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

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

Safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation of elderly patients undergoing ERCP

BACKGROUND

Proper sedation of patients, particularly elderly individuals, who are more susceptible to sedation-related complications, is of significant importance in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of a low-dose combination of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol for deep sedation in elderly patients undergoing ERCP, compared to a group of middle-aged patients.

METHODS

The medical records of 610 patients with common bile duct stones who underwent elective ERCP under deep sedation with a three-drug regimen, including midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol at Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from January 2023 to September 2023 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Patients were categorized into three groups: middle-aged (50-64 years, n = 202), elderly (65-79 years, n = 216), and very elderly (≥ 80 years, n = 192). Intraoperative vital signs and complications were compared among these groups.

RESULTS

The three groups showed no significant difference in terms of intraoperative variation of systolic blood pressure (P = 0.291), diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.737), heart rate (P = 0.107), peripheral oxygen saturation (P = 0.188), bispectral index (P = 0.158), and the occurrence of sedation-related adverse events including hypotension (P = 0.170) and hypoxemia (P = 0.423).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that a low-dose three-drug regimen consisting of midazolam, alfentanil, and propofol seems safe and effective for deep sedation of elderly and very elderly patients undergoing ERCP procedures. However, further studies are required to verify these findings and clarify the benefits and risks of this method.

Effectiveness and safety of an atropine/midazolam and target controlled infusion propofol-based moderate sedation protocol during percutaneous endoscopic transgastric jejunostomy procedures in Parkinson's disease: a real-life retrospective observational study

Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), often elderly with various comorbidities, may require a continuous intestinal infusion of carbidopa/levodopa gel by the placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) with a jejunal tube (PEG-J) to improve their motor outcome and quality of life. However, it is unclear what is the best procedural sedation protocol for PEG-J procedures. Fifty patients with PD and indication for PEG-J procedure (implantation, replacement, removal) underwent, from 2017 to 2022, a sedation protocol characterized by premedication with atropine (0.01 mg/Kg i.v.), midazolam (0.015-0.03 mg/Kg i.v.) and induction with bolus propofol (0.5-1 mg/Kg i.v.) as well as, finally, sedation with continuous infusion propofol (2-5 mg/Kg/h i.v.) by Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) technique. Ninety-eight per cent of patients experienced no intraprocedural or peri-procedural adverse events. All the procedures were technically successful. A good discharge time was recorded. The vital parameters recorded during the procedure did not vary significantly. A PEG-J procedure conducted within 30 min showed a significant advantage over end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2). Indeed, the latter showed some predictive behavior (OR: 1.318, 95% CI 1.075-1.615, p = 0.008). In the real world, this sedation protocol showed a good safety and effectiveness profile, even with reduced doses of midazolam and a TCI propofol technique in moderate sedation.

Simulation-Based Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Sedations: A Novel Validation to Multidrug Pharmacodynamic Modeling

Pharmacodynamic models have described the interactions between anesthetics. Applying the models to clinical practice is still problematic due to inherent limitations: 1. modeling conditions are different from practice. 2. One model can only describe one endpoint. To tackle these, we propose a new method of model validation for recovery and intraprocedural sedation adequacy with a three-drug pharmacodynamic model using six published clinical studies that contain midazolam, opioid, and propofol. Mean drug dose, intraprocedural sedation level, procedure, and recovery time are extracted from each study. Simulated drug regimens are designed to best approximate study conditions. A published deep sedation model is used for simulation. Model-predicted recovery time and intraprocedural sedation scores are compared with the original clinical study outcomes. The model successfully predicted recovery times in eight out of nine regimens. Lower doses of midazolam are associated with faster recovery. Model prediction of intraprocedural sedation level was compatible with the clinical studies in five out of seven regimens. The three-drug pharmacodynamic model describes the course of gastrointestinal endoscopy sedations from clinical studies well. Model predictions are consistent with the results from clinical studies. The approach implies that large scale validation can be performed repeatedly.

Anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonoperating room anesthesia for digestive tract endoscopy has its own specificities and requires practical training. Monitoring devices, anesthetic drugs, understanding of procedures and management of complications are critical aspects.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data are available regarding risk factors for intra- and postoperative complications (based on anesthesia registries), airway management, new anesthetic drugs, techniques of administration and management of advances in interventional endoscopy procedures.

SUMMARY

Digestive tract endoscopy is a common procedure that takes place outside the operating room most of the time and has become more and more complex due to advanced invasive procedures. Prior evaluation of the patient's comorbidities and a good understanding of the objectives and constraints of the endoscopic procedures are required. Assessing the risk of gastric content aspiration is critical for determining appropriate anesthetic protocols. The availability of adequate monitoring (capnographs adapted to spontaneous ventilation, bispectral index), devices for administration of anesthetic/sedative agents (target-controlled infusion) and oxygenation (high flow nasal oxygenation) guarantees the quality of sedation and patient' safety during endoscopic procedures. Knowledge of the specificities of each interventional endoscopic procedure (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, submucosal dissection) allows preventing complications during anesthesia.

Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement.

RESULTS

The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 100.60, - 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.67, - 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.45, - 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0-4] vs. 3 [0-5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0-2] vs. 1 [0-3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center ( www.chictr.org.cn ) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

Effect of high-flow vs. low-flow nasal plus mouthguard oxygen therapy on hypoxaemia during sedation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Whether high-flow vs. low-flow nasal oxygen reduces hypoxaemia for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is currently unknown. In this multicentre trial, 132 patients ASA physical status 3 or higher, BMI > 30 kg.m^-2 or with known or suspected obstructive sleep apnoea were randomly allocated to high-flow nasal oxygen up to 60 l.min^-1 at 100% F_I O₂ or low-flow nasal oxygen at 4 l.min^-1 . The low-flow nasal oxygen group also received oxygen at 4 l.min^-1 through an oxygenating mouthguard, totalling 8 l.min^-1 . Primary outcome was hypoxaemia, defined as S_p O₂ < 90% regardless of duration. Hypoxaemia occurred in 7.7% (5/65) of patients with high-flow and 9.1% (6/66) with low-flow nasal oxygen (percentage point difference -1.4%, 95%CI -10.9 to 8.0; p = 0.77). Between the groups, there were no significant differences in frequency of hypoxaemic episodes; lowest S_p O₂ ; peak transcutaneous carbon dioxide; hypercarbia (transcutaneous carbon dioxide > 2.66 kPa from baseline); requirement of chin lift/jaw thrust; nasopharyngeal airway insertion; bag-mask ventilation; or tracheal intubation. Following adjustment for duration of the procedure, the primary outcome remained non-significant. In high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, oxygen therapy with high-flow nasal oxygen did not reduce the rate of hypoxaemia, hypercarbia or the need for airway interventions, compared with combined oral and nasal low-flow oxygen.

Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely used in UK EDs. Titrated to an end point of sedation, it has a rapid effect but has been associated with adverse incidents. The use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is not routine but may reduce the incidence of adverse incidents.The primary aims of this single-arm feasibility study were patient satisfaction and to establish recruitment rates for a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol TCI to bolus administration.

METHODS

Four EDs in Scotland, UK, participated. Patients aged 18-65 years, with anterior shoulder dislocation, weight ≥ 50kg, fasted ≥ 90 min were screened. Patients underwent reduction of their dislocated shoulder using TCI propofol. The primary end point was patient satisfaction recorded on a Visual Analogue Scale.

RESULTS

Between 3 April 2017 and 31 December 2018, 25 patients were recruited with a recruitment rate of 20% for the 16-month recruitment window, with a temporary pause to allow amendment of drug dosage.Two patients were excluded. Twenty achieved adequate sedation, defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) 3. Successful reduction was achieved in all adequately sedated. Patient satisfaction was documented in 14 patients, mean±SD of 97±9 and time to sedation was 25±8 min. No adverse events were recorded using the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool.

CONCLUSION

Propofol TCI was acceptable as a method of procedural sedation for patients. The lower than expected recruitment rates highlight the need for dedicated research support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03442803.

Comparison of two supplemental oxygen methods during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation in patients with a normal body mass index

BACKGROUND

Hypoxemia due to respiratory depression and airway obstruction during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is a common concern. The Wei nasal jet tube (WNJT) is a new nasopharyngeal airway with the ability to provide supraglottic jet ventilation and oxygen insufflation via its built-in wall channel. The available evidence indicates that with a low oxygen flow, compared with nasal cannula, the WNJT does not decrease the occurrence of hypoxemia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol sedation. To date, there has been no study assessing the performance of WNJT for supplemental oxygen during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation when a moderate oxygen flow is used.

AIM

To determine whether the WNJT performs better than the nasal prongs for the prevention of hypoxemia during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation when a moderate oxygen flow is provided in patients with a normal body mass index.

METHODS

This study was performed in 291 patients undergoing elective gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation. Patients were randomized into one of two groups to receive either the WNJT (WNJT group, n = 147) or the nasal cannula (nasal cannula group, n = 144) for supplemental oxygen at a 5-L/min flow during gastroscopy. The lowest SpO₂ during gastroscopy was recorded. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia or severe hypoxemia during gastroscopy.

RESULTS

The total incidence of hypoxemia and severe hypoxemia during gastroscopy was significantly decreased in the WNJT group compared with the nasal cannula group (P = 0.000). The lowest median SpO₂ during gastroscopy was significantly higher (98%; interquartile range, 97-99) in the WNJT group than in the nasal cannula group (96%; interquartile range, 93-98). Epistaxis by device insertion in the WNJT group occurred in 7 patients but stopped naturally without any treatment. The two groups were comparable in terms of the satisfaction of physicians, anesthetists and patients.

CONCLUSION

With a moderate oxygen flow, the WNJT is more effective for the prevention of hypoxemia during gastroscopy with propofol mono-sedation compared with nasal prongs, but causing slight epistaxis in a few patients.

Deep sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Propofol sedation is effective for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, but its narrow therapeutic window highlights the importance of identifying an optimal administration technique regarding effectiveness and safety. This study aimed to determine the incidence of significant adverse events in adult patients scheduled for gastrointestinal endoscopy under anaesthetist-performed sedation using propofol target-controlled infusion and determine the existence of associations between these events and potentially related variables.

Methods

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study took place in a tertiary referral university hospital. Medical records of 823 patients (age > 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores I–III) who had undergone elective gastrointestinal endoscopy under propofol target-controlled infusion sedation during September 2018 were reviewed. Outcomes included hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia events, requirement of vasoactive drugs, unplanned tracheal intubation or supraglottic device insertion, and need for advanced cardiac life support.

Results

The most frequently encountered adverse event was oxygen desaturation < 95% with an incidence of 22.35%. Vasoactive drug administration, hypotension, and oxygen desaturation < 90% followed, with incidences of 19.2, 12.64, and 9.92%, respectively. Only 0.5% of patients required advanced airway management. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between hypotension events, colonoscopic procedures, and propofol doses (odds ratio: 3.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 6.61; P = 0.004 and odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.046). A strong dose-effect relationship was found between hypoxia and obesity; patients with body mass index ≥40 were nine times (odds ratio: 10.22, 95% confidence interval: 2.83 to 36.99) more likely to experience oxygen desaturation < 90% events.

Conclusions

Propofol sedation using target-controlled infusion appears to be a safe and effective anaesthetic technique for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with acceptable rates of adverse events and could be more widely adopted in clinical practice.

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.

Effect of subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol target-controlled infusion on blood loss and transfusion for posterior total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background

Intravertebral and general anesthesia (GA) are two main anesthesia approaches but both have defects. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) on blood loss and transfusion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in elderly patients in comparison with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) or GA.

Methods

Totally, 240 patients (aged ≥65 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] I–III) scheduled for posterior THA were enrolled from September 1st, 2017 to March 1st, 2018. All cases were randomly divided into three groups to receive CSEA (group C, n = 80), GA (group G, n = 80), or subarachnoid anesthesia and propofol TCI (group T, n = 80), respectively. Primary outcomes measured were intra-operative blood loss, autologous and allogeneic blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure at different time points, length of stay in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction degree. Furthermore, post-operative pain scores and complications were also observed. The difference of quantitative index between groups were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, repeated measurement generalized linear model, Student-Newman-Keuls test or rank-sum test, while ratio index was analyzed by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test.

Results

Basic characteristics were comparable among the three groups. Intra-operative blood loss in group T (331.53 ± 64.33 mL) and group G (308.03 ± 64.90 mL) were significantly less than group C (455.40 ± 120.48 mL, F = 65.80, P < 0.001). Similarly, the autologous transfusion of group T (130.99 ± 30.36 mL) and group G (124.09 ± 24.34 mL) were also markedly less than group C (178.31 ± 48.68 mL, F = 52.99, P < 0.001). The allogenetic blood transfusion of group C (0 [0, 100.00]) was also significantly larger than group T (0) and group G (0) (Z = 2.47, P = 0.047). Except for the baseline, there were significant differences in mean arterial blood pressures before operation (F = 496.84, P < 0.001), 10-min after the beginning of operation (F = 351.43, P < 0.001), 30-min after the beginning of operation (F = 559.89, P < 0.001), 50-min after the beginning of operation (F = 374.74, P < 0.001), and at the end of operation (F = 26.14, P < 0.001) among the three groups. Length of stay in PACU of group T (9.41 ± 1.19 min) was comparable with group C (8.83 ± 1.26 min), and both were significantly shorter than group G (16.55 ± 3.10 min, F = 352.50, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of length of hospitalization and post-operative visual analog scale scores. Patient satisfaction degree of group T (77/80) was significantly higher than group C (66/80, χ² = 7.96, P = 0.004) and G (69/80, χ² = 5.01, P = 0.025). One patient complained of post-dural puncture headache and two complained of low back pain in group C, while none in group T. Incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in group G (10/80) was significantly higher than group T (3/80, χ² = 4.10, P = 0.043) and group C (2/80, χ² = 5.76, P = 0.016). No deep vein thrombosis or delayed post-operative functional exercise was detected.

Conclusions

Single subarachnoid anesthesia combined with propofol TCI seems to perform better than CSEA and GA for posterior THA in elderly patients, with less blood loss and peri-operative transfusion, higher patient satisfaction degree and fewer complications.

Trial registration

chictr.org.cn: ChiCTR-IPR-17013461; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=23024.

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.

Effect of target controlled propofol infusion versus intermittent boluses during oesophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is administered as intermittent boluses to achieve deep sedation to facilitate oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. Target controlled infusion (TCI) can be employed for this purpose.

METHODS

176 adults were randomly allocated into two groups of 88 patients. Control group: Received an initial bolus of propofol 1mg/kg, with repeat boluses of 0.25mg/kg. Intervention group: Received an initial target effect-site concentration of 4mcg/ml, followed by maintenance target effect-site concentration of 2.5mcg/ml, titrated by 0.5mcg/ml from baseline infusion rate as needed. Oxygen saturation, blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated immediately before administering the sedative and at 2.50, 5.00, 7.50 and 10.00 minutes. Oxygen desaturation below 90% in both study groups was recorded. Sedation starting time, stopping time, waking up time and overall duration of time to recovery of participants in each study arm was recorded.

RESULTS

More hypoxic episodes were observed in the intermittent bolus group with statistically significant association between control and the incidence of hypoxia: Chi square test, p=0.037. There were more hypotensive episodes in the TCI group but not achieving statistical significance: Chi square test for association X2(1) = 0.962, p=0.327.The time to recovery between the two groups was comparable, with 18.84 ± 10.76 minutes in the bolus group and 19.72 ± 9.27 minutes in the TCI group; no statistically significant difference was shown: Student's t-test, p=0.0564.

CONCLUSION

TCI of propofol was associated with fewer episodes of hypoxia compared to intermittent bolus administration. Similar hemodynamic profiles and comparable time to recovery were demonstrated by these two sedation techniques.

A study protocol for a feasibility study: Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS)-a multi-centre feasibility study protocol

Background

Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely utilised in UK emergency departments to provide procedural sedation. Bolus administration of propofol, titrated to an endpoint of sedation, has a rapid effect but can easily result in apnoea and loss of airway patency. The use of a target-controlled infusion of propofol allows for controlled titration to an effect site concentration and may reduce the rate of adverse incidents. Target-controlled infusion of propofol is not currently used in emergency departments.The primary aim of this feasibility study is to ensure that propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) is acceptable to the patient and that recruitment rates are adequate to power a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol target-controlled infusion versus bolus administration.

Methods

This study will recruit in four emergency departments in Scotland, UK. Patients aged 18-65 years with anterior shoulder dislocation, weighing ≥ 50 kg and fasted ≥ 90 min, will be screened. Recruited patients will undergo emergency reduction of a dislocated shoulder facilitated by procedural sedation utilising TCI of propofol.The widespread adoption of TCI propofol by emergency departments will require evidence that it is safe, potentially effective, patient centred and a timely method of providing procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be acceptability measured by patient satisfaction. The secondary endpoints will include incidence and severity of adverse events, number of shoulder reduction attempts, nursing opinion of patient experience, patient's reported pain score and time from commencement of TCI propofol sedation to desired sedation level.The study will be open for recruitment from April 2017 to December 2018.

Discussion

If the study demonstrates patient acceptability with adequate recruitment, we will be in a position to determine the feasibility of progression to a randomised controlled clinical trial of TCI compared to bolus administration of propofol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442803. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2018.

Comparison of propofol monotherapy and propofol combination therapy for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings comparing propofol combination therapy (PCT) with propofol monotherapy (PMT) for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT in such patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PCT and PMT for sedation of patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Primary endpoints were incidence of respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, dose of propofol used, and recovery time. Procedure duration and the satisfaction of patients and doctors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2250 patients from 22 studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not show any difference between PCT and PMT in the incidence of respiratory complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.23; I2 = 58.34%), hypotension (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.78; I2 = 72.13%), arrhythmia (RR,1.40; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.64; I2 = 43.71%), recovery time (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.81; I2 = 95.9%), procedure duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.14; I2 = 0.0%), patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.52; I2 = 89.63%) or doctor satisfaction (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.17; I2 = 0.00%). However, the dose of propofol used was significantly lower in PCT than in PMT (SMD, -1.38; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.77; I2 = 97.70%).

CONCLUSION

PCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to PMT with respect to respiratory complications, hypotension and arrhythmia, recovery time, procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and doctor satisfaction. However, the average dose of propofol used was higher in PMT.

Modelling of the Sedative Effects of Propofol in Patients undergoing Spinal Anaesthesia: A Pharmacodynamic Analysis

Sedation can increase patient comfort during spinal anaesthesia. Understanding the relationship between the propofol effect-site concentration (Ce) and patient sedation level could help clinicians achieve the desired sedation level with minimal side effects. We aimed to model the relationship between the propofol Ce and adequate and deep sedation and also incorporate covariates. Thirty patients scheduled for orthopaedic surgery received spinal anaesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine. Propofol was administered via an effect-site target-controlled infusion device using the Schnider pharmacokinetic model. The pharmacodynamic models for both adequate sedation [Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) scores of 3-4] and deep sedation (OAA/S scores of 1-2) were developed using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. Increments in the propofol Ce were associated with increased depths of sedation. In the basic model, the estimated population Ce50 values for adequate and deep sedation were 0.94 and 1.52 μg/ml, respectively. The inclusion of the patient's age and sensory block level for adequate sedation and of age for deep sedation as covariates significantly improved the basic model by decreasing the objective function's minimum value from 10696.72 to 10677.92 (p = 0.0003). The simulated Ce50 values for adequate sedation in 20-year-old patients with a T12 sensory level and in 80-year-old patients with a T4 level were 1.63 and 0.53 μg/ml, respectively. Both age and sensory block level should be considered for adequate sedation, and the propofol concentration should be reduced for elderly patients with a high spinal block to avoid unnecessarily deep levels of sedation.

High efficacy with deep nurse-administered propofol sedation for advanced gastroenterologic endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Whereas data on moderate nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) efficacy and safety for standard endoscopy is abundant, few reports on the use of deep sedation by endoscopy nurses during advanced endoscopy, such as Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) are available and potential benefits or hazards remain unclear. The aims of this study were to investigate the efficacy of intermittent deep sedation with propofol for a large cohort of advanced endoscopies and to provide data on the safety.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All available data from patients sedated with intermittent deep NAPS for ERCP, EUS or double balloon enteroscopy (DBE, since the method was implemented in May 2007 through December 2012 were included for evaluation in a retrospective case-control design.

RESULTS

Data from 1899 patients undergoing 1899 procedures were included for evaluation. All but one procedure were completed with intermittent deep NAPS. The mean propofol dose was 397 mg (SD: 232.4) and the infusion rate was 23.9 mg/kg. The frequency of hypoxia was 4.3 % and 20 patients needed assisted ventilation (1.1 %). Anesthesiologic support was requested eight times (0.4 %). One patient was intubated due to suspected aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent deep NAPS for advanced endoscopies in selected patients provided an almost 100 % success rate. However, the rate of hypoxia, hypotension and respiratory support was high compared with previously published data, but the method was still assessed as safe.

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.