Determination of the appropriate propofol infusion rate for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy-a randomized prospective study

Effect of butorphanol on visceral pain in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Butorphanol slightly influences the respiratory and circulatory systems, has a better effect on relieving the discomfort caused by mechanical traction, and has a low incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combined butorphanol and propofol may suppress postoperative visceral pain, which is avoidable in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thus, we hypothesized that butorphanol could decrease the incidence of postoperative visceral pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded trial. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to intravenously receive either butorphanol (Group I) or normal saline (Group II). The primary outcome was visceral pain after the procedure 10 min after recovery. The secondary outcomes included the rate of safety outcomes and adverse events. Postoperative visceral pain was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 1.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients were enrolled in the trial. Ultimately, 203 patients were randomly assigned to Group I (n = 102) or Group II (n = 101). In total, 194 patients were included in the analysis: 95 in Group I and 99 in Group II. The incidence of visceral pain at 10 min after recovery was found to be statistically lower with butorphanol than with the placebo (31.5% vs. 68.5%, respectively; RR: 2.738, 95% CI [1.409-5.319], P = 0.002), and the notable difference was in pain level or distribution of visceral pain (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The trial indicated that adding butorphanol to propofol results in a lower incidence of visceral pain after surgery without noticeable fluctuations in circulatory and respiratory functions for gastrointestinal endoscopy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04477733 (PI: Ruquan Han; date of registration: 20/07/2020).

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.

Comparison of Intra and Post-operative Sedation efficacy of Dexmedetomidine-Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine-Propofol for Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and side effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam and propofol have not been comparatively studied in a single clinical trial as sedative agents to general anesthesia before.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare intra and post-operative sedation between DEX-Midazolam and DEX-Propofol in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery on the duration of general anesthesia, hemodynamic and sedation effect.

METHOD

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial included 50 patients who were 20 to 60 years of age and admitted for major abdominal surgery. The patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated random numbers table to sedation with DEX plus midazolam (DM group) (n=25) or DEX plus propofol (DP group) (n=25). In the DM group, patients received a bolus dose of 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam and immediately initiated the intravenous (i.v.) infusion of DEX 1 µg/kg over a 10 min and 0.5 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion within operation period. In the DP group, patients received pre-anesthetic i.v. DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min before anesthesia induction and 0.2-1 µg/kg/hr by continuous i.v. infusion during the operative period. After preoxygenation for at least 2 min, during the surgery, patients received propofol infusion dose of 250 μg/kg/min for 15 min then a basal infusion dose of 50 μg/kg/min. The bispectral index (BIS) value, as well as mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SaO2), percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO2) were recorded before anesthesia (T0), during anesthesia (at 15-min intervals throughout the surgical procedure), by a blinded observer. Evidence of apnea, hypotension, hypertension and hypoxemia were recorded during surgery.

RESULTS

The hemodynamic changes, including HR, MAP, BIS, VT, SaO2, and RR had a downward tendency with time, but no significant difference was observed between the groups (P>0.05). However, the two groups showed no significant differences in ETCO2 and SPO2 values in any of the assessed interval (P>0.05). In this study, the two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, coughing, apnea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia and hypoxemia (P>0.05). Respiratory depression and serious adverse events were not reported in either group. Extubation time after surgery was respectively 6.3 ± 1.7 and 5.8 ± 1.4 hr. in the DM and DP groups and the difference was not statistically significant (P= 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed no significant differences between the groups in hemodynamic and respiratory changes in each of the time intervals. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of complication intra and post-operative. Further investigations are required to specify the optimum doses of using drugs which provide safety in cardiovascular and respiratory system without adverse disturbance during surgery.

Anesthetic effect of different doses of butorphanol in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy

Background

This study aimed to investigate the anesthetic effect of butorphanol with different doses in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Methods

480 patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy were recruited and randomly divided into four groups to receive different doses of butorphanol (Group A = 2.5 μg/kg, Group B = 5 μg/kg, Group C = 7.5 μg/kg and Group D = 10 μg/kg). Butorphanol was administered 5 min before propofol infusion. The primary outcome was the incidence of body movement. Secondary outcomes were postoperative recovery time, length of stay in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), the total dose of propofol, and the incidence of intraoperative hypoxemia, propofol injection pain, cough, postoperative nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, and dizziness.

Results

The incidence of body movement and the dose of propofol in Group C and D were lower than those in Group A and B (P < 0.05). The incidence and intensity of propofol injection pain and the incidence of cough in Group B, C, and D were lower than those in Group A (P < 0.05). The length of stay in PACU and the incidence of postoperative drowsiness and dizziness were higher in Group D than in Group A, B, and C (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Intravenous pre-injection of 7.5 μg/kg butorphanol with propofol can be the optimal dosage for patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

Trial registration: Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031506. Registered 3 April 2020—Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01262-8.

Estimation of effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful insertion of upper gastrointestinal endoscope in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol is effective in sedation for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. However, the optimum dose is ill-defined. This study aimed to estimate the effective dose of propofol mono-sedation for successful endoscope insertion in healthy, non-obese Chinese adults undergoing single UGI endoscopy.

METHODS

Twenty-six adult patients undergoing elective single UGI endoscopy were enrolled in this study. A modified Dixon's up-and-down method was utilized to assess the effective dose of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. The initial dose of propofol administered, 1.6 mg/kg, was adjusted with 0.1 mg/kg as a step size. The patient's responses to endoscope insertion were classified as either 'movement' or 'no movement'. When patient's responses were changed from 'movement' to 'no movement' or from 'no movement' to 'movement', a crossover was defined. After eight crossovers had been obtained, patient recruitment was stopped. The mean of midpoints of all crossovers obtained by the modified Dixon's up-and-down method in all 26 patients was defined as calculated median effective dose (ED₅₀ ) of propofol for successful endoscope insertion. Furthermore, probit regression analysis was used to determine the dose of propofol where 50% (ED₅₀ ) and 95% (ED₉₅ ) of endoscope insertion attempts were successful.

RESULTS

The calculated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion was 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg. The probit regression analysis showed that ED₅₀ and ED₉₅ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion were 1.90 mg/kg (95% CI, 1.78-2.10 mg/kg) and 2.15 mg/kg (95% CI, 2.01-3.56 mg/kg), respectively. No any patient had hypoxaemia and gag reflex during the UGI endoscopy with propofol mono-sedation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In healthy, non-obese Chinese adults, propofol mono-sedation can provide excellent conditions of UGI endoscopy and the estimated ED₅₀ of propofol for successful endoscope insertion is 1.89 ± 0.12 mg/kg.

Safety of the LMA®Gastro™ for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) patients typically receive either tubeless anesthesia or general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). Patients receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) are at higher risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) than patients receiving GETA, primarily due to the need for additional airway maneuvers. The increasing use of non-operating room (OR) anesthesia and the perception of a higher incidence of adverse outcomes in non-OR areas has led to the development of devices to improve safety while maintaining efficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the LMA Gastro™ could be used as a safe alternative to tubeless anesthesia for successfully completing ERCPs.

METHODS

Eligible subjects were identified within the patient population at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Inclusion criteria consisted of adult patients (≥18 years old) scheduled for elective ERCP with TIVA. This was a prospective observational study in which the following data were collected: number of attempts and time to successful supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, vital signs, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), median end-tidal CO2, practitioner satisfaction, and any complications.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included in this study. The overall rate of successful SGA placement within 3 attempts was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.8-99.9) or 29/30. The rate of successful ERCP with SGA placement within 3 attempts was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2) or 28/30. Both the gastroenterologist and anesthesiologist reported satisfaction with the device in 90% of the cases (in 66.7% of the cases both anesthesiologist and gastroenterologist scored the device a 7/7 for satisfaction). Patients maintained an SpO2 of 95%-100% from induction to discharge, with the exception of 1 patient who had an SpO2 of 93%. The median end-tidal CO2 during the procedure for all patients was 35 mm Hg. Observed aspiration did not occur in any patient. Symptoms of hoarseness (13.3%), mouth soreness (6.7%), sore throat (6.6%), and minor bleeding/cuts/redness/change in taste to the tongue (3.3%) were determined through patient questioning before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the LMA Gastro might be a safe alternative for ERCP procedures. There was a high level of practitioner satisfaction. Only minor complications, such as hoarseness, mouth or throat soreness, or minor trauma to the tongue were experienced by patients. Similar incidences of complications may occur with GETA and tubeless anesthesia. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients; all patients maintained adequate oxygenation and required only minimal blood pressure support.

[Effects of remifentanil on awakening of propofol sedated patients submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sedation for endoscopic procedures aims to provide high quality sedation, lower risks, short recovery time, superior recovery quality and absence of side effects, seeking high patient level of satisfaction. The goal of the study was to assess administration of remifentanil combined with propofol regarding the effects of the drug association during sedation and recovery for patients submitted to upper GI diagnostic endoscopy.

METHOD

One hundred and five patients were assessed, randomly divided into three groups of 35 patients. The Control Group was sedated with propofol alone. Study Group 1 was sedated with a fixed dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. Study Group 2 was sedated with 0.3 μg.kg^-1 remifentanil combined with propofol. We assessed the quality of sedation, hemodynamic parameters, incidence of significant hypoxemia, time for spontaneous eye opening, post-anesthetic recovery time, quality of post-anesthetic recovery, presence of side effects and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Study Group 1 showed better quality of sedation. The groups in which remifentanil was administered combined with propofol showed shorter eye-opening time and shorter post-anesthetic recovery time compared to the control group. The three groups presented hemodynamic changes at some of the moments assessed. The incidence of significant hypoxemia, the quality of post-anesthetic recovery, the incidence of side effects and patient satisfaction were similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propofol with remifentanil at a dose of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 was effective in improving the quality of sedation, and at doses of 0.2 μg.kg^-1 and 0.3 μg.kg^-1 reduced the time to spontaneous eye opening and post-anesthetic recovery in comparison to sedation with propofol administered alone.

Comparison of Changes in Respiratory Dynamics Immediately After the Start of Propofol Sedation With or Without Midazolam

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare changes in respiratory dynamics starting immediately after administration of propofol alone or a combination of propofol and midazolam.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven healthy adult volunteers participated in a randomized crossover study of undergoing sedation with propofol alone (P group) or with a combination of propofol and midazolam (PM group). In the P group, continuous infusion of propofol through a target-controlled infusion (TCI) pump was started with the target effect site (ES) concentration set at 1.2 μg/mL. In the PM group, participants received a bolus administration of midazolam 0.02 mg/kg simultaneously with the start of continuous infusion of propofol through a TCI pump with the target ES concentration set at 0.8 μg/mL. The variables measured included the bispectral index (BIS) value, tidal volume (VT), percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation (SpO₂), respiratory rate (RR), end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (ETCO₂), estimated ES propofol concentration, and minute volume.

RESULTS

BIS value, VT, SpO₂, and ETCO₂ decreased after sedative administration in the 2 groups. RR increased in the 2 groups. These changes occurred sooner in the PM group than in the P group. The ratio of change in VT to change in BIS value decreased in the 2 groups and was markedly smaller in the PM group than in the P group. Ratios of changes in SpO₂, RR, and ETCO₂ to change in BIS value increased in the 2 groups and were larger in the PM group than in the P group.

CONCLUSION

Changes in respiratory dynamics occurred sooner in the PM group than in the P group. In the PM group, although VT began to decrease before the change in BIS value, the increase in RR caused the rate of decrease in SpO₂ to be smaller than the rate of decrease in BIS value.

[Safety of Non-anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a hypnotic drug with a very rapid onset and offset of action. It has increasingly been used in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Administration of propofol by nurses or endoscopists is commonly referred to as non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP). There have been a lot of studies on the safety of NAAP compared with those by anesthesiologists. Safety results of those studies are summarized in this review.