Bispectral index monitoring for sedation in scheduled adult colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients should be closely monitored during procedures under sedation outside the operating room, but it is unclear which type of monitoring is best. We investigated the efficacy and safety of BIS monitoring vs conventional monitoring for sedation during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind clinical trial in 180 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to 1) the BIS group or 2) a control group, in which sedation was monitored with a BIS monitor or the Ramsay Sedation Score, respectively. The primary outcome was the rate of sedation-induced adverse events in both groups. Secondary outcomes were the characteristics of patients who developed adverse events, and time during colonoscopy when these events occurred, propofol and remifentanil dosage, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed fewer cardiopulmonary complications in the BIS group (41.11% vs 57.78% in controls; p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis found a significantly higher risk of adverse events in older patients (95% CI, 1.013-1.091; p = 0.0087) and in men (95% CI, 1.129-7.668; p = 0.0272). These events were observed at the hepatic flexure. No significant differences between propofol or remifentanil dosage, use of rescue medication, and patient satisfaction were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that BIS monitoring during sedation in scheduled colonoscopies reduces adverse respiratory events. Although its routine use in sedation does not appear to be warranted, clinicians should take steps to identify patients with a higher risk of complications who might benefit from this type of monitoring.

Loading dose of Dexdor® and optimal sedation during oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery procedures: An observational study

INTRODUCTION

Dexdor^® do not include the possibility of loading dose, which could increase time to achieve adequate sedation for ambulatory procedures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of several loading dose of dexmedetomidine in the time to achieve and maintain an optimal level of sedation and its clinical hemodynamic repercussion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The IRB approved this observational study for patients that underwent oral and maxillofacial ambulatory surgery under dexmedetomidine at the University of Navarra Clinic from February 2013 to November 2014. According to the loading dose the patients were grouped into 3 categories:<0.5, 0.5, and>0.5μg/kg. Optimal level of sedation was defined as bispectral index<85. Data were analyzed using survival analysis techniques. Vasoactive drugs requirements was evaluated using exact logistic regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were evaluated. Hazard ratios for patients in 0.5 and >0.5μg/kg loading dose categories for achieving a bispectral index<85 were 1.5 (95% CI 0.9, 2.6) and 1.8 (95% CI 0.8, 3.9), respectively, compared with the lowest category. Five patients (6.2%) required atropine for bradycardia. Patients in the group>0.5μg/kg showed greater risk of requiring atropine compared with the group<0.5μg/kg (odds ratio 2.2; 95% CI 0.03, 183).

CONCLUSION

Loading dose of dexmedetomidine>0.5μg/kg appears minimize the time to achieve and maintain an optimal level of sedation during the first 60min of procedure. Further investigation to elucidate the association between loading dose of dexmedetomidine and subsequent atropine requirements may be warranted.