Comparison of propofol and the combination of propofol and alfentanil during bronchoscopy: a randomized study

A study of hemodynamic effects, postoperative recovery, and safety of esketamine (right handed) during flexible bronchoscopy under general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

Flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia has become an indispensable tool. Anesthetics are widely utilized in flexible bronchoscopy (FB). This study delved into the application value of a subanesthetic dose of esketamine (ES) (right handed) in flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia.

METHODS

A sample of 160 patients who underwent flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia were selected as study subjects and were equally divided into the control and ES groups, with clinical baseline data (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grading) collected. Hemodynamic parameters (mean artery pressure, heart rate, pulse blood oxygen saturation) at different time points, the onset time of anesthesia, surgery time, analgesia maintenance time, anesthesia awakening time, and perioperative adverse reactions were recorded. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and quality of recovery-40 (QoR-40) scales were utilized for assessing post-surgery satisfaction, cognitive function, and post-surgery early recovery quality.

RESULTS

The hemodynamics were stable at each time point, but patients in the ES group were more stable than those in the control group. Patients in the ES group exhibited faster onset and awakening time of anesthesia, longer duration of analgesia, and lower total incidence of adverse reactions versus the control group. The patients' QoR-40 total scores in the ES group were improved versus the control group at 1 day after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Compared with fentanyl, the use of ES (right handed) in flexible bronchoscopy during general anesthesia produces more stable hemodynamics, faster onset and recovery time of anesthesia, longer duration of analgesia, lower incidence of adverse reactions, and improved early postoperative recovery quality in patients.

A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of propofol combined with different doses of alfentanil in gastroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Propofol can be used alone or in combination with opioids during gastroscopy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol and different doses of alfentanil in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 300 patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups, and 0.9% saline (group A), 2 μg/kg alfentanil (group B), 3 μg/kg alfentanil (group C) or 4 μg/kg alfentanil (group D) were injected intravenously 1 min before the intravenous injection of 1.5 mg/kg propofol. If body movement and coughing occurred during the procedure, 0.5 mg/kg propofol would be administered intravenously. The primary outcome (awakening time) and secondary outcomes were recorded and analyzed, including hemodynamic changes, the incidences of body movement, coughing, hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness and dizziness.

RESULTS

Patients in group C (7.0 [5.0 to 8.0] min) and group D (6.0 [5.0 to 7.0] min) woke up significantly earlier than those in group A (8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] min) (P < 0.001). Patients in group A experienced more body movement (P = 0.001) and coughing (P < 0.001) than the other groups. With the increasing dose of alfentanil, the morbidity of hypotension and bradycardia increased significantly (P = 0.001), while the incidence of dizziness decreased significantly (P = 0.037). The incidences of hypoxemia, tachycardia, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting were similar among the four groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous 1.5 mg/kg propofol combined with 3 μg/kg alfentanil is more suitable for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and the dose of alfentanil can be reduced according to the patient's actual physical condition.

Sedation for bronchoscopy in children: A prospective randomized double-blinded trial

INTRODUCTION

In pediatric patients, flexible bronchoscopy requires deep sedation. Different sedation regimes are common, but only some of them include opioids. Due to their antitussive effect, the use of short-acting opioids may be beneficial for this particular indication, but additional respiratory depression may lead to an increase in adverse events. Here, we systematically compared sedation regimes in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with either propofol alone, or a combination of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome parameter was the frequency of coughing episodes during the intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were frequency and types of complications, patient satisfaction, examiner satisfaction, and recovery time after finishing the sedation.

METHODS

Fifty children aged 1-17 years undergoing flexible bronchoscopy under deep sedation with propofol were randomly assigned to two groups: PR receiving propofol and remifentanil and PP receiving propofol only. Sedation depth was predefined as Comfort Score 10-13.

RESULTS

We found significantly less coughing episodes ([med (IQR)] PR: 0.73 (0.28-2.45)/min; PP: 1.98 (1.26-3.12)/min; p = .010) and shorter recovery time in Group PR (PR: 13.5 (8-17.5) min; PP: 21.0 (14-27) min; p = .011). Examiner's satisfaction was higher in Group PR (PR: 10 (8-10); PP: 9 (7-9); p = .012). The number of adverse events, patient satisfaction, and required propofol dose during the intervention did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

We suggest the combination of propofol with remifentanil instead of using propofol alone in pediatric procedural sedation for flexible bronchoscopy.

Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for sedation during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Desaturation is a common complication of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a commonly used sedative in intensive care, is associated with less respiratory depression compared with other sedatives.

OBJECTIVE

We compared DEX with midazolam (MDZ) when used as a sedative during EBUS-TBNA.

DESIGN

A randomised, parallel, double-blinded trial.

SETTING

A university-affiliated teaching hospital between June 2014 and July 2015.

PATIENTS

A total of 102 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA were randomly allocated to two groups (48 DEX group, 54 MDZ group).

INTERVENTIONS

DEX group received 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1 (start with 0.5 μg kg-1 h-1, modulated in three steps from 0.25 to 0.75 μg kg-1 h-1) of DEX after a loading dose of 0.25 μg kg-1 h-1 for 10 min to maintain a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of 3 to 5. If the patient was agitated, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used as a rescue drug. Patients in the MDZ group initially received 0.05 mg kg-1 of MDZ as a bolus. For maintenance and rescue, 1 mg of MDZ bolus was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the presence of oxygen desaturation. Secondary outcomes were level of sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score), cough score, sedation and procedure satisfaction score.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the patients, duration of EBUS-TBNA procedures and the use of rescue MDZ were not different between the groups. There was no significant difference in desaturation events between the DEX and MDZ groups (56.3 and 68.5%, respectively; P = 0.20). The level of sedation and the sedation satisfaction scores were similar between the two groups. However, cough score was significantly lower in the DEX group (41.9 vs. 53.4; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The use of DEX during EBUS-TBNA was not superior to MDZ in terms of oxygen desaturation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02157818.

Hypercapnia in COPD Patients Undergoing Endobronchial Ultrasound under Local Anaesthesia and Analgosedation: A Prospective Controlled Study Using Continuous Transcutaneous Capnometry

BACKGROUND

Flexible bronchoscopy (FB) in analgosedation causes alveolar hypoventilation and hypercapnia, the more so if patients suffer from COPD. Nonetheless, neither is capnometry part of standard monitoring nor is there evidence on how long patients should be monitored after sedation.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the impact of COPD on hypercapnia during FB with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) in sedation and how the periprocedural monitoring should be adapted.

METHODS

Two cohorts of consecutive patients - with advanced and without COPD - with the indication for FB with EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in analgosedation received continuous transcutaneous capnometry (ptcCO2) before, during, and for 60 min after the sedation with midazolam and alfentanil.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six patients with advanced COPD and 44 without COPD were included. The mean examination time was 26 ± 9 min. Patients with advanced COPD had a higher peak ptcCO2 (53.7 ± 7.1 vs. 46.8 ± 4.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001) and mean ptcCO2 (49.5 ± 6.8 vs. 44.0 ± 4.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Thirty-six percent of all patients reached the maximum hypercapnia after FB in the recovery room (8 ± 11 min). Patients with COPD needed more time to recover to normocapnia (22 ± 24 vs. 7 ± 11 min, p < 0.001). They needed a nasopharyngeal tube more often (28 vs. 11%, p < 0.001). All patients recovered from hypercapnia within 60 min after FB. No intermittent ventilation manoeuvres were needed.

CONCLUSION

A relevant proportion of patients reached their peak-pCO2 after the end of intervention. We recommend using capnometry at least for patients with known COPD. Flexible EBUS in analgosedation can be safely performed in patients with advanced COPD. For patients with advanced COPD, a postprocedural observation time of 60 min was sufficient.

Patient-controlled Sedation During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is a documented method for endoscopic procedures considered to facilitate early recovery. Limited data have been reported, however, on its use during flexible bronchoscopy (FB).

METHODS

This study hypothesized that PCS with propofol during FB would facilitate early recovery, with similar bronchoscopist and patient satisfaction compared with nurse-controlled sedation (NCS) with midazolam. A total of 150 patients were randomized 1:1:1 into a control group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and NCS with midazolam), PCS-MS group (premedication with morphine-scopolamine and PCS with propofol), and PCS-G group (premedication with glycopyrronium and PCS with propofol).

RESULTS

The procedures included transbronchial biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, cryotherapy/biopsy, and/or multistation endobronchial ultrasound. FB duration values in median (range) were 40 (10 to 80), 39 (12 to 68), and 44 (10 to 82) minutes for the groups NCS, PCS-MS, and PCS-G, respectively. An overall 81% of the patients in the combined PCS groups were ready for discharge (modified Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System, score 10) 2 hours after bronchoscopy compared with 40% in the control group (P<0.0001). Between PCS groups, 96% of the PCS-G group patients were ready for discharge compared with 65% in the PCS-MS group (P=0.0002) at 2 hours. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores were high in all groups. Postdischarge quality scores showed no differences among the groups.

CONCLUSION

PCS with propofol during FB is feasible, as it shortened recovery time without compromising procedure conditions for bronchoscopists or patients. A rapid postsedation stabilization of vital signs facilitates surveillance before the patient leaves the hospital.

The comparison of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Propofol and midazolam are widely used for the sedation of bronchoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to compare the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.

METHODS

The databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases are systematically searched for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis has included 4 RCTs. Compared with midazolam intervention in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, propofol intervention is associated with remarkably reduced recovery time [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -1.04 to -0.45; P < .00001], but demonstrates no significant impact on operation time (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.13; P = .87), induction time (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI = -1.19 to 0.03; P = .06), lowest oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2, SMD = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.58; P = .15), SpO2 <90% [risk ratio (RR) = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.82-1.25; P = .88), and major arrhythmias (RR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.26-1.19; P = .13).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation is able to reduce recovery time and shows similar safety compared with midazolam sedation during bronchoscopy.

Anesthesia for interventional pulmonology procedures: a review of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy

PURPOSE

Interventional pulmonology is a growing subspecialty of pulmonary medicine with flexible and rigid bronchoscopies increasingly used by interventional pulmonologists for advanced diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. This review discusses different technical aspects of anesthesia for interventional pulmonary procedures with an emphasis placed on pharmacologic combinations, airway management, ventilation techniques, and common complications.

SOURCE

Relevant medical literature was identified by searching the PubMed and Google Scholar databases for publications on different anesthesia topics applicable to interventional pulmonary procedures. Cited literature included case reports, original research articles, review articles, meta-analyses, guidelines, and official society statements.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Interventional pulmonology is a rapidly growing area of medicine. Anesthesiologists need to be familiar with different considerations required for every procedure, particularly as airway access is a shared responsibility with pulmonologists. Depending on the individual case characteristics, a different selection of airway method, ventilation mode, and pharmacologic combination may be required. Most commonly, airways are managed with supraglottic devices or endotracheal tubes. Nevertheless, patients with central airway obstruction or tracheal stenosis may require rigid bronchoscopy and jet ventilation. Although anesthetic approaches may vary depending on factors such as the length, complexity, and acuity of the procedure, the majority of patients are anesthetized using a total intravenous anesthetic technique.

CONCLUSIONS

It is fundamental for the anesthesia provider to be updated on interventional pulmonology procedures in this rapidly growing area of medicine.

Non-anesthesiologist-administered Propofol is not Related to an Increase in Transcutaneous CO2 Pressure During Flexible Bronchoscopy Compared to Guideline-based Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Evidence for the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy is scarce. The main objective of this study was to determine whether non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol balanced sedation was related to higher transcutaneous CO₂ pressure compared with current guideline-based sedation (combination midazolam and opioid). Secondary outcomes were post-procedural recuperation time, patient satisfaction and frequency of adverse events.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial we included data from outpatients aged 18 years or older with an indication for flexible bronchoscopy in a university hospital in northern Mexico.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were included: 42 in the midazolam group and 49 in the propofol group. During 60min of transcutaneous capnometry monitoring, mean transcutaneous CO₂ pressure values did not differ significantly between groups (43.6 [7.5] vs. 45.6 [9.6]mmHg, P=.281). Propofol was related with a high Aldrete score at 5, 10, and 15min after flexible bronchoscopy (9 [IQR 6-10] vs. 10 [9,10], P=.006; 9 [8-10] vs. 10 [IQR 10-10], P<.001 and 10 [IQR 9-10] vs. 10 [10], respectively) and with high patient satisfaction on a visual analogue scale of 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied) (8.41 [1.25] vs. 8.97 [0.98], P=.03). Frequency of adverse events was similar among groups (30.9% vs. 22.4%, P=.47).

CONCLUSION

Compared with guideline-recommended sedation, non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol balanced sedation is not associated with higher transcutaneous CO₂ pressure or with more frequent adverse effects. Propofol use is associated with faster sedation recovery and with high patient satisfaction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02820051.

Complications and discomfort of bronchoscopy: a systematic review

Objective

To identify bronchoscopy-related complications and discomfort, meaningful complication rates, and predictors.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed on 8 February 2016, using a search strategy including the PICO model, on complications and discomfort related to bronchoscopy and related sampling techniques.

Results

The search yielded 1,707 hits, of which 45 publications were eligible for full review. Rates of mortality and severe complications were low. Other complications, for instance, hypoxaemia, bleeding, pneumothorax, and fever, were usually not related to patient characteristics or aspects of the procedure, and complication rates showed considerable ranges. Measures of patient discomfort differed considerably, and results were difficult to compare between different study populations.

Conclusion

More research on safety aspects of bronchoscopy is needed to conclude on complication rates and patient- and procedure-related predictors of complications and discomfort.

The safety and efficacy of alfentanil-based induction in bronchoscopy sedation: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Alfentanil in combination with propofol produces a synergistic sedative effect in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy (FB). However, the use of this combination is controversial due to the risk of cardiopulmonary depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proper induction regimen of alfentanil in propofol target-controlled infusion for FB sedation.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-three patients were assigned randomly into 5 regimens: Group 1 and 2, alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg, respectively, immediately before propofol administration; Group 3 and 4, alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg, respectively, 2 minutes before propofol administration; and Group 5, propofol administration alone to achieve the observer assessment of alertness and sedation scale 3∼2. The bronchoscopists, physicians in charge of sedation, and patients were blind to the regimens. Adverse events, drug dose, induction, procedure and recovery time, cough severity, and propofol injection related pain were recorded.

RESULTS

The patients in groups 2 and 4 required a lower dose of propofol (P = 0.031 and 0.019, respectively) and shorter time (P = 0.035 and 0.010) than group 5 for induction. Patients in group 2 experienced more hypoxemia than those in group 5 during induction (P = 0.031). The physician in charge of sedation scored a lower severity of cough in the patients in group 4 than in groups 3 and 5. There were no differences in terms of propofol injection related pain among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Alfentanil 5 μg/kg given immediately before propofol infusion cannot be recommended. Further study is required to define conclusions about alfentanil 2.5 and 5 μg/kg because of the low power rating of subgroup in the present study.

Bispectral Index Monitoring Reduces the Dosage of Propofol and Adverse Events in Sedation for Endobronchial Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend monitoring the anesthetic depth of sedation during respiratory endoscopy by using clinical scales despite their subjective nature and the potential change in the level of sedation caused by frequent stimulation. Monitoring by means of the bispectral index (BIS) has shown its utility in reducing the use of drugs and their adverse events in general anesthesia, but evidence in prolonged sedation is insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate BIS in patients undergoing endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS).

METHODS

A randomized cohort study of 90 patients with mediastinal lymph node involvement and/or lung or mediastinal lesions for whom EBUS was indicated, comparing the modified observer's assessment of alertness/sedation scale clinical evaluation (n = 45) versus the BIS evaluation (n = 45) of sedation with propofol-remifentanil, was conducted in order to evaluate the clinical parameters, doses used, adverse events, and tolerance of the procedure.

RESULTS

We found a shorter waking time and a significantly lower dose of total propofol in the BIS group. Significantly fewer overall adverse events were recorded in the BIS group and included desaturation, hypotension, and bradypnea. Tolerance was better in the BIS group. No significant differences were found in terms of cough, memory of the procedure, or the level of difficulty of EBUS on the part of the pulmonologists.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS monitoring of sedation in EBUS makes it possible to reduce the dosage of propofol, thereby shortening the waking time and reducing adverse events. This form of monitoring should be taken into consideration in the future for systematic use in prolonged sedation, as in the case of EBUS.

Monitored anesthesia care in and outside the operating room

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is an anesthesia technique combining local anesthesia with parenteral drugs for sedation and analgesia. The use of MAC is increasing for a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in and outside of the operating room due to the rapid postoperative recovery with the use of relatively small amounts of sedatives and analgesics compared to general anesthesia. The purposes of MAC are providing patients with safe sedation, comfort, pain control and satisfaction. Preoperative evaluation for patients with MAC is similar to those of general or regional anesthesia in that patients should be comprehensively assessed. Additionally, patient cooperation with comprehension of the procedure is an essential component during MAC. In addition to local anesthesia by operators or anesthesiologists, systemic sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide patients with comfort during procedures performed with MAC. The discretion and judgment of an experienced anesthesiologist are required for the safety and efficacy profiles because the airway of the patients is not secured. The infusion of sedatives and analgesics should be individualized during MAC. Many procedures in and outside of the operating room, including eye surgery, otolaryngologic surgery, cardiovascular procedures, pain procedures, and endoscopy are performed with MAC to increase patient and operator satisfaction.

Dexmedetomidine-fentanyl versus propofol-fentanyl in flexible bronchoscopy: A randomized study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a combination of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy. One hundred patients undergoing elective flexible bronchoscopy were randomized into either a propofol-fentanyl group (PF group; n=50) or a dexmedetomidine-fentanyl group (DF group; n=50). SpO₂ values, heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), patients' cough scores and discomfort scores as determined by patients and bronchoscopists, levels of sedation, number of times that additional lidocaine was required, elapsed time until recovery, and adverse events were recorded. The mean SpO₂ values in the DF group were significantly higher than those in the PF group (P<0.01), and HR, SBP and DBP were significantly lower in the DF group than in the PF group (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of cough scores or discomfort scores, sedation levels, or number of times that additional lidocaine was required (P>0.05). Elapsed time until recovery in the DF group was significantly longer than in the PF group (P=0.002). The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly lower in the DF group than in the PF group (P=0.027), but the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the DF group than in the PF group (P=0.037). Dexmedetomidine-fentanyl was superior to propofol-fentanyl in providing satisfactory SpO₂. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine-fentanyl attenuated hemodynamic responses during bronchoscopy and maintained hemodynamic stability in the early stage of the procedure.

Anesthesia for bronchoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the recent advances in sedation and anesthesia for the practice of both flexible and rigid bronchoscopy, which are increasingly performed outside of the operating room by interventional pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have recently documented the advantages of pharmacological sedatives and anesthetics for use in bronchoscopy. In particular, we review the increasing body of literature highlighting the advantages and benefits of propofol anesthesia for both flexible and rigid bronchoscopy.

SUMMARY

As our practice expands, relocation of appropriately triaged pulmonary interventional procedures including rigid bronchoscopy that were previously assigned to a traditional operating room setting improves provider flexibility, presents more cost-effective options while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction and reducing the time to recovery. Anesthesia practice has, therefore, shifted to caring for these sick patients outside the operating room and increasingly cooperation between anesthesiologist and proceduralist is required.

The potential regimen of target-controlled infusion of propofol in flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) provides precise pharmacokinetic control of propofol concentration in the effect-site (Ce), eg. brain. This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and optimal TCI regimen for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) sedation.

METHODS

After alfentanil bolus, initial induction Ce of propofol was targeted at 2 μg/ml. Patients were randomized into three titration groups (i.e., by 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 μg/ml, respectively) to maintain stable sedation levels and vital signs. Adverse events, frequency of adjustments, drug doses, and induction and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The study was closed early due to significantly severe hypoxemia events (oxyhemoglobin saturation <70%) in the group titrated at 0.5 μg/ml. Forty-nine, 49 and 46 patients were enrolled into the 3 respective groups before study closure. The proportion of patients with hypoxemia events differed significantly between groups (67.3 vs. 46.9 vs. 41.3%, p = 0.027). Hypotension events, induction and recovery time and propofol doses were not different. The Ce of induction differed significantly between groups (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.1±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.005) and the Ce of procedures was higher at 0.5 μg/ml titration (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.2±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.006). The adjustment frequency tended to be higher for titration at 0.1 μg/ml but was not statistically significant (2 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼11)). Subgroup analysis revealed 14% of all patients required no further adjustment during the whole sedation. Comparing patients requiring at least one adjustment with those who did not, they were observed to have a shorter induction time (87.6±34.9 vs. 226.9±147.9 sec, p<0.001), a smaller induction dose and Ce (32.5±4.1 vs. 56.8±22.7 mg, p<0.001; 1.76±0.17 vs. 2.28 ±0.41, p<0.001, respectively), and less hypoxemia and hypotension (15.8 vs.56.9%, p = 0.001; 0 vs. 24.1%, p = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Titration at 0.5 μg/ml is risky for FB sedation. A subgroup of patients required no more TCI adjustment with fewer complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal regimen of TCI for FB sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101477.

Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam for Conscious Sedation in Postoperative Patients Undergoing Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized study evaluated the efficacy and patient tolerance of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for sedation in postoperative patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy. METHODS: A total of 198 postoperative patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine ( n = 99) or midazolam ( n = 99) to produce conscious sedation for bronchoscopy. Peripheral oxygen saturation, heart rate and systolic and diastolic arterial pressures were recorded before, during and after the procedure. Patient tolerance was recorded using various visual analogue scales. RESULTS: The mean lowest peripheral oxygen saturation was significantly lower in the midazolam group than in the dexmedetomidine group. Heart rate and systolic arterial pressure were both significantly higher during bronchoscopy in the midazolam group than in the dexmedetomidine group. Bronchoscopy was well tolerated in both groups; there was no between-group difference in patient discomfort scores or in the percentage of patients who would accept repeat bronchoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine provided better oxygen saturation and was equally well tolerated for conscious sedation in postoperative patients undergoing bronchoscopy.

Feasibility of bispectral index-guided propofol infusion for flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.

METHODS

After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00789815.