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.

Comparison of the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is an invasive and diagnostic procedure that causes the patients considerable pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Therefore, various types of sedation and analgesia techniques have been used during the procedure.

AIM

To compare the effects and side-effects of sedation with propofol versus midazolam plus pethidine in patients undergoing endoscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a randomised controlled double-blind clinical trial study conducted on 272 patients undergoing diagnostic and treatment endoscopy and colonoscopy in Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz between 2017 and 2018. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in the first group (n = 136) received propofol with midazolam and ketamine, and the second group (n = 136) received pethidine and midazolam. Study outcome measures included the recovery time, patient satisfaction, quality of sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The occurrence of complications was higher in the propofol group (25% vs. 0%; p = 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed in the study groups. Overall patient satisfaction and quality of sedation assessment scores in the propofol group were significantly better than those seen in the pethidine-midazolam group (p = 0.012 and p = 0.001, respectively). Recovery time was statistically shorter in the propofol-midazolam group (6.05 ±1.62 min) compared to the pethidine-midazolam group (6.72 ±2.21 min) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol-midazolam can provide better sedation, patient satisfaction, and recovery than pethidine-midazolam during endoscopy. Therefore, it can be recommended in patients scheduled for diagnostic and treatment endoscopy.

Survey of Anaesthetists' Practice of Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

We conducted a survey of Australian specialist anaesthetists about their practice of sedation for elective and emergency gastroscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and colonoscopy. A 24-item survey was emailed to 1,000 anaesthetists in August 2015. Responses were received from 409 anaesthetists (response rate = 41%) with responses from 395 anaesthetists analysed. Pulse oximetry and oxygen administration were routine for all procedures for all respondents. Blood pressure was routinely measured by most respondents during gastroscopy (elective = 88%; emergency = 97%), ERCP (elective = 99%; emergency = 99%) and colonoscopy (elective = 91%; emergency = 98%). The airway was routinely managed with jaw lift or oral or nasal airway by 99%, 76% and 97% of respondents during gastroscopy, ERCP and colonoscopy, whereas in emergency procedures endotracheal intubation was routine in 49%, 64% and 17% of procedures. Propofol was routinely administered by 99% of respondents for gastroscopy and 100% of respondents for ERCP and colonoscopy. A maximum depth of sedation in which patients were unresponsive to painful stimulation was targeted by the majority of respondents for all procedures except for elective gastroscopy. These results may be used to facilitate comparison of practice in Australia and overseas, and give an indication of compliance by Australian anaesthetists with the relevant Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists guideline.

A randomized-controlled trial of high- or low-volume intravenous Plasma-Lyte(®) to prevent hypotension during sedation for colonoscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of hypotension during sedation in adults presenting for elective colonoscopy and randomized to intravenous Plasma-Lyte 148(®) at either 2 mL·kg(-1) (low volume) or 20 mL·kg(-1) (high volume).

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 yr presenting for elective colonoscopy, with or without gastroscopy, after oral bowel preparation were randomized to receive the intervention immediately before the start of the procedure. Hypotension was defined as a ≥ 25% decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline during the procedure. Secondary outcomes included SBP < 90 mmHg, lowest SBP during sedation, duration of hypotension, use of vasopressors, postoperative outcomes, and cost.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were randomly allocated to either the low-volume or high-volume group, respectively (total n = 150). The incidence of hypotension was similar in the two groups (59% vs 56%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.71; P = 0.74). The incidence of SBP < 90 mmHg, the lowest SBP during sedation, the duration of hypotension, the use of vasopressors, and postoperative outcomes were also similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not support the routine use of 20 mL·kg(-1) of intravenous Plasma-Lyte 148 to prevent hypotension and other complications during sedation for elective colonoscopy in adult patients. Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR 12615001288516).

Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations

Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.

Incidence of sedation-related complications with propofol use during advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Propofol is an effective sedative in advanced endoscopy. However, the incidence of sedation-related complications is unclear. We sought to define the frequency of sedation-related adverse events, particularly the rate of airway modifications (AMs), with propofol use during advanced endoscopy. We also evaluated independent predictors of AMs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing sedation with propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, and small-bowel enteroscopy, were studied prospectively. Sedative dosing was determined by a certified registered nurse anesthetist with the goal of achieving deep sedation. Sedation-related complications included AMs, hypoxemia (pulse oximetry [SpO(2)] < 90%), hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination. AMs were defined as chin lift, modified face mask ventilation, and nasal airway. We performed a regression analysis to compare characteristics of patients requiring AMs (AM+) with those who did not (AM-).

RESULTS

A total of 799 patients were enrolled over 7 months. Procedures included endoscopic ultrasound (423), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (336), and small-bowel enteroscopy (40). A total of 87.2% of patients showed no response to endoscopic intubation. Hypoxemia occurred in 12.8%, hypotension in 0.5%, and premature termination in 0.6% of the patients. No patients required bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation. There were 154 AMs performed in 115 (14.4%) patients, including chin lift (12.1%), modified face mask ventilation (3.6%), and nasal airway (3.5%). Body mass index, male sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher were independent predictors of AMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol can be used safely for advanced endoscopic procedures when administered by a trained professional. Independent predictors of AMs included male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class of 3 or higher, and increased body mass index.

Propofol dose and incidence of dreaming during sedation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Dreaming is commonly reported after propofol-based sedation. We measured the incidence of dreaming and bispectral index (BIS) values in colonoscopy patients sedated with combinations of propofol, midazolam and fentanyl.

METHODS

Two hundred patients presenting for elective outpatient colonoscopy were sedated with combinations of propofol, midazolam and fentanyl. BIS was monitored throughout the procedure. Patients were interviewed immediately after they emerged from sedation. The primary end point was a report of dreaming during sedation.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were administered propofol alone, 44 were administered propofol and fentanyl, 16 were administered propofol and midazolam and 43 were administered propofol, midazolam and fentanyl. Dreaming was reported by 19% of patients. Dreamers received higher doses of propofol and had lower BIS values during sedation. Age of 50 years or less, preoperative quality of recovery score of less than 14, higher home dream recall, propofol dose of more than 300 mg and time to Observers' Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score equalling 5 of 8 min or less were independent predictors of dreaming.

CONCLUSION

Dreaming during sedation is associated with higher propofol dose and lower BIS values.

Dreaming and recall during sedation for colonoscopy

Dreaming is reported by one in five patients who are interviewed on emergence from general anaesthesia, but the incidence, predictors and consequences of dreaming during procedural sedation are not known. In this prospective observational study, 200 patients presenting for elective colonoscopy under intravenous sedation were interviewed on emergence to determine the incidences of dreaming and recall. Sedation technique was left to the discretion of the anaesthetist. The incidence of dreaming was 25.5%. Patients reporting dreaming were younger than those who did not report dreaming. Doses of midazolam and fentanyl were similar between dreamers and non-dreamers, however propofol doses were higher in patients who reported dreams than those who did not. Patients reported short, simple dreams about everyday life--no dream suggested near-miss recall of the procedure. Frank recall of the procedure was reported by 4% of the patients, which was consistent with propofol doses commensurate with light general anaesthesia. The only significant predictor of recall was lower propofol dose. Satisfaction with care was generally high, however dreamers were more satisfied with their care than non-dreamers.