Dexmedetomidine vs propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy: A meta-analysis

The Study of Remazolam Combined With Propofol on Painless Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Remazolam besylate, a new type of ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine drug, has been less studied in gastroscopy. In this study, we studied the efficacy and safety of remazolam combined with propofol for painless gastroscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single-center, placebo-controlled randomized trial.

METHODS

One hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 50 per group): the control group (Con group) and the remazolam group (Rem group). Sufentanil, remazolam, and propofol were used to anesthetize the patients, and then, the effects of different solutions on these patients were compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vital signs at different times, the dosage of propofol (mg) and additional times, complications, duration of gastroscopy (minutes), recovery time (minutes), length of stay in the recovery room (minutes), and adverse reactions were recorded.

FINDINGS

Rem group systolic blood pressure was more stable (P < .05). The amount of additional propofol in Rem group was less (P < .05). The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, and dizziness was lower in Rem group, as well as the time of awakening and stay in the recovery room were shorter (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Remazolam combined with sufentanil and propofol has less effect on hemodynamics in painless gastroscopy, and the patients have shorter awakening times.

The EC50 of propofol with different doses of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy: A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the dose-response relationship between dexmedetomidine and propofol in sedating patients and to determine the optimal dosage of dexmedetomidine during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients were divided into 5 groups, each receiving a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 µg/kg) or saline, with propofol for sedation. The median effective concentration (EC50) of propofol was calculated using the modified Dixon up-and-down approach. Adverse effects, vital signs, procedure, and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The EC50 of propofol in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, D0.8, and D1.0 were 3.02, 2.44, 1.97, 1.85, and 1.83 µg/mL, respectively. Heart rate in the dexmedetomidine groups decreased more than the NS group (P < .001). The mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the NS group experienced a decline compared to groups D0.8 and D1.0 when the plasma concentration and effect-site concentration reached equilibrium. Additionally, the respiratory rate was found to be lower in groups NS, D0.4, D0.6, and D0.8 (P < .05). Recovery time in groups D0.8 and D1.0 was longer than the NS group (P < .05). Bruggemann comfort scales score was higher in group D1.0 (P < .05). No significant difference was found in the incidences of hypotension and bradycardia, and the dose of ephedrine and atropine. Respiratory depression was significantly reduced in groups D0.8 and D1.0 compared to the NS group.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 0.6 to 0.8 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine should be recommended in combination with propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. And the EC50 of propofol is 1.97 to 1.85 µg/mL.

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study comparing the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Balanced propofol sedation is extensively used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) are common. In various clinical settings, the combination of dexmedetomidine with opioids and benzodiazepines has provided effective sedation with increased safety. The aim of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during ERCP.

METHODS

Forty-one patients were randomly divided into two groups: the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and the propofol (PRO) group. Patients in the DEX group received an additional bolus of 0.6 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine followed by a dexmedetomidine infusion at 1.2 μg kg-1 h-1, whereas the PRO group received 1-2 mg kg-1 of propofol bolus followed by a propofol infusion at 2-3 mg kg-1 h-1. During ERCP, the primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for > 10 s). Other intraoperative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes, including respiratory depression (respiratory rate of < 10 bpm min-1), hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg), and bradycardia (HR < 45 beats min-1).

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoxemia was significantly reduced in the DEX group compared to the PRO group (0% versus 28.6%, respectively; P = 0.032). Patients in the PRO group exhibited respiratory depression more frequently than patients in the DEX group (35% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of hypotension and bradycardia episodes between groups. During the procedures, the satisfaction scores of endoscopists and patients, as well as the pain and procedure memory scores of patients were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with propofol, dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation safety with no adverse effects on sedation efficacy during ERCP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200061468, 25/06/2022.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of equivalent doses of remimazolam versus propofol for gastroscopy anesthesia in elderly patients

Remimazolam, a novel intravenous anesthetic, has been proven to be safe and efficacious in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. However, reports comparing the effectiveness and safety of using equivalent doses of remimazolam with propofol have not been seen. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation efficacy and safety of the 95% effective doses (ED95) of remimazolam versus propofol combined with sufentanil in the gastroscopy setting among the elderly. In the first step of this two-step study, a modified up-and-down method was used to calculate the ED95 of remimazolam and propofol when combined with 0.1 µg/kg sufentanil in inhibiting body movement of elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy. In the second step, ED95 of both agents calculated in the first step were administered, endpoints of efficacy, safety, and incidence of adverse events were compared. A total of 46 individuals completed the first step. The ED95 of remimazolam was 0.163 mg/kg (95% CI 0.160-0.170 mg/kg), and that of propofol was 1.042 mg/kg (95% CI 1.007-1.112 mg/kg). In the second step, 240 patients completed the trial. The anesthetic effective rates of the remimazolam group and the propofol group were 78% and 83%, respectively, with no statistical difference (P = 0.312). Patients in the remimazolam group had more stable circulatory functions (P < 0.0001) and a lower incidence of pain on injection (3.3% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (15.6% vs. 39.0%, P < 0.0001). Overall adverse event was low in the remimazolam versus propofol group (21.3% vs. 62.7%, P < 0.0001).In this study, we found that when anesthesia was administered to elderly gastroscopy patients based on 95% effective doses of remimazolam and propofol, remimazolam was as effective as propofol, but was safer with a lower incidence of adverse events.Study registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000034234. Registered 29/06/2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn .

Comparing sedation protocols for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Effective sedation is crucial to enhance patient comfort and optimize endoscopist performance. Various sedation protocols, including Propofol and Dexmedetomidine (Pro-Dex), Ketamine and Propofol (Keto-Fol), Propofol and Midazolam (Pro-Mid), and Propofol alone, have been utilized during ERCP. This retrospective study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of these four sedation protocols.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 600 patients who underwent ERCP between 2018 and 2021, with each patient receiving one of the four sedation protocols. Protocol assignment was based on the endoscopist's preference. Data on hemodynamic parameters, sedation level, recovery time, and procedure-related complications were collected.

Results

Baseline data showed no significant differences among the groups pre-procedure. The Pro-Dex group exhibited significantly lower mean total propofol dose, shorter recovery time, and faster achievement of Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score 3-4 compared to the other groups. The Pro-group demonstrated significantly longer hospital stay than the other three groups (median, 4.19 ± 1.1 vs. 3.48 ± 1.2 days in the KP groups, p = 0.042). There were no significant variations in the incidence of respiratory depression, hypotension, or bradycardia among the four groups. Additionally, notable trends were found for hemodynamic measures, total propofol dosage, time to reach the desired level of sedation (as measured by the Ramsay Sedation Scale), and hospital stay based on BMI categories, indicating that higher BMI is linked to more serious outcomes.

Conclusion

Our retrospective study demonstrates that the Pro-Dex protocol offers superior sedation quality, faster recovery, and fewer complications compared to the other protocols during ERCP. However, the incidence of ERCP-related adverse events did not significantly differ among the four sedation protocols. These findings can aid clinicians in selecting the most appropriate sedation protocol for ERCP, considering patient and endoscopist preferences.

Efficacy and safety of sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: The sedative role of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures is unclear. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of sedation with DEX during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures with a view to providing evidence-based references for clinical decision-making. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DEX with different sedatives comparators (such as propofol, midazolam, and ketamine) for sedation in a variety of adult gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 1 July 2022. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were used for continuous outcomes or dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and a random-effect model was selected regardless of the significance of the heterogeneity. Results: Forty studies with 2,955 patients were assessed, of which 1,333 patients were in the DEX group and 1,622 patients were in the control (without DEX) group. The results suggested that the primary outcomes of sedation level of DEX are comparable to other sedatives, with similar RSS score and patient satisfaction level, and better in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of body movements or gagging (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 68%), and a reduced additional requirement for other sedatives, and increased endoscopist satisfaction level (SMD: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.77; p = 0.03; I2 = 86%). In terms of secondary outcomes of adverse events, DEX may benefit patients in some clinical outcomes, with a reduced risk of hypoxia (RR:0.34; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.55; p < 0.0001; I2 = 52%) and cough (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%), no significant difference in the risk of hypotension, while an increased risk of bradycardia (RR: 3.08; 95% CI: 2.12 to 4.48; p < 0.00001; I2 = 6%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DEX is a safe and effective sedative agent for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its benefits for patients in some clinical outcomes. Remarkably, DEX is comparable to midazolam and propofol in terms of sedation level. In conclusion, DEX provides an additional option in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced.

The study of different dosages of remazolam combined with sufentanil and propofol on painless gastroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Remazolam besylate, a new type of ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine drug, has been less studied in gastroscopy. In this study, we studied the efficacy and safety of remazolam combined with propofol for painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 50 per group): the remazolam 3 mg group (R3 group) and the remazolam 6 mg group (R6 group). Sufentanil, remazolam, and propofol are used to anesthetize the patients, and then, the effects of different dosages of remazolam on these patients are compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vital signs at different times, the dosage of propofol (mg) and additional times, complications, duration of gastroscopy (minute), awakening time (minute), residence time in the resuscitation room (minute), and adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

R3 group systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure are more stable (P < .05); The number of additional propofol in R6 group was less (P < .05). The incidence of hypotension was lower in R3 group, as well as the time of awakening and staying in the resuscitation room were shorter (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Remazolam 3mg combined with sufentanil and propofol have less effect on hemodynamics in painless gastroscopy, and the patients have shorter awakening time.

Ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is being increasingly practised in the clinical field. The management and choice of sedation are important during the endoscopy procedure to reduce patient discomfort and facilitate high disease detection rates. Ciprofol is principally an agonist of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor; it comprises the active ingredient HSK3486, which is similar to the currently used intravenous anaesthetic propofol in clinical practice. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ciprofol and propofol will be conducted to assess their efficacy and safety during endoscopy. Before starting the study, we describe the specific protocol of this systematic review.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols 2015. The following databases will be searched: Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and a clinical trial registry. The database search strategy will adopt a combination of subject words and free words. Randomised controlled trials related to ciprofol use for sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy will also be included. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers will independently screen the articles and extracted data. Following the qualitative evaluation of each study, analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis involves no individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. This will be the first meta-analysis to assess the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and provide evidence to clinicians for decision-making. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-review journals related to this field.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022370047.

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers' interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients' safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals.

Endo-anesthesia: a primer

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has witnessed a Cambrian explosion of techniques, indications, and expanding target populations. GI endoscopy encompasses traditional domains that include preventive measures, palliation, as alternative therapies in patients with prohibitive risks of more invasive procedures, and indicated primary treatments. But, it has expanded to include therapeutic and diagnostic interventional endosonography, luminal endoscopic resection, third space endotherapy, endohepatology, and endobariatrics. The lines between surgery and endoscopy are blurred on many occasions within this paradigm. Moreover, patients with high degrees of co-morbidity and complex physiology require more nuanced peri-endoscopic management. The rising demand for endoscopy services has resulted in the development of endoscopy referral centers that offer these invasive procedures as directly booked referrals for regional and rural patients. This further necessitates specialized programs to ensure appropriate evaluation, risk stratification, and optimization for safe sedation and general anesthesia if needed. This landscape is conducive to the organic evolution of endo-anesthesia to meet the needs of these focused and evolving practices. In this primer, we delineate important aspects of endo-anesthesia care and provide relevant clinical and logistical considerations pertaining to the breadth of procedures.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Basic Cardiac Electrophysiology in Adults; a Descriptive Review and a Prospective Case Study

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a commonly used sedative agent with no or minimal effects on breathing. DEX may also be beneficial in myocardial protection. Since the mechanisms of cardiac effects are not well known, we carried out a descriptive review and examined the effects of DEX on myocardial electrical conduction in a prospective and controlled manner. For the review, clinical studies exploring DEX in myocardial protection published between 2020-2022 were explored. A case study included 11 consecutive patients at a median (range) age of 48 (38-59), scheduled for elective radiofrequency ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. A bolus dose of DEX 1 µg/kg given in 15 min was followed by a continuous infusion of 0.2-0.7 µg/kg/h. Direct intracardiac electrophysiologic measurements, hemodynamics and oxygenation were measured before and after the DEX bolus. Experimental studies show that DEX protects the heart both via stabilizing cardiac electrophysiology and reducing apoptosis and autophagy after cell injury. The clinical evidence shows that DEX provides cardiac protection during different surgeries. In a clinical study, DEX increased the corrected sinus node recovery time, prolongated the atrioventricular (AV) nodal refractory period and cycle length producing AV nodal Wenckebach retrograde conduction block. DEX has a putative role in organ protection against hypoxic, oxidative and reperfusion injury. DEX slows down the firing of the sinus node and prolongs AV refractoriness.

Comparison Effects of Propofol-Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol-Remifentanil for Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial

Objective. To compare the effects of propofol-dexmedetomidine versus propofol-remifentanil for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Design, Setting, and Participants. A single-center, randomized trial from August 20, 2020 to August 20, 2021, in patients undergoing EUS. Interventions. Propofol-dexmedetomidine (PD) versus propofol-remifentanil (PR). Outcome Measures. The primary outcome was the endoscopist satisfaction level. The secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, the incidence of adverse events, induction time, and time to achieve postanesthesia discharge score (PADS) ≥9. Methods. Total of 200 patients were enrolled and randomized into PD and PR groups. A bolus dose of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine was injected intravenously for 5 min. Subsequently, a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h for the PD group. Remifentanil was continuously infused at 1.5 μg/kg/h for the PR group. A bolus dose of 1 mg/kg propofol was administered to both groups and then continuously infused. Results. The endoscopist satisfaction level was higher in the PR group than in the PD group ( $P=0.009$ ). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the groups ( $P=0.738$ ). No patients required mask ventilation or tracheal intubation in both groups. All patients were relatively hemodynamically stable. The incidence of body movements during the procedure in the PD group was higher than in the PR group ( $P=0.035$ ). The induction time and time taken to achieve PADS ≥9 in the PD group were longer than in the PR group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusions. PR sedation can increase the satisfaction level of the endoscopist by providing faster induction time and lower body movement and that of the patient by achieving faster PADS than PD sedation. Trial registration number: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000034987).

The comparison of ketamine-dexmedetomidine (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol (ketofol) for procedural sedation in pediatric patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The combination of different agents used for procedural sedation allows a greater range of desirable effects while minimizing side effects. The ketamine-dexmedetomidine combination (ketadex) and ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) are successful examples. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of ketadex with ketofol used for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from inception to June 2022. Studies were independently evaluated for inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Outcome measures for safety comparison were the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting, and agitation; Outcome measure for efficacy comparison was clinicians' satisfaction. In addition, we compared the recovery time of ketadex and ketofol.

Results

Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ketofol, ketadex sedation in pediatric patients had lower risk of respiratory depression (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34–0.76, P = 0.0009). However, ketadex displayed significant effect on recovery time (MD: 8.38 min, 95% CI: 7.55–9.22 min, P < 0.00001). Ketadex had similar incidence of hypotension (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.33–2.67, P = 0.92) and bradycardia (RR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.64–5.06, P = 0.26) compared to those with ketofol. Clinicians' satisfaction rate of ketadex and ketofol were both high (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.69–1.25, P = 0.62). Also, no significant difference was observed between ketadex and ketofol on the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and agitation.

Conclusions

Both ketadex and ketofol can provide effective sedation and maintain stable hemodynamics. In consideration of good safety profile in respiratory problems, we suggest ketadex is a better option for procedural sedation in pediatric patients.

ED50 and ED95 of Propofol Combined with Different Doses of Intravenous Lidocaine for First-Trimester Uterine Aspiration: A Prospective Dose-Finding Study Using Up-and-Down Sequential Allocation Method

Purpose

This study aimed to test the effect of different doses of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of propofol-induction dose and identify the optimal dose.

Patients and Methods

Patients undergoing first-trimester uterine aspiration were screened and randomly enrolled into the following groups: saline (L₀), 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_0.5), 1.0 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.0), and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.5). Anesthesia was induced with 1.0 µg/kg fentanyl. Prepared lidocaine or saline solution was injected later according to allocation, followed by propofol. The dose of propofol for each patient was determined using the up-and-down sequential study design. The primary end point was the ED50 and ED95 of the propofol-induction dose. The total propofol doses, awakening time, and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The ED50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly lower in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 than group L₀ (1.6 [1.5–1.7] mg/kg and 1.8 [1.6–1.9] mg/kg, versus 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg, respectively; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in ED50 between groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 (p>0.05). However, surprisingly, the ED50 was significantly higher in group L_0.5 than L₀ (2.8 [2.6–3.0] mg/kg vs 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg; p<0.05). The total doses of propofol in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 were lower than those in groups L₀ and L_0.5 (p<0.05). The systolic blood pressure (SBP) decline after anesthesia induction in group L_0.5 was greater than that in group L₀ (p<0.01). The incidence of respiratory depression in group L_0.5 was greater than that in groups L₀ and L_1.0 (p<0.05).

Conclusion

In patients who underwent first-trimester uterine aspiration, intravenous lidocaine 1.0 mg/kg prior to propofol injection significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose without severe side effects, equivalent to the effect of 1.5 mg/kg dose. We recommend 1.0 mg/kg as the optimal dose.

New sedatives and analgesic drugs for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Pre-procedural Preparation and Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Advanced Liver Disease

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease poses various challenges, a major one being procedural sedation and its associated considerations. While sedation during endoscopy can improve patient comfort, decrease anxiety, and facilitate procedural completion, in patients with advanced liver disease, it is also associated with substantial and unique risks due to alterations in drug metabolism and other factors. As such, the choice of sedative agent(s) and related logistics may require careful inter-disciplinary planning and individualized considerations. Furthermore, a large proportion of agents require dose reductions and particular monitoring of the vital signs, level of consciousness, and other indices. In the present review, we provide a contemporary overview of procedural sedation considerations, commonly used intravenous sedatives, and second-line as well as novel sedatives for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with advanced liver disease.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of Dexmedetomidine/Ketamine with Propofol/Fentanyl for sedation in colonoscopy patients: A double-blinded randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In this double-blinded randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine [DK] with propofol and fentanyl [PF] for sedation in colonoscopy patients.

METHODS

In this study, 64 patients who underwent colonoscopy were randomized into two groups: 1) A, which received PF, and 2) B, which received DK for sedation. Among 64 patients, 31 patients were included in PF, and 33 patients were included in the DK group. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics. Patients' sedation score (based on Ramsay sedation scale) and vital signs were recorded at 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Complications including apnea, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea, and vomiting, along with gastroenterologist satisfaction and patients' pain score (based on Wong-Baker faces pain assessment scale), were recorded by a checklist. Data were analyzed by SPSS v.18 software, using chi-square, independent t-tests, and repeated measures analysis with p<0.05 as the criterion for significant differences.

RESULTS

The mean score of sedation was 4.82±0.49 in the DK group and 5.22±0.45 in the PF group [p value=0.001]. Serious complications, including hypotension [p value=0.005] and apnea [p value=0.10] were significantly higher in the PF group. Satisfaction of gastroenterologist [p value= 0.400] and patients' pain score [p value = 0.900] were similar among groups.

CONCLUSION

Combination of DK provides sufficient sedation with fewer complications in comparison with PF in colonoscopy patients.

Review of the Physiology and Anesthetic Considerations for Pleuroscopy/Medical Thoracoscopy

Pleuroscopy or medical thoracoscopy is the second most common utilized procedure after bronchoscopy in the promising field of interventional pulmonology. Its main application is for the diagnosis and management of benign or malignant pleural effusions. Entry into the hemithorax is associated with pain and patient discomfort, whereas concurrently, notable pathophysiologic alterations occur. Therefore, frequently procedural sedation and analgesia is needed, not only to alleviate the patient's emotional stress and discomfort by mitigating the anxiety and minimizing the pain but also for yielding better procedural conditions for the operator. The scope of this review is to present the physiologic derangements occurring in pleuroscopy and compare the various anesthetic techniques and sedative agents that are currently being used in this context.

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.95-7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = -2.72-8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25-1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46-2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11-0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38-6.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The Use of Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine for Patients Receiving Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The sedation outcomes associated with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) remains unclear. Electronic databases (i.e., the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase, Medline, and Scopus) were searched from inception to 25 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the sedation outcomes with dexmedetomidine or propofol in adult patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) receiving DISE. The primary outcome was the difference in minimum oxygen saturation (mSaO2). Five RCTs (270 participants) published between 2015 and 2020 were included for analysis. Compared with dexmedetomidine, propofol was associated with lower levels of mSaO2 (mean difference (MD) = -7.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.04 to -2.44; 230 participants) and satisfaction among endoscopic performers (standardized MD = -2.43, 95% CI -3.61 to -1.26; 128 participants) as well as a higher risk of hypoxemia (relative ratios = 1.82, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.76; 82 participants). However, propofol provided a shorter time to fall asleep and a lower risk of failed sedation compared with dexmedetomidine. No significant difference was found in other outcomes. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine exhibited fewer adverse effects on respiratory function and provided a higher level of satisfaction among endoscopic performers but was associated with an elevated risk of failed sedation.

Effect of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients: A randomized, controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone during gastroscopy might result in circulatory and respiratory depression. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients while the respiratory and haemodynamic stability were not compromised.

METHODS

Patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine + propofol (L + P) group or normal saline + propofol (NS + P) group. Subjects were initially administered intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in L + P group or equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in NS + P group. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of 1.0 μg sufentanil followed by injection of propofol in all patients. The induction dose of propofol for each individual patient was determined by the protocol of Dixon "up-and-down" method for both groups. The primary end point was the ED50 of propofol induction dose.

RESULTS

Totally, 48 patients were enrolled and completed this study. Compared with the NS + P group, the ED50 of propofol induction dose was significantly reduced in the L + P group (2.01 mg/kg vs. 1.69 mg/kg) (U = 61.5, p < 0.001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The addition of intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (registration No. ChiCTR1900024025, 23 June 2019).

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.

Recent Developments in Drugs for GI Endoscopy Sedation

Providing sedation for patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy continues to be a debated topic in both anesthesia and gastroenterology circles. Sedation approaches are widely varied across the globe. While propofol administration is embraced by more endoscopists and patients, its administration evolves controversy. Whereas trained nurses and gastroenterologists are allowed to administer propofol for GI endoscopy sedation in Europe and Asia, it is the sole privilege of anesthesia providers in the USA. However, the costs of anesthesia providers are significant and threaten to derail the screening colonoscopy practice. Efforts were made by both drug and device manufacturers to find alternatives. Fospropofol was one such effort that did not live up to the expectations due to respiratory depressant properties that were similar to propofol. Use of a new tool to administer propofol in the form of Sedasys® was the next experiment that tried to find alternative to anesthesia providers. The device did not succeed due to inadequate sedation. The latest effort is remimazolam, a new benzodiazepine that has quicker recovery profile. In the interim, many drug combinations such as propofol-dexmedetomidine and propofol-ketamine are improving the safety without compromising the quality of sedation. This review attempts to discuss the new drug innovations and drug combinations of existing sedatives for the benefit of readers.

Efficacy of different dose of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Dexmedetomidine has advantages during colonoscopy as it allows the patient to cooperate during the procedure. Few studies examined the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil combination. This study was to evaluate the effects of different doses of the dexmedetomidine-remifentanil combination in colonoscopy.

Methods

This was a prospective trial carried out at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between 02/2018 and 10/2018. The patients were randomized: group I (dexmedetomidine 0.2 μg·kg^− 1), group II (dexmedetomidine 0.3 μg·kg^− 1), and group III (dexmedetomidine 0.4 μg·kg^− 1), all combined with remifentanil. The primary outcomes were the patient’s body movements during the procedure and adverse events.

Results

Compared with at admission (T₀), the SBP, HR, and RR at immediately after giving DEX (T₁), at the beginning of the examination (T₂), 5 min after the beginning of the examination (T₃), 10 min after the beginning of the examination (T₄), and at the end of the examination (T₅) in the three groups were all reduced (all P < 0.05), but all were within the clinically normal range. SpO₂ remained > 98% in all patients during the examination. Compared with T₀, the BIS values of the three groups were decreased at T₁ and T₂ (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in BIS among the three groups (all P > 0.05). The minimum BIS value in group III was lower than in groups I and II (P < 0.05). The degree of satisfaction with the anesthesia effect was higher in groups II and III that in group I (P < 0.05). No hypotension occurred, seven patients had bradycardia, and four patients had nausea/vomiting.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine 0.3 μg·kg^− 1 combined with remifentanil was effective for colonoscopy and had few adverse reactions.

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029105, Registered 13 January 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Effects of Encircled Abdominal Compression Device in Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis

: Background and Aim: The efficacy of encircling abdominal compression devices in colonoscopies is inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which encircling abdominal compression devices were compared with control in colonoscopies.

METHODS

We systematically searched RCTs published in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi database. The data from the eligible RCTs were combined using the random-effects model. The weighted mean differences (WMDs), pooled odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to the control group, encircling abdominal compression devices significantly reduced the caecal intubation time (WMD: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.23, p = 0.02). Compared to the control group, encircling abdominal compression devices significantly decreased the frequency of postural change (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.41, p < 0.00001). Compared to the control group, the use of encircling abdominal compression devices significantly reduced the need for abdominal compression (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.70, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Encircling abdominal compression devices in colonoscopies was found to reduce the caecal intubation time and the frequency of abdominal compression.

Analgesic Effect and Hemodynamic Changes Due to Dexmedetomidine Versus Fentanyl During Elective Colonoscopy: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

There are different methods used for anesthesia during a colonoscopy procedure.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect and hemodynamic changes due to dexmedetomidine and fentanyl during elective colonoscopy.

Methods

This double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 80 patients aged 20 - 70 years, candidates for elective colonoscopy, who were randomly divided into two equal groups. In the intervention group (group D), dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg was given 10 minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, 0.5 mcg/kg/hour during colonoscopy was prescribed. In the control group (group F), fentanyl 0.5 mcg/kg was prescribed three minutes before starting the colonoscopy and then, the normal saline infusion was used as maintenance. Propofol 20 mg was prescribed as the rescue dose if needed (pain or severe discomfort during colonoscopy) during the procedure. Demographic and basic clinical data and blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and pain score (based on the visual analogue scale) were recorded from the start of the colonoscopy (time 0) and every 5 minutes until the recovery.

Results

The two groups had no significant difference in the duration of colonoscopy, colonoscopist's satisfaction, and patients' satisfaction (P > 0.05). The mean pain score during colonoscopy was lower in the dexmedetomidine group (P = 0.039). Heart rate was less in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group and this difference was statistically significant. The mean arterial pressure had no difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

The results of the present study showed pain score was lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the fentanyl group.

Propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are now performed with sedation. Moderate sedation using benzodiazepines and opioids continues to be widely used, but propofol sedation is becoming more popular because its unique pharmacokinetic properties make endoscopy almost painless, with a very predictable and rapid recovery process. There is controversy as to whether propofol should be administered only by anesthesia professionals. According to published values, endoscopist-directed propofol has a lower mortality rate than endoscopist-delivered benzodiazepines and opioids, and a comparable rate to general anesthesia by anesthesiologists. Rapid recovery has a major impact on patient satisfaction, post-procedure education and the general flow of the endoscopy unit. According to estimates, the absolute economic benefit of endoscopist-directed propofol implementation in a screening setting is probably substantial, with 10-year savings of $3.2 billion in the USA. Guidelines concerning the use of propofol emphasize the need for adequate training and certification in sedation by non-anesthetists.

Pethidine dose and female sex as risk factors for nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Nausea and vomiting after esophagogastroduodenoscopy have not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for post-endoscopic nausea. We performed a case-control study at the Toyoshima Endoscopy Clinic. Eighteen patients with post-endoscopic nausea and 190 controls without post-endoscopic nausea were analyzed. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses with respect to patient age; sex; body height; body weight; the use of psychotropic drugs as baseline medications; and the dosing amounts of midazolam, pethidine, flumazenil and naloxone. On univariate analysis, post-endoscopic nausea was significantly related with patient age (odds ratio = 0.946); female sex (odds ratio = 10.85); body weight (odds ratio = 0.975); and the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 53.03), naloxone (odds ratio = 1.676), and flumazenil (odds ratio = 1.26). On multivariate analysis, the dose per kg body weight of pethidine (odds ratio = 21.67, p = 0.004) and female sex (odds ratio = 13.12, p = 0.047) were the factors independently associated with post-endoscopic nausea. The prevalence of nausea after esophagogastroduodenoscopy was 0.49% (18/3,654). In conclusion, post-endoscopic nausea was associated with the dose of pethidine and female sex.