Low effect-site concentration of propofol target-controlled infusion reduces the risk of hypotension during endoscopy in a Taiwanese population

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for sedation among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy often require propofol-based sedation combined with analgesics. At present, the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients remains controversial. Moreover, there is no universal agreement regarding the appropriate dose of esketamine supplementation. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine as an adjunct to propofol for sedation during endoscopic procedures in patients.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases and three clinical trial registry platforms were searched and the deadline was February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of esketamine for sedation were included by two reviewers. Data from the eligible studies were combined to calculate the pooled risk ratio or standardized mean difference.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies with 1962 esketamine participants were included in the analysis. As an adjunct to propofol, the administration of esketamine reduced the recovery time compared to normal saline (NS). However, there was no significant difference between the opioids group and ketamine group. For propofol dosage, the administration of esketamine required a lower propofol dosage compared to the NS group and opioids group].For complications, the esketamine group had fewer complications compared to the NS group and opioid group in patients, but there were no significant differences between the esketamine group and ketamine group. Notably, the coadministration of esketamine was associated with a higher risk of visual disturbance compared to the NS group. In addition, we used subgroup analysis to investigate whether 0.2-0.5 mg/kg esketamine was effective and tolerable for patients.

CONCLUSION

Esketamine as an adjunct to propofol, is an appropriate effective alternative for sedation in participants undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, considering the possibility of its psychotomimetic effects, esketamine should be used with caution.

Analgesic comparison of dezocine plus propofol versus fentanyl plus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

As the adjunctive anesthesia to propofol, both dezocine and fentanyl showed some potential for gastrointestinal endoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to compare their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dezocine versus fentanyl for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included.

RESULTS

Five RCTs involving 677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with fentanyl plus propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy, dezocine plus propofol resulted in the reduction in propofol dose(mean difference [MD] = -11.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -22.83 to -0.61; P = .04), awakening time (std. MD = -1.79; 95% CI = -3.31 to -0.27; P = .02) and hypopnea (risk ratio [RR] = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.06-0.41; P = .0002), but had no remarkable effect on induction time (MD = 1.20; 95% CI = -0.98 to 3.39; P = .28), postoperative pain score (MD = -0.38; 95% CI = -1.00 to 0.24; P = .24), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.10-1.98; P = .29).

CONCLUSION

Dezocine plus propofol may be better for the anesthesia of gastrointestinal endoscopy than fentanyl plus propofol.

Effects of Bispectral Index-controlled Use of Magnesium on Propofol Consumption and Sedation Level in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of bispectral index-controlled use of magnesium on propofol consumption, periprocedural hemodynamic response and patient comfort.

Material

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study. In Group 1 (magnesium), a single dose 50 mg/kg magnesium sulfate diluted with 100 mL 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Initially bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol was applied. The maintenance dose of propofol was 60 mcg/kg/min. During the procedure, the propofol infusion was increased by titration until the bispectral index (BIS) value of 70 was achieved. In Group 2 (saline), 100 ml 0.9% NaCl was administered 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. The bolus and maintenance doses of propofol, and target BIS values were the same as those in Group 1.

Results

When BIS values were compared between the groups, the initial BIS values in the magnesium group (Group 1) were significantly higher than those of the saline group (Group 2) (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in the magnesium group (p<0.05). Propofol consumption was greater in Group 2 than in Group 1 (p<0.05). The time to reach BIS 70 was significantly shorter in Group 1 (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of patient- and endoscopist-satisfaction (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The use of magnesium in addition to propofol may be an efficient and reliable option to reduce the drug consumption during colonoscopic interventions.

The Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Midazolam and propofol are both used for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of midazolam versus propofol on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy are included. Two investigators have independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving 552 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with midazolam sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores during gastrointestinal endoscopy than midazolam [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-1.05 to -0.37; P<0.0001), but the comparison shows no remarkable influence on patient satisfaction scores between midazolam and propofol (Std. MD=-0.34; 95% CI=-0.88 to 0.20; P=0.21), procedure time (Std. MD=0.14; 95% CI=-0.13 to 0.42; P=0.31), hypoxia [risk ratio (RR)=0.86; 95% CI=0.53-1.38; P=0.53), and bradycardia (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.54-2.06; P=0.89). In addition, propofol shows higher incidence of hypotension than midazolam (RR=0.58; 95% CI=0.34-0.99; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with midazolam sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, propofol sedation results in higher endoscopist satisfaction scores, but may increase the incidence of hypotension.

Role of combined propofol and sufentanil anesthesia in endoscopic injection sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of sufentanil and propofol injection in patients undergoing endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) for esophageal varices (EVs).

METHODS

Patients with severe EVs who underwent EIS with sufentanil and propofol anesthesia between April 2016 and July 2016 at our hospital were reviewed. Although EIS and sequential therapy were performed under endotracheal intubation, we only evaluated the efficacy and safety of anesthesia for the first EIS procedure. Patients were intravenously treated with 0.5-1 μg/kg sufentanil. Anesthesia was induced with 1-2 mg/kg propofol and maintained using 2-5 mg/kg per hour of propofol. Information, regarding age, sex, weight, American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification, indications, preanesthetic problems, endoscopic procedure, successful completion of the procedure, anesthesia time, recovery time, and anesthetic agents, was recorded. Adverse events, including hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, and hypoxia, were also noted.

RESULTS

Propofol and sufentanil anesthesia was provided in 182 procedures involving 140 men and 42 women aged 56.1 ± 11.7 years (range, 25-83 years). The patients weighed 71.4 ± 10.7 kg (range, 45-95 kg) and had ASA physical status classifications of II (79 patients) or III (103 patients). Ninety-five patients had a CTP classification of A and 87 had a CTP classification of B. Intravenous anesthesia was successful in all cases. The mean anesthesia time was 33.1 ± 5.8 min. The mean recovery time was 12.3 ± 3.7 min. Hypotension occurred in two patients (1.1%, 2/182). No patient showed hypertension during the endoscopic therapy procedure. Bradycardia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182), and hypoxia occurred in one patient (0.5%, 1/182). All complications were easily treated with no adverse sequelae. All endoscopic procedures were completed successfully.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of propofol and sufentanil injection in endotracheal intubation-assisted EIS for EVs is effective and safe.

The Comparison of Etomidate and Propofol Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Etomidate and propofol played an important role in the sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of etomidate versus propofol for the anesthesia of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were anesthesia duration and recovery time. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials involving 1115 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with propofol, etomidate resulted in comparable anesthesia duration [standard mean difference (Std. MD)=-0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.16 to 0.10; P=0.66], recovery time (Std. MD=0.25; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.92; P=0.47), mean arterial pressure at intubation (Std. MD=0.44; 95% CI, -0.26 to 1.15; P=0.21), heart pulse at intubation (Std. MD=0.93; 95% CI, -0.69 to 2.55; P=0.26), SPO2 at intubation (Std. MD=-0.52; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.01; P=0.05), patient satisfaction [odds risk (OR)=0.42; 95% CI, 0.11-1.66; P=0.22], hypotension (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-1.22; P=0.07), changes of heart rate (OR=0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P=0.88), nausea-vomiting (OR=2.02; 95% CI, 0.73-5.57; P=0.17), and the reduction in apnea or hyoxemia (OR=0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; P=0.0002), and injection pain (OR=0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P<0.00001), but the increase in myoclonus (OR=8.54; 95% CI, 3.14-23.20; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between etomidate and propofol, no significant difference was revealed regarding anesthesia duration, recovery time, mean arterial pressure at intubation, heart pulse at intubation, SPO2 at intubation, patient satisfaction, hypotension, changes of heart rate and nausea-vomiting. Compared with propofol, etomidate showed reduced apnea or hyoxemia, and injection pain, but with an increased myoclonus.

Comparison of procedural sequences in same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: Single-center, prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)-colonoscopy and colonoscopy-EGD sequences for patients subjected to same-day bidirectional endoscopy under remifentanil and propofol sedation.

METHODS

A total of 209 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic same-day bidirectional endoscopy between 16 February 2016 and 30 April 2016 were randomly assigned to the EGD-colonoscopy (n = 106) and colonoscopy-EGD (n = 103) sequence groups. Primary endpoint was total dose of propofol required for the procedure. Secondary endpoints included duration of endoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, endoscopy findings, and cardiopulmonary responses of the patients.

RESULTS

Patients in the two groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical data (P > 0.05). EGD-colonoscopy sequence group had lesser requirement of propofol for sedation (P < 0.05), faster recovery (P < 0.001), and lesser influence on mean arterial pressure (MAP) during the endoscopy (P < 0.05). Duration of EGD and colonoscopy, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and pathological findings did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The EGD-colonoscopy sequence may be considered the preferred sequence for same-day bidirectional endoscopy as a result of less cardiovascular stress, lessened need for sedation with propofol, and faster recovery.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Optimal and safe standard doses of midazolam and propofol to achieve patient and doctor satisfaction with dental treatment: A prospective cohort study

Background

The incidences of morbidity and mortality caused by pharmacosedation for dental treatment have not yet reached zero. Adverse events are related to inappropriate respiratory management, mostly originating from an overdose of sedatives. Since sedation is utilized for the satisfaction of both the dentist and the patient, the optimal dose should be minimized to prevent adverse events. We attempted to define the optimal doses of midazolam and propofol required to achieve high levels of patient and dentist satisfaction.

Methods

One thousand dental patients, including those undergoing third molar extractions, were enrolled in this study. A dose of 1 mg of midazolam was administered at 1-minute intervals until adequate sedation was achieved. Propofol was then infused continuously to maintain the sedation level. Both the patients and the dentists were subsequently interviewed and asked to complete a questionnaire. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine the factors that contributed to patient and dentist satisfaction.

Results

The peak midazolam dose resulting in the highest percentage of patient satisfaction was 3 mg. Both a lower dose and a higher dose reduced patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction increased with an increasing dosage of propofol up until 4 mg/kg/hr, reaching a peak of 78.6%. The peak midazolam dose resulting in the highest percentage of dentist satisfaction (78.8%) was 2 mg. Incremental propofol doses reduced dentist satisfaction, in contrast to their effect on patient satisfaction. The strongest independent predictors of patient satisfaction and dentist satisfaction were no intraoperative memory (OR, 5.073; 95% CI, 3.532–7.287; P<0.001) and unintentional movements by the patient (OR, 0.035; 95% CI, 0.012–0.104; P<0.001), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

We found that 3 mg of midazolam and 3 mg/kg/hr of propofol may be the optimal doses for maximizing both patient and dentist satisfaction. Although this level of sedation is relatively light, memory loss and an absence of unintentional patient movements can be expected without adverse events.

Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Use of Propofol Plus Fentanyl versus Midazolam Plus Fentanyl as Sedation in Diagnostic Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge.

RESULTS

There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child-Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.

Adverse Drug Reactions in the Intensive Care Unit

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesirable effects of medications used in normal doses [1]. ADRs can occur during treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) or result in ICU admissions. A meta-analysis of 4139 studies suggests the incidence of ADRs among hospitalized patients is 17% [2]. Because of underreporting and misdiagnosis, the incidence of ADRs may be much higher and has been reported to be as high as 36% [3]. Critically ill patients are at especially high risk because of medical complexity, numerous high-alert medications, complex and often challenging drug dosing and medication regimens, and opportunity for error related to the distractions of the ICU environment [4]. Table 1 summarizes the ADRs included in this chapter.

Procedural sedation and analgesia for respiratory-gated MR-HIFU in the liver: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies demonstrated both pre-clinically and clinically the feasibility of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) ablations in the liver. To overcome the associated problem of respiratory motion of the ablation area, general anesthesia (GA) and mechanical ventilation was used in conjunction with either respiratory-gated energy delivery or energy delivery during induced apnea. However, clinical procedures requiring GA are generally associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and complication rate compared to procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). Furthermore, PSA is associated with faster recovery and an increased eligibility for non- and mini-invasive interventions.

METHODS

In this study, we investigate both in an animal model and on a small patient group the kinetics of the diaphragm during free-breathing, when a tailored remifentanil/propofol-based PSA protocol inducing partial respiratory depression is used. Subsequently, we demonstrate in an animal study the compatibility of the resulting respiratory pattern of the PSA protocol with a gated HIFU ablation in the liver by direct comparison with gated ablations conducted under GA. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed for statistical analysis of non-perfused and necrosed tissue volumes. Duty cycles (ratio or percentage of the breathing cycle with the diaphragm in its resting position, such that acoustic energy delivery with MR-HIFU was allowed) were statistically compared for both GA and PSA using student's t tests.

RESULTS

In both animal and human experiments, the breathing frequency was decreased below 9/min, while maintaining stable vital functions. Furthermore an end-exhalation resting phase was induced by this PSA protocol during which the diaphragm is virtually immobile. Median non-perfused volumes, non-viable volumes based on NADH staining, and duty cycles were larger under PSA than under GA or equal.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that MR-HIFU ablations of the liver under PSA are feasible and potentially increase the non-invasive nature of this type of intervention.

Propofol target-controlled infusion for sedated gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison of propofol alone versus propofol-fentanyl-midazolam

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is the major technique for diagnosis of GI disease and treatment. Various sedation and analgesia regimens such as midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol can be used during GI endoscopy. The purpose of the study was to compare propofol alone and propofol combination with midazolam and fentanyl in moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing GI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. All patients received a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) to maintain sedation during the procedure. Patients were randomly allocated into either Group P (propofol TCI alone) or Group C (combination of propofol TCI plus midazolam and fentanyl). Dermographic data, anesthetic parameters (sedation regimen, blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation), procedure parameters (procedure time, colonoscopy, or panendoscopy), propofol consumption, and adverse events (hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia) were all recorded. Postprocedural records included recovery time, postoperative adverse events (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, recall, and pain) and satisfaction. The average propofol consumption was 251 ± 83 mg in Group P and 159 ± 73 mg in Group C (p < 0.001). The incidence of transient hypotension was higher in Group P (p = 0.009). The recovery time and discharge time were both shorter in Group C (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively). Overall, postprocedural adverse events were similar in both groups. The postanesthetic satisfaction was comparable in both groups. TCI of propofol combined with midazolam and fentanyl achieved sedation with fewer hypotension episodes and shorter recovery and discharge time than propofol TCI alone in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIMS

To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

Management of anesthetic emergencies and complications outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia outside the operating room is commonly uncomfortable and risky. In this setting, anesthetic emergencies or complications may occur. This review aims to report the most recent updates regarding the management of prehospital anesthesia, anesthesia in the trauma and emergency rooms, and anesthesia for endoscopy and interventional radiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

After tracheal intubation failure, airway control of outpatients could be achieved by pharmacologically assisted laryngeal mask insertion. Management of traumatic injured patients is best guided in the frame of checklists. Monitoring sedation in this setting is challenging notably because of the threat of haemodynamic instability. Unfortunately, BIS monitoring cannot be recommended to guide sedation in this setting. Ketamine can be used to prevent hypotension during prehospital anesthesia or procedural sedation, especially as its neuroprotective effects have been recently best understood. Target-controlled infusion propofol administration with small concentration increments is adapted to prevent hypotension and hypoxaemia during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy and interventional radiology. Target-controlled infusion remifentanil administration is also adapted to many procedures.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia outside the operating room requires careful monitoring to avoid side-effects and education of nonanaesthetists when they are involved. A useful tool is to continuously improve the protocols and checklists to make anesthesia in this setting safer.

Etomidate-remifentanil is more suitable for monitored anesthesia care during gastroscopy in older patients than propofol-remifentanil

Background

This prospective and randomized study was designed to compare safety, potential complications, and patient and examiner satisfaction of 2 anesthetic combinations – etomidate-remifentanil and propofol-remifentanil – in elderly patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy.

Material/Methods

A group of 720 patients, aged 60–80 years, scheduled for diagnostic gastroscopy under sedation were prospectively randomized. After 0.4–0.6 μg kg⁻¹ of remifentanil was infused, etomidate or propofol was administered. Patients in the etomidate group received doses of etomidate at 0.1–0.15 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 4–6 mg. Patients in the propofol group received doses of propofol at 1–2 mg kg⁻¹ followed by 20–40 mg. Physiological indexes were evaluated for the 715 of 720 patients that completed the treatment. The onset time, duration time, and discharge time were recorded. Physicians, anesthetists, and patients were surveyed to assess their satisfaction.

Results

Systolic pressure and diastolic pressure decreased significantly after the procedure in the propofol group (P<0.001). The average heart rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (P<0.05). No periods of desaturation (SpO₂ <95%) were observed in either group. The onset time was earlier in the etomidate group (P=0.00). All adverse events, with the exception of myoclonus, were greater in the propofol group, and physician and patient satisfaction in both groups was similar.

Conclusions

Etomidate-remifentanil administration for sedation and analgesia during gastroscopy resulted in more stable hemodynamic responses and less adverse events in older patients.

Target-controlled infusion of propofol versus intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether target-controlled infusion (TCI) with propofol, a method that has theoretically better control of drug concentration, produces less cardiovascular and respiratory suppression than an intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

In total 100 participants who had undergone esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) and 120 who had undergone colonoscopy were prospectively and randomly enrolled to receive TCI with propofol or intermittent bolus of cocktail regimen containing midazolam, alfentanil and propofol until they were unresponsive to verbal commands. The target concentration was adjusted and the bolus of the cocktail regimen was added based on their responses. The nadir values of heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation during and after the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

The nadir systolic blood pressure during the endoscopy in the cocktail regimen group was significantly lower than that in the TCI with propofol group. In the cocktail regimen group, the incidence of hypotension during colonoscopy and that of bradycardia during EGD were higher than those in the TCI with propofol group. No participants in the TCI with propofol group experienced hypoxia during endoscopy. In the cocktail regimen group, six participants who had undergone EGD and six who had undergone colonoscopy showed transient hypoxic episodes during or after endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

TCI with propofol produced less cardiovascular and respiratory suppression than intermittent bolus of a sedative cocktail regimen in deep sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.