.

METHODS

Two years experience of our technique was retrospectively reviewed. We recorded the age, weight, percentage burn, dose of oral ketamine and midazolam given, time for procedure whether an anaesthetist was called to the sedation room, and the reason for the call.

RESULTS

Data were collected for a total of 45 children undergoing 131 procedures. The age (mean ± SD) was 9.5 ± 4.7 years, the weight (mean ± SD) 38.7 ± 19.8 kg and the percentage burn (mean ± SD) was 25.3 ± 22.9%. The dose of oral ketamine (mean ± SD) was 409.5 ± 252.3mg or 8.78 ± 3.27 mg/kg and the dose of oral midazolam (mean ± SD) was 17.6 ± 8.7 mg or 0.44 ± 0.14 mg/kg. The duration of procedure (mean ± SD) was 97.32 ± 32.90 min. The incidence of the anaesthetist required to administer further sedation was 29.8% of sedations. The decision to convert to general anaesthesia was taken in 2.3% of cases. An anaesthetist was called other than to top up sedation in 6.9% of sedations.

CONCLUSION

Our protocol for nurse-monitored conscious sedation using oral ketamine and midazolam in the burns patient provides a safe method of analgesic sedation for burn dressing changes.

Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children

Background/Aims

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.

Conclusions

Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The benzodiazepine diazepam potentiates responses of α1β2γ2L γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors activated by either γ-aminobutyric acid or allosteric agonists

BACKGROUND

The γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptor is a target for several anesthetics, anticonvulsants, anxiolytics, and sedatives. Neurosteroids, barbiturates, and etomidate both potentiate responses to GABA and allosterically activate the receptor. We examined the ability of a benzodiazepine, diazepam, to potentiate responses to allosteric agonists.

METHODS

The GABA type A receptors were expressed in human embryonic kidney 293 cells and studied using whole-cell and single-channel patch clamp. The receptors were activated by the orthosteric agonist GABA and allosteric agonists pentobarbital, etomidate, and alfaxalone.

RESULTS

Diazepam is equally potent at enhancing responses to orthosteric and allosteric agonists. Diazepam EC50s were 25 ± 4, 26 ± 6, 33 ± 6, and 26 ± 3 nm for receptors activated by GABA, pentobarbital, etomidate, and alfaxalone, respectively (mean ± SD, 5-6 cells at each condition). Mutations to the benzodiazepine-binding site (α1(H101C), γ2(R144C), γ2(R197C)) reduced or removed potentiation for all agonists, and an inverse agonist at the benzodiazepine site reduced responses to all agonists. Single-channel data elicited by GABA demonstrate that in the presence of 1 μm diazepam the prevalence of the longest open-time component is increased from 13 ± 7 (mean ± SD, n = 5 patches) to 27 ± 8% (n = 3 patches) and the rate of channel closing is decreased from 129 ± 28 s(-1) to 47 ± 6 s(-1) (mean ± SD) CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that benzodiazepines do not act by enhancing affinity of the orthosteric site for GABA but rather by increasing channel gating efficacy. The results also demonstrate the presence of interactions between allosteric activators and potentiators, raising a possibility of effects on dosage requirements or changes in side effects.

Propofol combined with traditional sedative agents versus propofol- alone sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of sedation of propofol combined with traditional sedative agents (PTSA) for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PTSA with propofol-alone sedation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of PTSA and propofol alone during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea), total dose of propofol used and amnesia were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine original RCTs investigating a total of 1,505 patients, of whom, 805 received PTSA sedation and 700 received propofol-alone sedation, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with propofol-alone sedation, the pooled relative risk with the use of PTSA sedation for developing hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmias, and apnea for all the procedures combined was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.30-2.92), 1.32 (95% CI, 0.38-4.64), 2.61 (95% CI, 0.23-29.29) and 2.81 (95% CI, 0.27-29.07), with no significant difference between the groups. The pooled mean difference in total dose of propofol used was -40.01 (95% CI, -78.96 to -1.05), which showed a significant reduction with use of PTSA sedation. The pooled relative risk for amnesia was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07), suggesting no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PTSA sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy could significantly reduce the total dose of propofol, but without benefits of lower risk of cardiopulmonary complications compared with propofol-alone sedation.

Prospective description of coughing, hemodynamic changes, and oxygen desaturation during endoscopic sedation

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation is increasingly used for endoscopy. The impact of sedation level on hemodynamic status, oxygenation, and aspiration risk is incompletely described.

AIMS

To describe the incidence of intraprocedural cough, hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and their relationship to clinical factors and sedation level.

METHODS

Detailed prospective recordings of hemodynamic changes, oxygen desaturation, and cough during 757 nonemergent endoscopic procedures done under sedation using propofol, midazolam, and/or fentanyl.

RESULTS

Thirteen percent of patients had at least one cough and 3% had prolonged cough. Cough was more common in nonsmokers (P = 0.05), upper endoscopy (P < 0.0001), with propofol (P = 0.0008), longer procedures (P = 0.0001), and hiccups (P = 0.01). The association between supine positioning during colonoscopy and cough approached significance (P = 0.06). Oxygen desaturation was rare (4%) and associated only with deep sedation (P = 0.02). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) dropped by 7.3 and 5.6% respectively. Decreases in systolic BP were more common in whites (P = 0.03), males (P = 0.004), nonsmokers (P = 0.04), during colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), and in patients receiving midazolam and fentanyl (P = 0.01). Heart rate (HR) dropped >20% from baseline in 15% of patients and was more common during colonoscopy (P = 0.002). HR increased >20% in 20% of patients and was more common with coughing (P < 0.0001) and in younger patients (P = 0.0002). No patient required pharmacologic treatment of BP or HR.

CONCLUSIONS

We have described procedural predictors of cough that may help clinicians reduce the risk of aspiration during endoscopy. Hemodynamic changes during endoscopy are common but largely clinically insignificant.

Midazolam-ketamine combination for moderate sedation in upper GI endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the quality of sedation with 3 different sedation regimens in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in pediatric patients.

METHODS

One hundred fifty consecutive children who underwent UGIE were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 medication regimens. Patients in group A (n = 49) received placebo. Forty-five minutes after the placebo was given, repeated intravenous (IV) doses of 0.1 mg/kg midazolam were administered titrated to achieve a level of deep sedation. Patients in group B (n = 51) received oral ketamine instead of placebo, and patients in group C (n = 50) received oral fentanyl instead of placebo with the same methodology and sedation endpoint.

RESULTS

The mean dose of midazolam administered in group B patients was remarkably lower compared with that of groups A and C. Patients in group B showed less distress in IV line placement and separation from parents, higher comfort level, more endoscopist satisfaction, and higher sedation depth compared with groups A and C. The recovery time was significantly shorter in group B. All of the 3 regimens were safe. All of the complications were managed successfully.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that synergistic sedation with oral ketamine and IV midazolam for UGIE in children is a suitable and safe sedation. The higher rate of vomiting in group B in contrast to previous studies must be caused mainly by the oral route of ketamine administration.

Safe and effective procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess, by a review of published evidence, the safest and most effective way to provide procedural sedation (PS) in children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE).

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were used. Search terms "endoscopy, gastrointestinal" or "endoscopy, digestive system" were combined with "sedation," "conscious sedation," "moderate sedation," "deep sedation," and "hypnotics and sedatives." The final review was restricted to studies reporting specifically on safety (incidences of adverse events) and/or effectiveness (time characteristics, need for supplemental sedation, need for restraint, procedural success, provider satisfaction, and patient comfort) of PS for GIE in children younger than 18 years.

RESULTS

The search yielded 182 references and the final selection included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 non-RCTs. Six sedation categories were identified: propofol, opioid/benzodiazepine, premedication, ketamine-, sevoflurane-, and midazolam-based. Only a few RCTs have compared different categories. Opioid/benzodiazepine- and propofol-based PS have a similar safety profile and a low incidence of major adverse events. Propofol-based sedation turned out to be the most effective regimen, with effectiveness comparable to general anesthesia. The addition of midazolam, fentanyl, remifentanil, and/or ketamine to propofol may increase the effectiveness without creating more adverse events. Data on midazolam-, ketamine- and sevoflurane-based sedation were generally too limited to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of RCTs containing all aspects of effectiveness and safety, the present evidence indicates propofol-based PS to be the best practice for PS in children undergoing GIE. Propofol can be safely administered by specifically trained nonanesthesiologists.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

Remifentanil versus fentanyl for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children

OBJECTIVES

We compared sedation by propofol combined with either fentanyl or remifentanil in pediatric outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two children scheduled for esophagogastroduodenoscopy in our institution were randomly assigned to receive 2 mg/kg propofol plus either 1 μg/kg bolus of fentanyl (group F; n = 20) or 0.5 μg/kg bolus of remifentanil (group R; n = 22). Cardiorespiratory parameters, sedation level, adverse effects related to the drugs and/or to the procedure, ease of performance for the endoscopist, and time to awakening were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no clinically significant changes in hemodynamics. Apnea periods >20 seconds and decreases in SaO2 <90% occurred more frequently in group R (31.8% vs 0%, P < 0.01, and 27.3% vs 5.0%, P > 0.05, respectively). Children in group R had significantly shorter average time to awakening: 9.5 ± 5.6 vs 16.5 ± 10.5 minutes (P = 0.01), and received a significantly lower total dose of propofol (P = 0.034). Adverse effects within the first 24 hours postprocedure occurred less frequently in group R (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil in combination with propofol provides good analgesic and sedative effects, which were shorter lasting compared with fentanyl-based sedation, and caused fewer delayed adverse effects. The use of remifentanil was associated with respiratory depression, emphasizing the need for experienced anesthesiologists.

Efficacy of two oral premedicants: midazolam or a low-dose combination of midazolam-ketamine for reducing stress during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing CT imaging

BACKGROUND

Pain, anxiety and fear of needles make intravenous cannulation extremely difficult in children. We assessed the efficacy and safety of oral midazolam and a low-dose combination of midazolam and ketamine to reduce the stress and anxiety during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing computed tomography (CT) imaging when compared to placebo.

METHODS

Ninety-two ASA I or II children (1-5 years) scheduled for CT imaging under sedation were studied. Children were randomized to one of the three groups. Group M received 0.5 mg x kg(-1) midazolam in 5 ml of honey, group MK received 0.25 mg x kg(-1) midazolam mixed with 1 mg x kg(-1) ketamine in 5-ml honey and group P received 5-ml honey alone, orally. In 20-30 min after premedication, venipuncture was attempted at the site of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream. Sedation scores and venipuncture scores were recorded. Primary outcome of the study was incidence of children crying at venipuncture (venipuncture score of 4).

RESULTS

Significantly more children cried during venipuncture in placebo group compared to the other two groups (19/32 (59%) in group P vs 1 each in groups M and MK, (P < 0.001) (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.55-3.63). In 20-30 min after premedication, group P had more children in sedation score 1 or 2 (crying or anxious) compared to the other two groups (P < 0.05). At this time, group MK showed more children in calm and awake compared to group M (P = 0.02). At venipuncture, group P had more children in venipuncture score 3 or 4 (crying or withdrawing) compared to group M or MK (P < 0.05), while groups M and MK were comparable.

CONCLUSION

A low-dose combination of oral midazolam and ketamine or oral midazolam alone effectively reduces the stress during intravenous cannulation in children undergoing CT imaging without any adverse effects. However, the combination provides more children in calm and quiet state when compared to midazolam alone at venipuncture.

Conscious sedation in pediatric speech endoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Speech nasoendoscopy is one of the gold standards for evaluating velopharyngeal insufficiency. The vast majority of pediatric patients are able to tolerate this procedure within the clinic under local anesthetic. However, a select group of pediatric patients is unable to cooperate with the examination. Conscious sedation is commonly used in pediatrics to aid in patient tolerance and cooperating with selected procedures. Conscious sedation has never been reported in the literature for use in speech endoscopy. The purpose of this study is to describe a technique for performing sedated speech endoscopy and to review our experience with sedated speech endoscopy in a selected group of patients who were unable to cooperate with examination under local anesthesia alone.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of pediatric patients between the ages of 2 and 15 who underwent conscious sedation for the speech nasoendoscopy. All examinations were performed at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Sedation agent, tolerance of procedure, success of procedure, and complications associated with the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven sedated speech endoscopies were evaluated. Adequate examinations were obtained in 93% of patients overall and 100% of the patients evaluated while sedated with nitrous oxide. Complication rates and post-endoscopy speech management are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedated speech endoscopy is a promising modality for evaluating velopharyngeal insufficiency in the pediatric population that may not otherwise be able to cooperate with examination in the clinic.

Avaliação da lidocaína tópica como pré-medicação para a endoscopia digestiva alta em crianças

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da lidocaína spray tópica como droga adjuvante na sedação e analgesia de crianças e adolescentes para endoscopia digestiva. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 80 pacientes (49 femininos e 31 masculinos, idade média 12±3 anos), 40 no grupo placebo e 40 no grupo lidocaína. Os pacientes foram alocados aleatoriamente e um paciente de cada grupo foi excluído. Lidocaína a 10% ou placebo (ácido tânico 0,5%) aerossol (dois jatos) foram aplicados na orofaringe antes da infusão de propofol. Os pacientes foram monitorizados durante o procedimento e após, sendo respondido questionário para avaliar odinofagia e a pré-medicação. O desfecho primário foi a dose de propofol empregada, enquanto os desfechos secundários foram incidência de complicações, tempo de sala e duração do procedimento. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à idade, sexo e indicação da endoscopia. A dose de propofol empregada não foi diferente nos dois grupos (grupo placebo 3,1±1,1 e grupo lidocaína 2,9±1,3mg/kg; p=0,69), mesmo quando considerada a dose bruta (p=0,33). No entanto, o tempo de sala médio foi maior no grupo placebo do que no lidocaína (23±7 versus 20±5 minutos; IC95% da diferença: 0,47-5,89 minutos, p=0,02). Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à duração do procedimento, incidência de complicações e aceitação pelo paciente. CONCLUSÕES: O emprego de medicação tópica anestésica em endoscopia reduz o tempo de sala sem aumentar a incidência de efeitos adversos (NCT00521703).

Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Traditionally, sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was provided by the gastroenterologist. Increasingly, however, complex procedures are being performed on seriously ill patients. As a result, anesthesiologists now are providing anesthesia and sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite for many of these patients. This article reviews the challenges encountered in this environment and anesthetic techniques that can be used successfully for these procedures.

Monitored anesthesia care with propofol versus surgeon-monitored sedation with benzodiazepines and narcotics for preoperative endoscopy in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND

Although still controversial, upper endoscopy is frequently performed before bariatric surgery. This study investigated the hypothesis that morbidly obese patients would prefer anesthesiologist-monitored sedation (AMS) compared to surgeon-monitored sedation (SMS) during preoperative endoscopy.

METHODS

All patients who underwent endoscopy before their bariatric surgery were given a post-procedure survey regarding their experience with the preoperative endoscopy. The survey inquired about issues during and after the procedure. We compared patients who had AMS with IV propofol versus SMS IV narcotics and benzodiazepines.

RESULTS

There were 100 patients (SMS=49 and AMS=51). Few patients complained of pain in the abdomen or throat during the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=2 vs. 8% and 2 vs. 10%, respectively; p=NS). More patients complained about throat pain after the procedure (AMS vs. SMS=37 vs. 45%; p=NS). More patients in the SMS group remembered the scope being placed in the mouth versus AMS (33 vs. 10%; p<0.02). More patients remembered gagging during the procedure in the SMS group versus the AMS group, but this did not reach statistical significance (24 vs. 10%; p=0.06). There was a trend that more patients in the AMS group felt they recovered in less than 1 h (53%) compared to the SMS group (37%; p=0.1).

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo upper endoscopy with either AMS or SMS seem to tolerate the procedure well. The preliminary benefits seen with AMS need to be further explored. AMS should be considered for patients undergoing preoperative upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery.

Efficacy of ketamine and midazolam as co-induction agents with propofol for laryngeal mask insertion in children

OBJECTIVES

Use of midazolam and ketamine lowers the induction dose of propofol (co-induction) producing hemodynamic stability.

BACKGROUND

Large doses of propofol needed for induction and laryngeal mask (LM) insertion in children may be associated with hemodynamic and respiratory effects. Co-induction has the advantage of reducing dose and therefore maintaining hemodynamic stability.

AIM

To examine the effect of co-induction on hemodynamics, LM insertion and recovery in children.

METHODS/MATERIALS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted in 60 ASA I/II children, age 1-8 years. Normal saline, ketamine 0.5 mg.kg(-1), midazolam 0.05 mg.kg(-1) were administered in groups P (propofol), PK (propofol-ketamine) and PM (propofol-midazolam), respectively, 2 min prior to the administration of the induction dose of propofol. Propofol 3.5 mg.kg(-1) (group P) or 2.5 mg.kg(-1) (groups PK and PM) was used for induction, LM inserted 30 s later and insertion conditions assessed. Heart rate and blood pressure were recorded immediately after propofol bolus, then every min till 2 min after LMA insertion. Recovery was assessed using Steward's Score.

RESULT

In group P, systolic blood pressure (SBP) showed a significantly greater decrease compared to group PK and group PM (P < 0.005). Only 5% of patients in groups PK and PM showed >20% fall in SBP compared to 89% in group P (P < 0.005). More children in groups PK and PM had acceptable conditions for LM insertion compared to group P (P < 0.05). The time to achieve Steward Score of 6 was longer in groups PK and PM compared to group P (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In children, the combination of propofol with ketamine or midazolam produces stable hemodynamics and improved LM insertion conditions but is associated with delayed recovery.

Remifentanil compared with midazolam and pethidine sedation during colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study

PURPOSE

The objective of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of remifentanil during colonoscopy with those of the standard combination of midazolam and pethidine.

METHODS

One-hundred and sixteen consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to groups A or B. Patients in group A (n = 56) received intravenous (IV) midazolam and pethidine. Patients in group B (n = 60) received IV remifentanil.

RESULTS

Recovery was faster in group B (0 min) than in group A (56 +/- 11.3 min) (P < 0.001). There was a marked difference between groups B and A with regard to the time of hospital discharge-28.7 +/- 4.3 and 148.9 +/- 34 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients in group A rated the procedure as comfortable, as also did those in group B. A combination of midazolam and pethidine had a greater affect on patients' cardiorespiratory characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil during colonoscopy provides sufficient pain relief with better hemodynamic stability, less respiratory depression, and significantly faster recovery and hospital discharge than moderate sedation with midazolam and pethidine.

Premedication with orally administered lorazepam in adults undergoing ERCP: a randomized double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Restlessness often complicates ERCP and may be a reason for premature termination of the procedure.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to evaluate whether a premedication with orally administered lorazepam could reduce the need for sedatives and improve sedation quality.

DESIGN

Randomized double-blind trial.

SETTING

Therapeutic ERCP with an intravenous sedation containing midazolam, propofol, and S(+)-ketamine.

PATIENTS

95 inpatients (aged 20-91 years).

INTERVENTIONS

1 mg of lorazepam (n=47) or placebo (n=48) given orally before ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Total amount of administered propofol.

RESULTS

Heart rate, blood pressure, number of oxygen desaturations, and states of restlessness did not differ between the groups. The same amount of midazolam was administered in both groups. There was no significant difference in the total amount of propofol to achieve adequate sedation (lorazepam vs placebo: 71+/-5 vs 63+/-4 microg/kg/min, mean+/-SE). Paradoxically, patients pretreated with lorazepam even needed more propofol in the early phase of sedation (275+/-39 vs 159+/-37 microg/kg in minutes 5-10, P<.05) and the total amount of ketamine administered was higher in this group as well (15.8+/-1.4 vs 11.3+/-1.2 microg/kg/min, P<.05). In both groups there were high rates of satisfaction with the course of the procedure evaluated both by the endoscopists and the patients.

CONCLUSION

The trial failed to show an advantage of an oral premedication with lorazepam. The amount of sedatives administered in the lorazepam group even tended to be higher. A premedication with lorazepam may be counterproductive when followed by sedation containing another benzodiazepine.