Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (1678760)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam 
AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
PMCID: PMC3471107  PMID: 23082055
Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Propofol; Hypoventilation; Blood gas monitoring; Transcutaneous
2.  Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography 
Clinical Endoscopy  2014;47(1):94-100.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an uncomfortable procedure that requires adequate sedation for its successful conduction. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP.
A retrospective review of patient records from a single tertiary care hospital was performed. Ninety-four patients undergoing ERCP received one of the two medication regimens, which was administered by a nurse under the supervision of a gastroenterologist. Patients in the midazolam (M) group (n=44) received only intravenous midazolam, which was titrated to achieve deep sedation. Patients in the midazolam pulse propofol (MP) group (n=50) initially received an intravenous combination of midazolam and propofol, and then propofol was titrated to achieve deep sedation.
The time to the initial sedation was shorter in the MP group than in the M group (1.13 minutes vs. 1.84 minutes, respectively; p<0.001). The recovery time was faster in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.031). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to frequency of adverse events, pain experienced by the patient, patient discomfort, degree of amnesia, and gag reflex. Patient cooperation, rated by the endoscopist as excellent, was greater in the MP group than in the M group (p=0.046).
The combined use of intravenous midazolam and propofol for sedation during ERCP is more effective than midazolam alone. There is no difference in the safety of the procedure.
PMCID: PMC3928499  PMID: 24570889
Propofol; Midazolam; Cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde; Conscious sedation
3.  A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Oral Midazolam –N2O Versus Oral Ketamine – N2O in Pediatric Patients-An in–Vivo Study 
Most children are casual and moderately agreeable in the dental treatment environment, however some of them show practices that upset the professional and make the protected conveyance of worthy treatment extremely troublesome. For such cases dental practitioner utilizes behavior management techniques. At the point when behavioral administration procedures come up short, some type of pharmacologic sedation or anesthesia may be an important and vital option. Dental sedation is a strategy in which the utilization of a medication or drugs produce(s) a condition of depression of the central sensory system empowering treatment to be completed during which verbal contact with the patient is kept up all through the time of sedation.
This study was designed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of oral midazolam and oral ketamine in combination with N2O-O2 in children undergoing dental treatment.
Materials and Methods
This study involved a sample of 30 pediatric dental patients (age range is 3-9 years), whose selection criteria included ASA I & II health status, cooperative but apprehensive behavior and a need for multiple dental extractions. The patients were assigned to receive oral midazolam on their first visit and on the follow up visit they received oral ketamine. Nitrous oxide (30%) was used during each sedation visit. Physiological parameters like Respiratory Rate (RR), pulse rate, and oxygen saturation were evaluated for each procedure, followed by the use of modified Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test to evaluate psychomotor effects. Data were analyzed using Independent sample student t –test.
Analysis of the data showed statistically no significant difference (p >0.05) on comparison of effectiveness of oral midazolam-N2O with oral ketamine-N2O when pulse rate, oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were taken into consideration. Psychomotor performance was found to be marginally better with oral midazolam-N2O compared to oral ketamine-N2O.
Both the drugs were effective in reducing the patient anxiety while undergoing dental extractions. Though the t-test results were not statistically significant with respect to physiological parameters. Oral midazolam-N2O showed marginally better results compared to oral ketamine-N2O with respect to psychomotor effects.
PMCID: PMC4866248  PMID: 27190950
Anxious pediatric patients; Conscious sedation; Dental procedures; Premedication
4.  Sedative Efficacy of Propofol in Patients Intubated/Ventilated after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 
Sedation after open heart surgery is important in preventing stress on the heart. The unique sedative features of propofol prompted us to evaluate its potential clinical role in the sedation of post-CABG patients.
To compare propofol-based sedation to midazolam-based sedation after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Patients and Methods:
Fifty patients who were admitted to the ICU after CABG surgery was randomized into two groups to receive sedation with either midazolam or propofol infusions; and additional analgesia was administered if required. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients 40-60 years old, hemodynamic stability, ejection fraction (EF) more than 40%; exclusion criteria included patients who required intra-aortic balloon pump or inotropic drugs post-bypass. The same protocol of anesthetic medications was used in both groups. Depth of sedation was monitored using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). Invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), arterial blood gas (ABG) and ventilatory parameters were monitored continuously after the start of study drug and until the patients were extubated.
The depth of sedation was almost the same in the two groups (RSS=4.5 in midazolam group vs 4.7 in propofol group; P = 0.259) but the total dose of fentanyl in the midazolam group was significantly more than the propofol group (12.5 mg/hr vs 4 mg/hr) (P = 0.0039). No significant differences were found in MAP (P = 0.51) and HR (P = 0.41) between the groups. The mean extubation time in patients sedated with propofol was shorter than those sedated with midazolam (102 ± 27 min vs 245 ± 42 min, respectively; P < 0.05) but the ICU discharge time was not shorter (47.5 hr vs 36.3 hr, respectively; P = 0.24).
Propofol provided a safe and acceptable sedation for post-CABG surgical patients, significantly reduced the requirement for analgesics, and allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than midazolam but did not result in earlier ICU discharge.
PMCID: PMC3961039  PMID: 24660162
Propofol; Analgesics; Coronary Artery Bypass; Deep Sedation; Midazolam; Airway Extubation; Length of Stay
5.  A Comparison between Sedative Effect of Propofol-Fentanyl and Propofol-Midazolam Combinations in Microlaryngeal Surgeries 
Considering the growing trend of laryngeal surgeries and the need to protect the airway during and after surgery, among several therapeutic regimens to induce sedation, two regimens of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-midazolam were compared in microlaryngeal surgeries.
Forty ASA I-II class patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgeries and referring routinely for postoperative visits were randomly recruited into two groups. For all the patients, 0.5 mg/Kg of propofol was used as bolus and then, 50 mcg/Kg/min of the drug was infused intravenously. For one group, 0.03 mg/Kg bolus of midazolam and for the other group, 2 mcg/Kg bolus of fentanyl was administered in combination with propofol. Ramsay system was used in order to evaluate the effect of the two drugs in inducing sedation. The need for additional dose, blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood oxygen saturation, and also recovery time and adverse effects such as nausea/vomiting and recalling intra-operative memories, were assessed.
The patients in the two groups were not statistically different regarding the number of patients, age, sex, preoperative vital signs, the need for additional doses of propofol, systolic blood pressure and mean systolic blood pressure during laryngoscopy. However, mean systolic blood pressure 1 min after removal of laryngoscope returned faster to the baseline in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Mean heart rate returned sooner to the baseline in fentanyl group following removal of stimulation. Besides, heart rate showed a more reduction following administration of fentanyl (p < 0.02). Mean arterial blood oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy significantly decreased in fentanyl group (p < 0.05) compared to the other group. The time it took to achieve a full consciousness was shorter in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more prevalent in fentanyl group while the patients in midazolam group apparently experienced more of amnesia, comparatively (p < 0.01).
Inducing laryngeal block and local anesthesia using propofol-midazolam regimen is not only associated with a more rapid recovery and less recalling of unpleasant memories, but also better in preventing reduction of arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy compared with propofol-fentanyl regimen.
PMCID: PMC3813093  PMID: 24250451
Sedation; Microlaryngeal surgery; Propofol; Midazolam; Fentanyl
6.  Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet? 
Critical Care  2013;17(3):320.
Expanded abstract
Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.
Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.
The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients' interaction with nursing care.
Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.
The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.
The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.
After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.
For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.
Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).
Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.
PMCID: PMC3706806  PMID: 23731973
7.  Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection 
Clinical Endoscopy  2011;44(1):22-26.
For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD.
A total of 44 consecutive patients undergoing ESD were randomly assigned to the two groups. In the M group, 2 mg of midazolam was given repeatedly to maintain after a loading dose of 5 mg. The MP group initially received 5 mg of midazolam and 20 mg of propofol. Then, we increased the dosage of propofol by 20 mg gradually.
The average amount of midazolam was 12 mg in the M group. In the M group, 10 patients were given propofol additionally, since they failed to achieve proper sedation. The average amount of propofol was 181 mg in the MP group. Procedure time, vital signs and rates of complications were not significantly different between two groups. Movement of patients and discomfort were lower in the MP group.
During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone.
PMCID: PMC3363047  PMID: 22741108
Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Sedation; Midazolam; Propofol
8.  Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2012;13:135.
State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.
This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.
This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.
Trial registration
EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144
PMCID: PMC3502585  PMID: 22883020
Inhalative sedation; Intravenous sedation; Intensive care; Sevoflurane
9.  Deep sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens 
AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ2 test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic.
RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination.
CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
PMCID: PMC3683682  PMID: 23801836
Endoscopy; Deep sedation; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Adverse effects
10.  Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues 
Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.
PMCID: PMC3558570  PMID: 23382625
Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Endoscopy; Sedation; Analgesia; Digestive system
11.  Comparitive Evaluation of Propofol and Midazolam as Conscious Sedatives in Minor Oral Surgery 
The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of propofol and midazolam as an intravenous sedative agent in minor oral surgical procedures in terms of: (a) the onset of action, (b) heart rate, (c) oxygen saturation, (d) systolic and diastolic blood pressure, (e) respiratory rate, (f) pain during the injection of sedative agent, (g) recovery period, (h) side effects, (i) patient’s cooperation during the surgery.
This was a double blind randomized study in which one group of 20 patients received propofol with the induction dose of 0.5 mg/kg and 50 μg/kg/min which was administered by syringe infusion pump as a maintenance dose and the other group received midazolam in a single dose of 75 μg/kg and no maintenance dose was given, instead 5 % dextrose was administered by syringe infusion pump at the rate of 50 μg/kg/min. Since propofol was milky white in colour, a green cloth was covered over the infusion pump in all cases. The surgeon, assistants and observers were blind about the medications which would be given to the patient for sedation. After the administration of the sedative, local anesthesia was achieved with 2 % lignocaine hydrochloride.
The onset of action in propofol group was significant as onset of action was faster. The maximum increase in heart rate in propofol group was at 10 min intraoperatively (Mean ± 80.40 ± 12.73) and that in midazolam group was at 15 min intraoperatively (Mean 79.25 ± 13.44). Post operatively the heart rate decreased near to the baseline value in both the groups. The average oxygen saturation before induction in propofol group was 99.7 ± 0.73 % and that of midazolam group was 99.15 ± 01.31 P = 0.314. None of the patients in this study developed apnea. The systolic blood pressure (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives. The diastolic blood pressure (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives and the decreased diastolic blood pressure was maintained throughout the procedure. The respiratory rate (Mean ± SD) before induction in both the groups decreased from the baseline value after the administration of sedatives. The decreased respiratory rate remained throughout the surgical procedure. Pain during the injection of the sedatives was reported by nine patients (45 %) in the propofol group whereas none of the patients in midazolam group complained of pain during the injection. This is statistically significant (P = 0.001). The recovery time (Mean ± SD) in propofol group was 22.50 ± 3.04 (range 15–25 min) and that in midazolam group was 33.75 ± 3.93 (range 30–40 min), which was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Patients in the propofol group were significantly less co-operative than midazolam group at both 10 and 25 min intra operatively.
The design of the present study permitted qualitative assessment of propofol and midazolam as sedative agents in minor oral surgical procedures. The ideal anesthetic agent should provide rapid onset of action, profound intra operative amnesia while ensuring rapid recovery without much complications. There were no significant differences in either patient demographics or surgical characteristics between the two groups. The propofol group was less co-operative than midazolam group. Pain during the injection of sedative was a significant adverse effect in the propofol group. Cardiovascular parameters remained stable throughout the procedure in both study groups and no intervention was required. However recovery and onset of action was faster in the propofol group as compared with the midazolam group.
PMCID: PMC4510082  PMID: 26225076
Propofol; Midazolam; Minor oral surgery; Day care surgery
12.  Clinical recovery time from conscious sedation for dental outpatients. 
Anesthesia Progress  2002;49(4):124-127.
For dental outpatients undergoing conscious sedation, recovery from sedation must be sufficient to allow safe discharge home, and many researchers have defined "recovery time" as the time until the patient was permitted to return home after the end of dental treatment. But it is frequently observed that patients remain in the clinic after receiving permission to go home. The present study investigated "clinical recovery time," which is defined as the time until discharge from the clinic after a dental procedure. We analyzed data from 61 outpatients who had received dental treatment under conscious sedation at the Hiroshima University Dental Hospital between January 1998 and December 2000 (nitrous oxide-oxygen inhalation sedation [n = 35], intravenous sedation with midazolam [n = 10], intravenous sedation with propofol [n = 16]). We found that the median clinical recovery time was 40 minutes after nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation, 80 minutes after midazolam sedation, and 52 minutes after propofol sedation. The clinical recovery time was about twice as long as the recovery time described in previous studies. In a comparison of the sedation methods, clinical recovery time differed (P = .0008), being longer in the midazolam sedation group than in the nitrous oxide-oxygen sedation group (P = .018). These results suggest the need for changes in treatment planning for dental outpatients undergoing conscious sedation.
PMCID: PMC2007416  PMID: 12779113
13.  Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children 
Clinical Endoscopy  2013;46(4):368-372.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.
We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of 62 children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic EGD during 1-year period. Data were collected from 34 consecutive patients receiving propofol alone. Twenty-eight consecutive patients who received sedation with midazolam served as a comparison group. Outcome variables were length of procedure, time to recovery and need for additional supportive measures.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, weight, sex, and the length of endoscopic procedure. The recovery time from sedation was markedly shorter in propofol group (30±16.41 minutes) compared with midazolam group (58.89±17.32 minutes; p<0.0001). During and after the procedure the mean heart rate was increased in midazolam group (133.04±19.92 and 97.82±16.7) compared with propofol group (110.26±20.14 and 83.26±12.33; p<0.0001). There was no localized pain during sedative administration in midazolam group, though six patients had localized pain during administration of propofol (p<0.028). There was no serious major complication associated with any of the 62 procedures.
Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
PMCID: PMC3746141  PMID: 23964333
Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy, digestive system; Child
14.  Propofol and midazolam inhibit conscious memory processes very soon after encoding: An event related potential study of familiarity and recollection in volunteers 
Anesthesiology  2009;110(2):295-312.
Intravenous drugs active via gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors produce memory impairment during conscious sedation. Memory function was assessed using event related potentials (ERPs) while drug was present.
The continuous recognition task measured recognition of photographs from working (6 seconds) and long term (27 seconds) memory while ERPs were recorded from Cz (familiarity recognition) and Pz electrodes (recollection recognition). Volunteer participants received sequential doses of one of placebo (n=11), propofol 0.45 and 0.9 ug/ml (n=10), midazolam 20 and 40 ng/ml (n=12), thiopental 1.5 and 3 ug/ml (n=11), or dexmedetomidine 0.25 and 0.4 ng/ml (n=11). End of day yes/no recognition 225 minutes after the end of drug infusion tested memory retention of pictures encoded on the continuous recognition tasks.
Active drugs increased reaction times and impaired memory on the continuous recognition task equally, except for a greater effect of midazolam (p<0.04). Forgetting from continuous recognition tasks to end of day was similar for all drugs (p=0.40), greater than placebo (p<0.001). Propofol and midazolam decreased the area between first presentation (new) and recognized (old, 27 seconds later) ERP waveforms from long term memory for familiarity (p=0.03) and possibly for recollection processes (p=0.12). Propofol shifted ERP amplitudes to smaller voltages (p<0.002). Dexmedetomidine may have impaired familiarity more than recollection processes (p=0.10). Thiopental had no effect on ERPs.
Propofol and midazolam impaired recognition ERPs from long term, but not working memory. ERP measures of memory revealed different pathways to end of day memory loss as early as 27 seconds after encoding.
PMCID: PMC2735240  PMID: 19194157
15.  The Anxiolytic Effect of Midazolam in Third Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review 
PLoS ONE  2015;10(4):e0121410.
To assess the efficacy of midazolam for anxiety control in third molar extraction surgery.
Electronic retrievals were conducted in Medline (via PubMed, 1950-2013.12), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 3), Embase (via OVID 1974-2013.12), and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE). The bibliographies of relevant clinical trials were also checked. Randomized controlled trials satisfying the inclusion criteria were evaluated, with data extraction done independently by two well-trained investigators. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with a third member of the review team.
Ten studies were included, but meta-analysis could not be conducted because of the significant differences among articles. All but one article demonstrated that midazolam could relieve anxiety. One article demonstrated that propofol offered superior anxiolysis, with more rapid recovery than with midazolam. Compared with lorazepam and diazepam, midazolam did not distinctly dominate in its sedative effect, but was safer. Two articles used midazolam in multidrug intravenous sedation and proved it to be more effective than midazolam alone.
It was found, by comparison and analysis, that midazolam might be effective for use for anxiety control during third molar extraction and can be safely administered by a dedicated staff member. It can also be used with other drugs to obtain better sedative effects, but the patient’s respiratory function must be monitored closely, because multidrug sedation is also more risky.
PMCID: PMC4388717  PMID: 25849859
16.  Sedation Depth During Spinal Anesthesia and the Development of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Repair 
Mayo Clinic Proceedings  2010;85(1):18-26.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether limiting intraoperative sedation depth during spinal anesthesia for hip fracture repair in elderly patients can decrease the prevalence of postoperative delirium.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at an academic medical center of elderly patients (≥65 years) without preoperative delirium or severe dementia who underwent hip fracture repair under spinal anesthesia with propofol sedation. Sedation depth was titrated using processed electroencephalography with the bispectral index (BIS), and patients were randomized to receive either deep (BIS, approximately 50) or light (BIS, ≥80) sedation. Postoperative delirium was assessed as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition Revised) criteria using the Confusion Assessment Method beginning at any time from the second day after surgery.
RESULTS: From April 2, 2005, through October 30, 2008, a total of 114 patients were randomized. The prevalence of postoperative delirium was significantly lower in the light sedation group (11/57 [19%] vs 23/57 [40%] in the deep sedation group; P=.02), indicating that 1 incident of delirium will be prevented for every 4.7 patients treated with light sedation. The mean ± SD number of days of delirium during hospitalization was lower in the light sedation group than in the deep sedation group (0.5±1.5 days vs 1.4±4.0 days; P=.01).
CONCLUSION: The use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. Limiting depth of sedation during spinal anesthesia is a simple, safe, and cost-effective intervention for preventing postoperative delirium in elderly patients that could be widely and readily adopted.
Trial Registration: Identifier: NCT00590707
Use of light propofol sedation decreased the prevalence of postoperative delirium by 50% compared with deep sedation. Limiting depth of sedation during spinal anesthesia is a simple, safe, and cost-effective intervention for preventing postoperative delirium in elderly patients that could be widely and readily adopted.
PMCID: PMC2800291  PMID: 20042557
17.  Pain following intravenous administration of sedative agents: a comparison of propofol with three benzodiazepines. 
Anesthesia Progress  1998;45(1):18-21.
The purpose of the present study is to compare the injection pain of propofol with that of benzodiazepines when used for intravenous sedation. In addition, we evaluated the efficacy of coadministering a small dose of 1% lidocaine (20 mg) to reduce the pain accompanying propofol injection. Intravenous propofol, diazepam, midazolam, or flunitrazepam were administered on separate occasions to volunteers and outpatients. The degree of injection pain was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ruler. The efficacy of premixed lidocaine with propofol was also compared among the patients. The venous pain of propofol was significantly more intense than that of the three other drugs (P < 0.05). The injection pain of diazepam was more intense than that of midazolam (P < 0.05). Many patients reported no pain when propofol was coadministered with lidocaine. The addition of a small dose (20 mg) of lidocaine reduced the VAS pain score to comparable levels observed for benzodiazepines. Because injection pain might affect the patients' comfort during sedation, the addition of lidocaine to the propofol injection is deemed useful for intravenous sedation.
PMCID: PMC2148944  PMID: 9790005
18.  Bispectral index score and observer's assessment of awareness/sedation score may manifest divergence during onset of sedation: Study with midazolam and propofol 
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  2013;57(4):351-357.
Correlation between the clinical and electroencephalogram-based monitoring has been documented sporadically during the onset of sedation. Propofol and midazolam have been studied individually using the observer's assessment of awareness/sedation (OAA/S) score and Bispectral index score (BIS). The present study was designed to compare the time to onset of sedation for propofol and midazolam using both BIS and OAA/S scores, and to find out any correlation.
A total of 46 patients (18-60 years, either sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I/II) posted for infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either injection propofol 1 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 3 mg/kg/h (Group P, n=23) or injection midazolam 0.05 mg/kg bolus followed by infusion 0.06 mg/kg/h (Group M, n=23). Spinal anaesthesia was given with 2.5 ml to 3.0 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine heavy. When sensory block reached T6 level, sedation was initiated. The time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 from the start of study drug were noted. OAA/S score at BIS score 70 was noted. Data from 43 patients were analyzed using SPSS 12 for Windows.
Time to reach BIS score 70 using propofol was significantly lower than using the midazolam (P<0.05). Time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using propofol was comparable with midazolam (P=0.358).
A divergence exists between the time to reach BIS score 70 and time to achieve OAA/S score 3 using midazolam, compared with propofol, during the onset of sedation.
PMCID: PMC3800326  PMID: 24163448
Bispectral index score; midazolam; observer's assessment of awareness/sedation score; propofol; sedation
19.  The use of volatile anesthetic agents for long-term critical care sedation (VALTS): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial 
Trials  2015;16:560.
Sedatives are administered to 85 % of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The most commonly used sedatives are intravenous benzodiazepines and propofol. These agents are associated with over-sedation in 40 to 60 % of patients, which can lead to prolonged intubation, delirium and drug-induced hypotension. Evidence is increasing that volatile anesthetic agents are associated with faster extubation times, improved cardiovascular stability with no end-organ toxicity in comparison to our standard intravenous agents for short-term critical care sedation. Use of volatile agents within the ICU is a novel technique using a specialized delivery and scavenging system, which requires staff training and cultural acceptance. This pilot randomized controlled trial aims to assess the safety and feasibility of delivering volatile agents for long-term patient sedation in the ICU with limited or no experience of this technique.
This is a prospective multicenter pragmatic pilot RCT that is blinded to the data analyst. This study aims to recruit 60 adult ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation for more than 48 h. Patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive inhaled isoflurane (40 patients) or intravenous midazolam and/or propofol (20 patients) sedation. Sedation is titrated to a targeted Sedation Analgesia Score (SAS) using an explicit sedation-analgesia algorithm until extubation or tracheostomy. Primary safety and feasibility outcomes will assess atmospheric volatile concentration levels and adherence to our sedation-analgesia protocol. Secondary outcomes include time to extubation, duration of ventilation, quality of sedation, delirium, vasoactive drug support, length of stay, serum fluoride levels and mortality.
This pilot project will serve as the basis for a larger RCT that will be powered for important clinical outcomes.
Trial Registration, NCT01983800 (registration date 2 July 2013).
PMCID: PMC4673781  PMID: 26646404
Volatile anesthetics; sedation; critical care; safety; randomized controlled trial
20.  Comparison of the Changes in Blood Glucose Level During Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol in Implant Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial 
Journal of Dentistry  2014;15(3):135-139.
Statement of the Problem: Reducing the patients' stress can prevent, or at least, limit the increase in blood glucose level.
Purpose: The study compares the effect of propofol and midazolam on blood glucose level in the patients undergoing dental implant surgery. The effect of pre-operational stress on blood glucose level during the surgery is also evaluated.
Materials and Method: This prospective randomized clinical trial recruited 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery and divided into two groups. Conscious sedation was performed by midazolam in one group and with propofol in another group. The pre-operational stress was scored and the blood glucose level was measured in 4 different stages; before the operation, two minutes after the local anesthetic injection; thirty minutes after the onset of operation and at the end of the operation. The results were analyzed by employing ANOVA and Pearson test. The p Value was adopted 0.05 and the confidence coefficient was assumed 95%.
Results: The average levels of the blood glucose in midazolam and propofol group were 93.82 mg/dl and 94 mg/dl before the operation which displayed a meaningful increase of blood glucose level in both groups as the operation went on. The values were 103.76 mg/dl for midazolam and 108.56 mg/dl for the propofol group (p< 0.05) at the end of the operation.
No statistically significant difference was found in the average blood glucose level between two groups in the different stages of the operation (p= 0.466). The Pearson correlation coefficient test revealed a higher increase in the blood glucose level in the patients with a higher pre-operational stress score (r= 0.756, p< 0.001).
Conclusion: Based on the results yielded by this study, patients who receive venous sedation, either by midazolam or propofol, experience increase in the blood glucose level while undergoing an operation. No statistically significant difference was detected between midazolam and propofol.
PMCID: PMC4149896  PMID: 25191663
Sedation; Midazolam; Propofol; Blood glucose; Dental implant
21.  Risperidone in a child with untractable emergency delirium: a case report 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2016;69(6):623-626.
A 6-year-old boy was scheduled for thoracic magnetic resonance imaging under deep sedation with midazolam 1.8 mg and propofol 100 µg/kg/min via intravenous injection. He showed emergence delirium in the post-anesthesia care unit. The staff attempted to calm him by administering flumazenil as an antidote for midazolam, propofol for further sedation, and meperidine. However, this was not successful. A psychiatrist recommended the use of antipsychotics. Administration of risperidone led to immediate resolution of the boy's symptoms and relaxed him. The use of antipsychotic drugs is not common for anesthesiologists, but should be considered for treating uncontrolled emergence delirium after anesthesia.
PMCID: PMC5133236  PMID: 27924205
Antipsychotic drugs; Emergence delirium; Flumazenil; Midazolam; Risperidone
22.  Comparative evaluation of bispectral index system after sedation with midazolam and propofol combined with remifentanil versus ketamine in uncooperative during dental procedures 
Dental Research Journal  2016;13(1):1-6.
Proper analgesic agents should be used in combination with sedative agents. Remifentanil is a synthetic narcotic/analgesic agent with a short duration effect and decreases the risk of apnea during recovery. Bispectral index system (BIS) is a new noninvasive technique for the evaluation of the depth of sedation. The aim of present clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of intravenous sedation with propofol/midazolam/remifentanil (PMR) in comparison to propofol/midazolam/ketamine (PMK) for dental procedures in children 3-7 years of age.
Materials and Methods:
In this clinical trial, 32 healthy uncooperative children who were candidates for dental treatments under sedation were randomly divided into two groups. Intravenous sedation was induced with PMR in one group and with PMK in the other group. After injection and during procedure BIS index, heart rate and respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation was evaluated every 5 min. After the procedure, recovery time was measured. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Friedman, Wilcoxon, and t-test.
The BIS value was significantly low in ketamin group (P = 0.003) but respiratory rates and heart rates were same in both groups with no statistical difference (P = 0.884, P = 0.775). The recovery time was significantly shorter in remifentanil group (P = 0.008 and P = 0.003).
It can be concluded that intravenous sedation technique with PMR combination induces effective and safe sedation, with less pain and more forgetfulness and a shorter recovery time for children 3-7 years of age during dental procedures.
PMCID: PMC4770463  PMID: 26962308
Bispectral index; ketamine; midazolam; propofol; remifentanil
23.  Comparison of Propofol-Remifentanil Versus Propofol-Ketamine Deep Sedation for Third Molar Surgery 
Anesthesia Progress  2012;59(3):107-117.
This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.
PMCID: PMC3468288  PMID: 23050750
Propofol; Ketamine; Remifentanil; Deep sedation; TIVA
24.  Propofol versus Midazolam for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials 
PLoS ONE  2015;10(2):e0117585.
Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.
Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.
Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.
This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.
PMCID: PMC4315567  PMID: 25646815
25.  Cardiopulmonary Safety of Propofol Versus Midazolam/Meperidine Sedation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Study 
Different levels of pharmacological sedation ranging from minimal to general anesthesia are often used to increase patient tolerance for a successful colonoscopy. However, sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression and cardiovascular complications during colonoscopy.
We aimed to compare the propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation methods for colonoscopy procedures with respect to cardiopulmonary safety, procedure-related times, and patient satisfaction.
Patients and Methods:
This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, in which 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient diagnostic colonoscopies were divided into propofol and midazolam/meperidine sedation groups (n: 62, m/f ratio: 26/36, mean age: 46 ± 15 for the propofol group; n: 62, m/f ratio: 28/34, mean age: 49 ± 15 for the midazolam/meperidine group) by computer-generated randomization. The frequency of cardiopulmonary events (hypotension, bradycardia, hypoxemia), procedure-related times (duration of colonoscopy, time to cecal intubation, time to ileal intubation, awakening time, and time to hospital discharge) and patients’ evaluation results (pain assessment, quality of sedation, and recollection of procedure) were compared between the groups.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients, the frequency of hypotension, hypoxemia or bradycardia, cecal and ileal intubation times, and the duration of colonoscopy. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the development of cardiopulmonary events was not associated with the sedative agent used or the characteristics of the patients. The time required for the patient to be fully awake and the time to hospital discharge was significantly longer in the propofol group (11 ± 8 and 37 ± 11 minutes, respectively) than the midazolam/meperidine group (8 ± 6 and 29 ± 12 minutes, respectively) (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001, respectively). The patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between the groups; however, patients in the propofol group experienced more pain than patients in the midazolam/meperidine group (VAS score: 0.31 ± 0.76 vs. 0 ± 0; P = 0.002).
Midazolam/meperidine and propofol sedation for colonoscopy have similar cardiopulmonary safety profiles and patient satisfaction levels. Midazolam/meperidine can be preferred to propofol sedation due to a shorter hospital length of stay and better analgesic activity.
PMCID: PMC4329962  PMID: 25763217
Colonoscopy; Propofol; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trial

Results 1-25 (1678760)