Effect of midazolam on cardiopulmonary function during colonoscopy with conscious sedation

Efficacy and safety of remimazolam-based sedation for intensive care unit patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting sedative, but its safety and adverse events (AEs) in high-risk patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting remain unknown.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study that compared remimazolam to propofol and midazolam in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-related AEs. The secondary outcomes were the time to extubation, the length of ICU stay, and the average cost of sedative per case.

RESULTS

Of the 88 patients analyzed, 47 were treated with remimazolam (mean dose, 7.90±4.84 mg), and 41 were treated with propofol (21.19±17.98 mg) or midazolam (3.08±2.17 mg). There was no statistically significant difference in the average duration of the endoscopic procedure (35.89±13.37 min vs. 44.51±21.68 min, P=0.133) or the time to extubation (15.00±9.75 h vs. 20.59±18.71 h, P=0.211) in the remimazolam group (group I) compared to the propofol or midazolam group (group II). ICU stays (5.40±2.93 d vs. 4.63±3.31 d, P=0.072) and treatment-related AEs (48.61% vs. 51.38%, P=0.056) were similar between groups. The average cost of sedative per case was significantly lower in the group I than in the group II (RMB 16.07±10.58 yuan vs. RMB 24.37±15.46 yuan, P=0.016).

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam-based sedation was noninferior to the classic sedatives and had lower average cost per case, indicating that it may be used as a promising sedative for high-risk patients during endoscopic procedures in the ICU setting.

Colonoscopy-related colonic ischemia

Colonoscopy is a risk factor for colon ischemia. The colon is susceptible to ischemia due to its minor blood flow compared to other abdominal organs; the etiology of colon ischemia after colonoscopy is multifactorial. The causative mechanisms include splanchnic circulation impairment, bowel preparation, drugs used for sedation, bowel wall ischemia due to insufflation/barotrauma, and introduction of the endoscope. Gastroenterologists must be aware of this condition and its risk factors for risk minimization, early diagnosis, and proper treatment.

Assessment of pain between sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: Double-blind randomized clinical trail

Background

Colonoscopy plays a vital role for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic diseases but can be associated with anxiety and discomfort or pain. We tested whether unsedated colonoscopy impacts quality indicators and investigated predictors of pain during colonoscopy.

Materials and Methods

This randomized controlled trial was performed on candidates for elective colonoscopy at AL Zahra Hospital, Isfahan at 2018-2019. Balanced block randomization was used to allocate 275 cases into two groups. At finally, 124 patients in case and 122 patients in control group enrolled in analysis. Patients in the sedation group received midazolam with/out pethidine before colonoscopy. Pain intensity in rectal examination (PIREX), preprocedural anxiety, pain intensity during colonoscopy, hemodynamics, duration of colonoscopy, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, bloating within 24 h after colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy were assessed and compared between two groups.

Results

Compared to the group with sedation, cecal intubation time was shorter and bloating was less frequent (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.02) in the unsedated group. There was no difference between the two groups regarding polyp detection rate, cecal detection rate, and willingness to repeat colonoscopy. Pain during rectal examination was significantly associated with pain during colonoscopy (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval; 0.5-1.3).

Conclusion

The assessment of pain intensity during rectal examination may help to identify patients who can benefit from sedation during colonoscopy. Colonoscopy with sedation does not seem to have a negative impact on colonoscopy quality indicators, and may even reduce cecal intubation time and bloating following procedure.

Editor's Choice-The cardiovascular implications of sedatives in the cardiac intensive care unit

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit frequently develop multi-organ system dysfunction associated with their cardiac disease. In many cases, invasive mechanical ventilation is required, which often necessitates sedation for patient-ventilator synchrony, reduction of work of breathing, and patient comfort. In this paper, we describe the use of common sedatives available in the endotracheally intubated critically ill patient and emphasize the clinical and cardiovascular effects. We review γ-aminobutyric acid agonists such as etomidate, benzodiazepines, and propofol, the centrally acting α₂-agonist dexmedetomidine, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist ketamine. Additionally, we outline the use of opioids and their role in potentiating other sedatives. We note that some sedatives are associated with increased delirium rates, and emphasize that judicious strategies minimizing sedative use are associated with decreases in morbidity and mortality. We also discuss standardized sedation assessment scales and highlight the importance of sedation weaning. Finally, we offer recommendations for sedation use during therapeutic hypothermia, and discuss the use of adjuvant neuromuscular blocking agents.

Patient Preferences Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening: Test Features and Cost Willing to Pay Out of Pocket

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate whether test features would make an individual more or less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening and how much an individual would be willing to pay out of pocket for a screening test. The methods include an administration of a survey to consecutive adult patients of a general medicine clinic. The survey consisted of Likert-scale questions assessing the patients' likelihood of choosing a screening test based on various test characteristics. Additional questions measured the patients' age, race, gender, and maximum out-of-pocket cost they would be willing to pay. Chi-square tests were used to assess the associations between the likelihood questions and the various demographic characteristics. In results, survey response rate was 88.8% (213 of 240). Respondents were 48.4% female (103 of 213), 51.6% male (110 of 213), 82.6% White (176 of 213), 11.3% African-American (24 of 213), and 6.1% other (13 of 213). Risk of internal injury and light exposure to radiation were the least desirable test features. Light sedation was the only test feature that most respondents (54.8%) indicated would make them likely or very likely to undergo a colorectal cancer screening test. The vast majority of respondents (86.8%) were willing to pay less than $200 out of pocket for a colorectal cancer screening test. There was no statistically significant difference in the responses of males and females, or in the responses of individuals of different races or different ages regarding test features, or the amount individuals were willing to pay for a screening test. To conclude, survey results suggest that patient education emphasizing the low complication rate of computed tomographic colonography (CTC), the minimal risks associated with the low-level radiation exposure resulting from CTC, and the benefits of a sedation-free test (eg, no risk of sedation-related complication and no need for a driver) may increase patient acceptance of CTC. Additionally, an out-of-pocket cost of <$200 would be preferable from the patient perspective.