Optimization of Deep Sedation with Spontaneous Respiration for Therapeutic Endoscopy Combining Propofol and Bispectral Index Monitoring. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:282149. [PMID: 26351450 PMCID: PMC4550768 DOI: 10.1155/2015/282149]

Comparison of dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol administration during sedation-guided upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine popular sedative agents that result in minimal respiratory depression and the presence of analgesic activity. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of a dexmedetomidine-propofol combination and a ketamine-propofol combination during upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy.

METHODS

The study commenced after receiving approval from the local ethics committee. Patients between 18 and 60 years in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II groups were included. Patients who had severe organ disease, who had allergies to the study drugs, and who refused to participate were excluded. Cases were randomized into a dexmedetomidine-propofol group (Group D, n = 30) and a ketamine-propofol group (Group K, n = 30). Cardiac monitoring, peripheral oxygen saturation, and bispectral index (BIS) monitoring were performed. Group D received 1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenous (IV) bolus, 0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine + 0.5 mg/kg/h propfol infusion. Group K received 1 mg/kg ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg propofol iv bolus, 0.25 mg/kg/h ketamine + 0.125 mL/kg/h propfol infusion. Patients were followed up with a Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) of ≥4. Means, standard deviations, lowest and highest frequency values, and ratio values were used for descriptive statistics, and the SPSS 22.0 program was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In Group K, recovery time and mean blood pressure (MBP) values were significantly shorter. Furthermore, coughing rate, pulse, and BIS values were higher than in Group D (P < .05). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endoscopic tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction, we observed that the dexmedetomidine group experienced more comfortable levels of sedation.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine-propofol and ketamine-propofol combinations may be suitable and safe for endoscopy sedation due to their different properties. It was observed that the dexmedetomidine-propfol combination was superior in terms of sedation depth and that the ketamine-propofol combination was superior in terms of early recovery. As a result, we suggest the dexmedetomidine-propofol combination for upper gastrointestinal system endoscopy sedation due to hemodynamic stability and minimal adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under general anesthesia.

METHODS: From January 2011 to July 2014, 206 consecutive patients had undergone ESD under general anesthesia for neoplasms of the stomach, esophagus, and colorectum were enrolled in this retrospective study. The efficacy and safety of ESD under general anesthesia were assessed.

RESULTS: The en bloc resection rate of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal lesions was 100.0%, 98.3%, and 96.1%, respectively. The complication rate of perforation and bleeding were 0.0% and 0.0% in esophageal ESD, 1.7% and 1.7% in gastric ESD, and 3.9% and 2.0% in colorectal ESD, respectively. No cases of aspiration pneumonia were observed. All complications were managed by conservative treatment, with no surgical intervention required.

CONCLUSION: With the cooperation of an anesthesiologist, ESD under general anesthesia appears to be a useful method, decreasing the risk of complications.