Effect of the midazolam added with propofol-based sedation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A randomized trial

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid mass in the elderly: A single-center retrospective study

AIM

There are few reports on the safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the elderly. In this study, we investigated the safety of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses in patients aged ≥80 years.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study. A total of 600 patients with pancreatic solid masses who underwent EUS-FNA under midazolam-based sedation at our institution between September 2016 and December 2022 were enrolled in this study. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: an elderly group aged ≥80 (n = 84), as well as a nonelderly group aged ≤79 (n = 516). These two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The elderly group required significantly fewer midazolam doses for sedation (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in eight patients (1.3%), including one (1.2%) and seven (1.4%) in the elderly and nonelderly groups, respectively (P = 0.90). There were no cases of early adverse events in the elderly group and six cases (1.2%) in the nonelderly group (P = 0.32). There was one case of late adverse events in both the elderly and nonelderly groups (P = 0.14), and both were needle tract seeding. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of cases in which percutaneous oxygen saturation decreased to ≤90% during the EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses can be safely performed in patients aged >80 years without increasing the adverse event rate compared to nonelderly patients aged <80 years. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; 23: 836-841.

Incidence and Nature of Respiratory Events in Patients Undergoing Bronchoscopy Under Conscious Sedation

BACKGROUND

During diagnostic bronchoscopies, conscious sedation improves patient tolerance, but it can contribute to hypercapnia and hypoxia by various mechanisms including depression of ventilatory drive. This prospective study was undertaken to determine the frequency of respiratory events and associated oxygen desaturations during bronchoscopy with conscious sedation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Nox-T3 monitoring system was placed before starting the bronchoscopy and remained in place for 30 minutes following the procedure. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of obstructive and central apneic events during bronchoscopy under conscious sedation.

RESULTS

Obstructive events (apnea and hypopnea) occurred in 100% of patients (n=31), and central apneas occurred in 58% of patients (n=18) during the procedure with a median of 9 and 2 events per patient, respectively. During recovery, a significant proportion of patients had detectable obstructive (86%) and central (36%) events. Higher body mass index was associated with oxygen desaturation to <90% and with the need for escalation of care. Furthermore, a conscious sedation regimen that included propofol was significantly associated with central apneic events.

CONCLUSION

Respiratory events are common during and immediately postprocedure after conscious sedation for bronchoscopy. Most events are obstructive, and the use of propofol predisposes to central apneas during the procedure. Both types of events are associated with a higher body mass index. Oxygen desaturation to <90% triggers escalation of care. A further prospective study will be required to determine the clinical significance of these apneic events and whether alleviating these events will improve the safety and outcomes of bronchoscopic procedures performed under conscious sedation.

Comparison of effectiveness, cost and safety between moderate sedation and deep sedation under esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Chinese population: a quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Most endoscopists routinely perform moderate or deep sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Considering that there is no consensus on the optimal sedation depth and it varies from country to country, our study aims to compare the effectiveness, cost and safety of these two sedation methods in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study included a total of 556 eligible patients from July 2020 to June 2021, and they entered the moderate sedation group or deep sedation group based on their choices. Baseline information, scores of Patient Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (PSSI) and Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI), examination time, sedation time, recovery time, expenses before medicare reimbursement, hypoxaemia and hypotension were compared between the two groups. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to balance the confounding factors.

RESULTS

After PSM, 470 patients were involved in the analysis, with 235 for each group. The moderate sedation was clearly superior to the deep sedation group in terms of PSSI score (98.00 ± 0.94 vs. 97.29 ± 1.26), CSSI score (98.00 ± 0.78 vs. 97.67 ± 1.30), sedation time (11.90 ± 2.04 min vs. 13.21 ± 2.75 min), recovery time (25.40 ± 3.77 min vs. 28.0 ± 4.85 min), expenses (433.04 ± 0.00 Yuan vs. 789.85 ± 0.21 Yuan), with all p < .001. Examination time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = .124). In addition, the moderate sedation group had a lower occurrence rate of hypoxaemia (0.36% vs. 3.27%, p = .010) and hypotension (17.44% vs. 44.00%, p < .001) compared to the deep sedation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation presented better effectiveness and safety and lower cost, and thereby it should be recommended as a widely used sedation method in clinical practice in China. Trial registration: This trial was registered on http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx (ChiCTR2000038050).

Gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal complication rates associated with diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy under sedation

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under sedation may result in gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications. However, no previous studies have reported 30-day GI and non-GI complications after diagnostic EGD under sedation.We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 30-day GI and non-GI complication rates after outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation in subjects ≥18 years between January 2012 and December 2017 based on a common data model database. Thirty-day complication rates were compared with EGD under sedation or not, type of sedation drugs (midazolam only vs midazolam/propofol) and age groups (18-64 year vs ≥65 year) for GI (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and cerebral stroke).In total, 39,910 were performed with sedation (midazolam only, n = 16,033 and midazolam/propofol, n = 23,864) and 22,894 were performed without sedation. Elderly patients significantly favored EGD without sedation (P < .01). GI and non-GI complication rates were similar between EGD under sedation and without sedation (all P > .1) except for acute myocardial infarction rate, which was significantly higher in EGD without sedation than EGD under sedation (1.7/10,000 vs 0.3/10,000 persons, P = .043). All GI and non-GI complications were also similar between the midazolam/propofol and midazolam only groups as well as between young and old patients (all P > .1).Outpatient diagnostic EGD under sedation has an excellent safety profile. In addition, it can be safely performed with midazolam only or midazolam/propofol and in young and old patients.

The Effects of Propofol and Sevoflurane on Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. However, whether intravenous and inhalation anesthetics are associated with different risks of postoperative delirium remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We set up to determine the incidence and duration of postoperative delirium in older patients who had surgery under the intravenous anesthetic propofol or the inhalational anesthetic sevoflurane.

METHODS

Participants were patients who had total hip/knee replacements and were randomized to propofol (N = 106) or sevoflurane (N = 103) anesthesia group. The Confusion Assessment Method was employed by investigators who were blinded to the anesthesia regimen to assess the incidence and duration (days of postoperative delirium per person) of postoperative delirium on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3.

RESULTS

A total of 209 participants (71.2±6.7 years old, 29.2% male) were included in the final data analysis. The incidence of postoperative delirium was 33.0% with propofol anesthesia and 23.3% with sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.119, Chi-square test), and we estimated that we would need 316 participants in each arm to detect a potential statistically significant difference. Days of postoperative delirium per person were higher in the propofol (0.5±0.8) anesthesia group compared to the sevoflurane anesthesia group (0.3±0.5, p = 0.049, Student's t-test).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study established a system to compare effects of different anesthetics and generated a hypothesis that propofol trended to have a higher incidence and had longer duration of postoperative delirium than sevoflurane. Additional studies with a larger sample size are needed to test this hypothesis.

A comparison of ketamine-midazolam combination and propofol-fentanyl combination on procedure comfort and recovery process in pediatric colonoscopy procedures

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam-ketamine combination versus fentanyl-propofol combination in pediatric diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 68 children undergoing diagnostic gastroenterology with midazolam-ketamine combination (Group-K) or with fentanyl-propofol combination (Group-P) in the pediatric gastroentology department at a Turkish tertiary hospital between January 2015 and June 2017. An intravenous midazolam was administered one minute before ketamine administration in Group K. Intravenous fentanyl was given to Group P, followed by intravenous propofol.

Results

There were statistically no significant differences between the groups as for age, gender, weight, duration of colonoscopy and complications observed during procedure. Ramsay sedation score was significantly higher in Group K. Recovery time and the rate of complications during the recovery of Group-K (23 patients, 65.7%) was significantly higher than that of Group P (8 patients, 24.2%) (p= 0.001).

Conclusions

Colonoscopy procedures can be quite comfortable in children when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Comparison of the Effects of Midazolam/Fentanyl, Midazolam/Propofol, and Midazolam/Fentanyl/Propofol on Cognitive Function After Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Drugs used for sedation/analgesia during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, including midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol, result in short-term, reversible decline in cognitive function. This prospective cohort trial aimed to identify the sedative/analgesic regimen associated with the least impairment of cognition at the time of discharge.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective GI endoscopy were included. Patients investigated at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, received midazolam/fentanyl (M/F), whereas patients investigated at the Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Sydney, received midazolam/fentanyl/propofol (M/F/P) or midazolam/propofol (M/P). Patients underwent a computerized neurocognitive test, the CogState Brief Battery, before sedation and at discharge.

RESULTS

Patients in the M/F group who received gastroscopy (n=22) were administered midazolam 3.36 mg (±0.79 mg) and fentanyl 61.36 μg (±16.77 μg), those who received colonoscopy (n=50) were administered midazolam 3.98 mg (±1.06 mg) and fentanyl 74.50 μg (±24.48 μg), and those who received gastroscopy/colonoscopy (n=28) were administered midazolam 4.82 mg (±1.41 mg) and fentanyl 94.64 μg (±24.35 μg). Patients in the M/F/P group who received colonoscopy (n=45) were administered midazolam 2.77 mg (±0.55 mg), fentanyl 45.11 μg (±25.78 μg), and propofol 148.64 mg (±57.65 mg), and those who received gastroscopy/colonoscopy (n=36) were administered midazolam 2.64 mg (±0.472 mg), fentanyl 35.28 μg (±19.16 μg), and propofol 168.06 mg (±60.75 mg). Nineteen patients in the M/P group who received gastroscopy (n=19) were administered midazolam 2.37 mg (±0.04 mg) and propofol 13.68 mg (±37.74 mg). Neurocognitive scores were significantly lower in the postprocedure test compared with baseline scores for detection, identification, and one card learning (P<0.001). Postprocedure detection test scores were significantly impaired in the M/F group compared with the M/F/P and M/P groups. Predictors of poorer neurocognitive function were midazolam dosage >3 mg (P<0.006) and fentanyl dosage >50 μg (P<0.009).

CONCLUSION

The use of propofol in GI endoscopy allows for less exposure to midazolam and fentanyl and is associated with improved cognition at the time of discharge.

Safety profile of sedative endoscopy including cognitive performance in liver cirrhosis: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

The indiscriminate use of sedative drugs during endoscopy can pose multiple risks including cognitive impairment in advanced liver cirrhosis. However, the data are scarce regarding which sedative drugs are safest in these populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profiles including cognitive performance among midazolam, propofol, and combination therapy in advanced cirrhotic patients. This double-blind randomized controlled study included 60 consecutive advanced cirrhotic patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The Stroop application was used to screen for cognitive impairment. Patients were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups, midazolam, propofol, or the combination group, and underwent Stroop test before and two hours after the completion of endoscopy. Hemodynamic safety and the subjective satisfaction score were also evaluated. Patients did not show significant changes in on-time or off-time on the Stroop test before and two hours after sedatives, and there was no significant difference among the 3 treatment groups. Also, there were no significant vital sign changes after sedatives. Time-to-recovery was longest in midazolam group, and patient awakening and patient memory were highest in propofol group. However, all 3 groups showed no difference in patient satisfaction, but the combination group was more preferred in terms of subjective satisfaction by physicians. Factors affecting worsened Stroop speed after sedatives were older age, low education level and high MELD score. All sedative methods using midazolam, propofol, or combination therapy showed similar safety profile in advanced cirrhosis, and were not associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment.

Propofol with and without Midazolam for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopies in Children

PURPOSE

Various publications on the use of sedation and anesthesia for diagnostic procedures in children have demonstrated that no ideal agent is available. Although propofol has been widely used for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in children, adverse events including hypoxia and hypotension, are concerns in propofol-based sedation. Propofol is used in combination with other sedatives in order to reduce potential complications. We aimed to analyze whether the administration of midazolam would improve the safety and efficacy of propofol-based sedation in diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies in children.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of children who underwent diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopies during a 30-month period. Demographic characteristics, vital signs, medication dosages, induction times, sedation times, recovery times, and any complications observed, were examined.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the midazolam-propofol and propofol alone groups. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of induction times, sedation times, recovery times, or the proportion of satisfactory endoscopist responses. No major procedural complications, such as cardiac arrest, apnea, or laryngospasm, occurred in any case. However, minor complications developed in 22 patients (10.7%), 17 (16.2%) in the midazolam-propofol group and five (5.0%) in the propofol alone group (p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

The sedation protocol with propofol was safe and efficient. The administration of midazolam provided no additional benefit in propofol-based sedation.

Dexmedetomidine is safe and reduces the additional dose of midazolam for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in very elderly patients

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) often requires deep sedation. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenoceptor agonist with sedative activity and minimal effects on respiration, has recently been widely used among patients in the intensive care unit. However, its use in endoscopic procedures in very elderly patients is unclear. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine sedation during ERCP.

Methods

The study included 62 very elderly patients (aged over 80 years) who underwent ERCP from January 2014, with sedation involving dexmedetomidine (i.v. infusion at 3.0 μg/kg/h over 10 min followed by continuous infusion at 0.4 μg/kg/h) along with midazolam. For comparison, the study included 78 patients who underwent ERCP before January 2014, with midazolam alone. We considered additional administration of midazolam as needed to maintain a sedation level of 3–4, according to the Ramsay sedation scale. The outcome measures were amount of midazolam, adverse events associated with sedation, and hemodynamics.

Results

The incidence of decreased SpO₂ and median dose of additional midazolam were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. The minimum systolic blood pressure and minimum heart rate during and after examination was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the conventional group. However, serious acute heart failure or arrhythmia was not noted.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine can decrease the incidence of respiratory complications and the total dose of other sedative agents. It can be used as an alternative to conventional methods with midazolam for adequate sedation during ERCP in very elderly patients.