Patient-controlled versus continuous anesthesiologist-controlled sedation using propofol during regional anesthesia in orthopedic procedures – a pilot study

Patient-maintained versus anaesthetist-controlled propofol sedation during elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty performed under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-maintained propofol TCI sedation (PMPS) allows patients to titrate their own target-controlled infusion (TCI) delivery of propofol sedation using a handheld button. The aim of this RCT was to compare PMPS with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation (ACPS) in patients undergoing elective primary lower-limb arthroplasty surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

METHODS

In this single-centre open-label investigator-led study, adult patients were randomly assigned to either PMPS or ACPS during their surgery. Both sedation regimes used Schnider effect-site TCI modelling. The primary outcome measure was infusion rate adjusted for weight (expressed as mg kg-1 h-1). Secondary outcomes measures included depth of sedation, occurrence of sedation-related adverse events and time to medical readiness for discharge from the postanaesthsia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

Eighty patients (48 female) were randomised. Subjects using PMPS used 39.3% less propofol during the sedation period compared with subjects in group ACPS (1.56 [0.57] vs 2.57 [1.33] mg kg-1 h-1; P<0.001), experienced fewer discrete episodes of deep sedation (0 vs 6; P=0.0256), fewer airway/breathing adverse events (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.94 [1.31-6.64]; P=0.009) and were ready for discharge from PACU more quickly (8.94 [5.5] vs 13.51 [7.2] min; P=0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-maintained propofol sedation during lower-limb arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia results in reduced drug exposure and fewer episodes of sedation-related adverse events compared with anaesthetist-controlled propofol TCI sedation. To facilitate further investigation of this procedural sedation technique, PMPS-capable TCI infusion devices should be submitted for regulatory approval for clinical use.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN29129799.

Patient-Controlled Versus Clinician-Controlled Sedation With Propofol: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analyses

BACKGROUND

Sedation with propofol is frequently used to facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Propofol can be administrated by the patient (patient-controlled sedation [PCS]) or by a clinician (clinician-controlled sedation [CCS]). We aimed to compare these 2 techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries were searched up to October 2017 for randomized controlled trials comparing PCS with CCS with propofol. The primary end points were the risks of presenting at least 1 episode of oxygen desaturation, arterial hypotension, and bradycardia, and the risk of requiring a rescue intervention (pharmacologic therapies or physical maneuvers) for sedation-related adverse events. Secondary end points were the dose of propofol administrated, operator and patient satisfaction, and the risk of oversedation. A random-effects model and an α level of .02 to adjust for multiple analyses were used throughout. Trial sequential analyses were performed for primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1103 patients; median age, 47 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) describing various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with propofol sedation were included. PCS had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation (11 trials, 31/448 patients [6.9%] with PCS versus 46/481 [9.6%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.74 [98% confidence interval, 0.35-1.56]) but decreased the risk of requiring a rescue intervention for adverse events (11 trials, 29/449 patients [6.5%] with PCS versus 74/482 [15.4%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.45 [98% confidence interval, 0.25-0.81]). For both outcomes, Trial sequential analyses suggested that further trials were unlikely to change the results, although the quality of evidence was graded very low for all primary outcomes. For the risk of arterial hypotension and bradycardia, the required sample size for a definitive conclusion had not been reached. Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that PCS decreased the risk of oversedation and had no impact on propofol dose administrated, or on operator or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

PCS with propofol, compared with CCS with propofol, had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation, but significantly decreased the risk of rescue interventions for sedation-related adverse events. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the risks and benefits of PCS.