Clinical trial: a randomized, study comparing meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl in adult gastrointestinal endoscopy

Randomized single-blind comparative study of the midazolam/pethidine combination and midazolam alone during bronchoscopy

Background

Bronchoscopy can be a distress for the patient. There have been few studies on the combination of sedatives and opioids. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the usefulness and safety of administration of the combination of midazolam and pethidine during bronchoscopy.

Methods

In this prospective randomized single (patient)-blind study, we randomly assigned 100 patients who were scheduled to undergo bronchoscopy biopsy to receive treatment with either the midazolam/pethidine combination (combination group) or midazolam alone (midazolam group) during examinations. After the end of bronchoscopy, patients completed a questionnaire and the visual analogue scale was measured. The primary outcome was the patients’ acceptance of re-examination assessed by visual analogue scale. We also assessed pain levels, vital signs, midazolam use, xylocaine use, and adverse events. Univariate analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, and the t-test or Mann-Whitney test was carried out for analysis of numeric data. All P-values were two-sided, and values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

We analyzed 47 patients in the combination group and 49 patients in the midazolam group. The primary outcome was a good trend in the combination group, but not significantly different (3.82 ± 2.3 in combination group versus 4.17 ± 2.75 in midazolam alone, P = 0.400). In the combination group, the visual analog scale score for pain during bronchoscopy was significantly lower (1.10 ± 1.88 versus 2.13 ± 2.42, P = 0.022), and the sedation level score per the modified observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation scale was significantly deeper (3.49 ± 0.98 versus 3.94 ± 1.03, P = 0.031). Maximal systolic blood pressure during testing was significantly lower (162.39 ± 23.45 mmHg versus 178.24 ± 30.24 mmHg, P = 0.005), and the number of additional administrations of midazolam was significantly lower (2.06 ± 1.45 versus 2.63 ± 1.35, P = 0.049). There were also significantly fewer adverse events (30 versus 41, P = 0.036).

Conclusions

The combination uses of midazolam and pethidine for sedation resulted in significant improvements in the pain, blood pressure, additional use of midazolam, and safety during bronchoscopy among patients.

Trial registration

This study was registered in the University Medical Hospital Information Network in Japan (UMINCTR Registration number: UMIN000032230, Registered: 13/April/2018).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09640-y.

Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (second edition)

Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised "Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy" as a second edition to address on-site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the "MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017." We were able to release up-to-date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, "endoscopy"). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta-analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense-related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up-to-date evidence quality (strength) and supports on-site clinical decision-making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Safety and efficacy of fentanyl versus pethidine in cataract surgery under propofol- based sedation: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

The study was aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fentanyl and pethidine on the sedative quality of patients who underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Propofol.

Materials and Methods:

In this double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial, patients who were candidates for elective phacoemulsification surgery with topical anesthesia were enrolled. The selected patients were randomly allocated into the two groups for receiving sedation with Propofol-Pethidine (PP) or propofol-fentanyl (PF) combinations. Demographic characteristics, hemodynamic parameters before, during, and after the operation, sedation and pain scores, and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction scores were compared in the two studied groups.

Results:

In this trial, 70 patients (35 patients in each group) have completed the study. Mean (standard deviation) operation time was 22.9 (6.8) and 25.46 (7.7) minutes in PF and PP groups (P = 0.118).Mean pain score in PF 0.46 (0.14) was significantly higher than PP groups 0.236 (0.06) (P = 0.011). The mean value of diastolic and systolic blood pressures, pulse rate, and mean arterial pressure dioxide were significantly decreased in both PF and PP groups (P_Time < 0.001), although there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion:

Our findings indicated the equivalence effects on hemodynamic parameters for both pethidine and fentanyl in combination with propofol in which they could provide appropriate sedation and safe anesthesia with lower complications and acceptable patients' and surgeons' satisfaction.

Efficacy of Sedation by Midazolam in Association With Meperidine or Fentanyl and Role of Patient Distress During Elective Colonoscopy

Meperidine and fentanyl are opioids currently used in addition to midazolam for sedation and analgesia during colonoscopy in Italy. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of patients' psychological state before elective colonoscopy on the efficacy of the sedation regimens. Eighty outpatients who underwent an elective colonoscopy were included in our study. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire was self-administered to evaluate basal anxiety and depression state. The rate of baseline discomfort was evaluated by a standard 100-mm visual analog scale. Sedation was obtained alternatively with a midazolam-meperidine or midazolam-fentanyl combination. There were no statistically significant differences between the fentanyl and meperidine groups on body mass index, age, and gender composition. Patients in the meperidine group reported less pain during colonoscopy than patients in the fentanyl group. There were statistically significant positive correlations in the meperidine group with the distress, anxiety, and depression. Our study has pointed out greater effectiveness of the midazolam plus meperidine regimen, equal recovery times, and no significant differences in the duration of the endoscopic examinations. The evaluation of patients' psychological status seems to predict the efficacy of sedation when the nociceptive component of pain is well controlled.

The Benefit of Fentanyl in Effective Sedation and Quality of Upper Endoscopy: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial of Fentanyl Added to Midazolam Versus Midazolam Alone for Sedation

Aims

Our goals were to compare the effect of adding fentanyl to midazolam in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and determine if fentanyl enhances sedation, increases adverse events or effects time of the procedure or discharge.

Methods

Patients 18 to 65 years scheduled for outpatient upper endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 100 mcg/2 mL of Fentanyl or 2 mL of placebo IV with a double-blinded protocol. All patients received 2 mg of intravenous midazolam initially. Additional midazolam could be given to achieve adequate sedation.

Results

There were 68 patients randomized to the Fentanyl group and 69 patients to the placebo group. The mean dose of midazolam was 4.0 mg for the Fentanyl group and 5.2 mg for placebo group (P=0.003). Both endoscopist and nurse independently rated sedation to be better in the fentanyl group (P=0001). The patient did not perceive any difference in sedation (P=0.4). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Fentanyl group (8.5 versus 11.1 minutes, P=0.001), with no difference in the discharge time. There was significantly less retching observed in patients in the fentanyl group (P<0.001). There were no major complications.

Conclusions

Endoscopists and nurses found adding fentanyl significantly improved sedation, led to a shorter procedure time, and allowed for less midazolam to be used per case. It did not affect the patient experience of sedation and was safe. Fentanyl use for routine outpatient upper endoscopy should be considered as a safe option to improve procedural sedation.NCT:01514695 (www.clinicaltrials.gov)Accepted as an abstract for the Canadian Digestive Diseases Week meeting in February 2014.

Comparison of efficacy of meperidine and fentanyl in terms of pain management and quality of life in patients with cervical cancer receiving intracavitary brachytherapy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two sedative regimens, a benzodiazepine with either meperidine or fentanyl, in relieving pain in patients with cervical cancer undergoing intracavitary brachytherapy in terms of pain score and quality of life.

METHODS

Forty unselected outpatients undergoing brachytherapy (160 fractions) were enrolled with informed consent and randomized to receive a benzodiazepine with either meperidine or fentanyl. The perceived pain score according to a standard 10-item numeric rating scale was collected every 15 min during the procedure, and the perceived quality of life was determined at the end of each procedure using the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire. The patients and medical staff members directly involved with the procedure were blinded to the medication used.

RESULTS

The patients' pain levels were mild in both analgesic groups. Meperidine appeared to be slightly more effective than fentanyl, although the differences in the average pain score and quality of life were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Both meperidine and fentanyl in combination with benzodiazepine were effective in relieving pain and discomfort in patients undergoing brachytherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02684942, ClinicalTrials.gov.

The role of sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive procedure that has become an important tool in diagnosis and staging of mediastinal lymph node (LN) lesions in lung cancer. Adequate sedation is an important part of the procedure since it provides patient's comfort and potentially increases diagnostic yield. We aimed to compare deep sedation (DS) versus moderate sedation (MS) in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA procedure.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for English studies of clinical trials comparing the two different methods of sedations in EBUS-TBNA until December 2015. The overall diagnostic yield, LN size sampling, procedural time, complication, and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

Six studies with 3000 patients which compared two different modalities of sedation in patients performing EBUS-TBNA were included in the study. The overall diagnostic yield of DS method was 52.3%-100% and MS method was 46.1%-85.7%. The overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA of DS method was 98.15%-100% as compared with 80%-98.08% in MS method. The overall procedural times were 27.2-50.9 min and 20.6-44.1 min in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of LN sampled were between 1.33-3.20 nodes and 1.36-2.80 nodes in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of passes per LN were 3.21-3.70 passes in DS group as compared to 2.73-3.00 passes in MS group. The mean of LN size was indifferent between two groups. None of the studies included reported serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Using MS in EBUS-TBNA has comparable diagnostic yield and safety profile to DS. The decision on the method of sedation for EBUS-TBNA should be individually selected based on operator experience, patient preference, as well as duration of the anticipated procedure.

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.

Impact of fentanyl in lieu of meperidine on endoscopy unit efficiency: a prospective comparative study in patients undergoing EGD

BACKGROUND

Turnaround time is an important component of endoscopy unit efficiency. Any reduction in the total time from patient arrival in the endoscopy room to departure from the recovery area may translate into better endoscopy unit efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects on endoscopy unit efficiency of a change in narcotic choice for moderate sedation in patients undergoing EGD at an ambulatory surgery center.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative, quality-improvement project.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENTS

We enrolled consecutive patients (n = 1963) who underwent outpatient EGD by 1 of 5 endoscopists between November 2008 and November 2010.

INTERVENTION

Moderate sedation with midazolam plus fentanyl versus meperidine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency and total procedure time (induction-to-intubation, intubation-to-extubation, and extubation-to-discharge).

RESULTS

Fentanyl was associated with reduced total procedure time by 10.1 minutes resulting from both shorter induction-to-intubation time and extubation-to-discharge time (P < .001). The mean (± SD) sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency was 3.2 (± 1.9) procedures per hour for the meperidine group and 3.9 (± 2.7) procedures per hour for the fentanyl group (P = .012); this would translate into possibly increasing the endoscopy suite efficiency by 22%. Based on dosage equivalency conversion, equal doses of fentanyl and meperidine were used. No sedation-related complications or need for reversal agents were recorded.

LIMITATIONS

No randomization was performed.

CONCLUSION

Compared with meperidine, fentanyl in combination with midazolam was associated with significantly shorter total procedure time. By improving the turnaround time, sedation-dependent endoscopy unit efficiency may be improved by 22%.

Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman’s hypothesis: “If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?” this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

Sedation, analgesia, and monitoring

Endoscopic procedures are common and sedation is frequently used to minimize anxiety and discomfort, reduce the potential for physical injury during the procedure, and improve overall patient tolerability and satisfaction. In this article, the authors review the variety of options for sedation and analgesia available to the gastroenterologist or surgical endoscopist.

How best to approach endoscopic sedation?

Sedation is the drug-induced reduction of a patient's consciousness. The aim of sedation in endoscopic procedures is to increase the patient's comfort and to improve endoscopic performance, especially in therapeutic procedures. The most commonly used sedation regimen for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy is still the combination of benzodiazepines with opioids. However, the use of propofol has increased enormously in the past decade and several studies show advantages of propofol over the traditional regimes in terms of faster recovery time. It is important to be aware that the complication rate of endoscopies increases when sedation is used; therefore, a thorough risk evaluation before the procedure and monitoring during the procedure must be performed. In addition, properly trained staff and emergency equipment should be available. The best approach to sedation in endoscopy is to choose a sedation regimen for the individual patient, tailored according to the clinical risk assessment and the anxiety level of the patient, as well as to the type of planned endoscopic procedure.