PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (806989)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department 
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ  2007;24(7):459-461.
Objectives
To observe procedural sedation practice within a district general hospital emergency department (ED) that uses propofol for procedural sedation.
Methods
Prospective observation of procedural sedation over an 11 month period. Patients over 16 years of age requiring procedural sedation and able to give informed consent were recruited. The choice of sedation agent was at the discretion of the physician. The following details were recorded on a standard proforma for each patient: indication for procedural sedation; agent used; depth and duration of sedation; ease of reduction; use of a reversal agent; complications and reasons for delayed discharge from the ED.
Results
48 patients were recruited; propofol was used in 32 cases and midazolam in 16 cases. The median period of sedation was considerably shorter in the propofol group (3 vs 45 min) but this did not confer a shorter median time in the ED (200 vs 175 min). There were no documented cases of over‐sedation in the propofol group; however, four patients in the midazolam group were over‐sedated, three requiring reversal with flumazenil. There were no other significant complications in either group. There was no difference in the median depth of sedation achieved or ease of reduction between the two groups.
Conclusions
Propofol is effective and safe for procedural sedation in the ED. Propofol has a considerably shorter duration of action than midazolam, thereby shortening the period of sedation.
doi:10.1136/emj.2007.046714
PMCID: PMC2658387  PMID: 17582032
2.  Comparison between Midazolam Used Alone and in Combination with Propofol for Sedation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography 
Clinical Endoscopy  2014;47(1):94-100.
Background/Aims
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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).
Conclusions
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.
doi:10.5946/ce.2014.47.1.94
PMCID: PMC3928499  PMID: 24570889
Propofol; Midazolam; Cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic retrograde; Conscious sedation
3.  Stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy 
AIM: To investigate stepwise sedation for elderly patients with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.
METHODS: Eighty-six elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD and 82 elderly patients without COPD scheduled for upper GI endoscopy were randomly assigned to receive one of the following two sedation methods: stepwise sedation involving three-stage administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with stepwise sedation (group Cs), and non-COPD with stepwise sedation (group Ns)] or continuous sedation involving continuous administration of propofol combined with midazolam [COPD with continuous sedation (group Cc), and non-COPD with continuous sedation (group Nc)]. Saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), blood pressure, and pulse rate were monitored, and patient discomfort, adverse events, drugs dosage, and recovery time were recorded.
RESULTS: All endoscopies were completed successfully. The occurrences of hypoxemia in groups Cs, Cc, Ns, and Nc were 4 (9.3%), 12 (27.9%), 3 (7.3%), and 5 (12.2%), respectively. The occurrence of hypoxemia in group Cs was significantly lower than that in group Cc (P < 0.05). The average decreases in value of SpO2, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure in group Cs were significantly lower than those in group Cc. Additionally, propofol dosage and overall rate of adverse events in group Cs were lower than those in group Cc. Finally, the recovery time in group Cs was significantly shorter than that in group Cc, and that in group Ns was significantly shorter than that in group Nc (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The stepwise sedation method is effective and safer than the continuous sedation method for elderly patients with mild/moderate COPD during upper GI endoscopy.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i29.4791
PMCID: PMC3732854  PMID: 23922479
Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; Adverse events; Sedation; Monitoring; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
4.  Propofol-Based Sedation Does Not Increase Rate of Complication during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Procedure 
Objectives. To evaluate and compare the complication rate of sedation with or without propofol regimen for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in a hospital in Thailand. Subjects and Methods. A total of 198 patients underwent PEG procedures by using intravenous sedation (IVS) from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand from August 2006 to January 2009. The primary outcome variable was the overall complication rate. The secondary outcome variables were sedation and procedure related complications, and mortality rate. Results. After matching ASA physical status and indications of procedure, there were 92 PEG procedures in propofol based sedation group (A) and 20 PEG procedures in non-propofol based sedation group (B). All sedation was given by residents or anesthetic nurses directly supervised by staff anesthesiologist in the endoscopy room. There were no significant differences in patients' characteristics, sedation time, indication, complications, anesthetic personnel and mortality rate between the two groups. All complications were easily treated, with no adverse sequelae. Mean dose of fentanyl and midazolam in group A was significantly lower than in group B. Conclusion. Propofol-based sedation does not increase rate of complication during PEG procedure. Additionally, IVS of PEG procedure is relatively safe and effective when performed by physicians in training. Serious complications are none.
doi:10.1155/2011/134819
PMCID: PMC2929499  PMID: 20811547
5.  Propofol versus Midazolam for Sedation during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children 
Clinical Endoscopy  2013;46(4):368-372.
Background/Aims
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam for sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
Intravenous administered propofol provides faster recovery time and similarly safe sedation compared with midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
doi:10.5946/ce.2013.46.4.368
PMCID: PMC3746141  PMID: 23964333
Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy, digestive system; Child
6.  Retrospective Review of Propofol Dosing for Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Patients 
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to determine the total propofol dose (mg/kg) for non-emergent pediatric procedural sedation and evaluate dosing differences with regard to a patient's sex, age, and body mass index. Adverse events were recorded and evaluated to determine whether certain patient groups were at a higher risk than others.
METHODS
This study was a retrospective observational pilot study including patients 0 to 18 years of age admitted between January 2008 and November 2009 for non-emergent gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures or radiologic imaging, who received propofol for procedural sedation. Data gathered included sex, age, height, weight, chronic medical conditions and medication use, concomitant anesthetic gas, preprocedure midazolam, procedure length, propofol dose in mg/kg, other medications administered during procedure, and adverse events that occurred. Comparisons between adverse event groups and categories of baseline characteristics were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric and Pearson's chisquare tests, as appropriate.
RESULTS
A total of 101 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean dose of propofol required for female patients was 3.7 mg/kg versus 3.4 mg/kg for males (p=0.3). The mean dose of propofol for patients ≤9 years, 10 to 12 years, and >12 years was 3.2, 3.9, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.25). The mean dose of propofol for underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese patients was 4.2, 3.9, 3.6, and 2.6 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.38). Hypotension occurred in 42.6% of patients, and bradycardia occurred in 13.9% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no differences in dose requirements based on sex or age. The difference in dosing between different body weight categories was not statistically significant. The dose of propofol was higher in patients that experienced bradycardia and hypotension, but there was no statistical significance. Given the above, future studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to establish if statistical significance exists.
doi:10.5863/1551-6776-17.3.246
PMCID: PMC3526928  PMID: 23258967
computed tomography; endoscopy; gastrointestinal; magnetic resonance imaging; pediatrics; propofol
7.  Comparison between the recovery time of alfentanil and fentanyl in balanced propofol sedation for gastrointestinal and colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized study 
BMC Gastroenterology  2012;12:164.
Background
There is increasing interest in balanced propofol sedation (BPS) titrated to moderate sedation (conscious sedation) for endoscopic procedures. However, few controlled studies on BPS targeted to deep sedation for diagnostic endoscopy were found. Alfentanil, a rapid and short-acting synthetic analog of fentanyl, appears to offer clinically significant advantages over fentanyl during outpatient anesthesia.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that low dose of alfentanil used in BPS might also result in more rapid recovery as compared with fentanyl.
Methods
A prospective, randomized and double-blinded clinical trial of alfentanil, midazolam and propofol versus fentanyl, midazolam and propofol in 272 outpatients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenal endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for health examination were enrolled. Randomization was achieved by using the computer-generated random sequence. Each combination regimen was titrated to deep sedation. The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost benefit between groups were compared.
Results
260 participants were analyzed, 129 in alfentanil group and 131 in fentanyl group. There is no significant difference in sex, age, body weight, BMI and ASA distribution between two groups. Also, there is no significant difference in recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between two groups. Though deep sedation was targeted, all cardiopulmonary complications were minor and transient (10.8%, 28/260). No serious adverse events including the use of flumazenil, assisted ventilation, permanent injury or death, and temporary or permanent interruption of procedure were found in both groups. However, fentanyl is New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 103 (approximate US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil, leading to a significant difference in total cost between two groups.
Conclusions
This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial showed that there is no significant difference in the recovery time, satisfaction score from patients, propofol consumption, awake time from sedation, and sedation-related cardiopulmonary complications between the two most common sedation regimens for EGD and colonoscopy in our hospital. However, fentanyl is NT$103 (US$ 4) cheaper than alfentanil in each case.
Trial registration
Institutional Review Board of Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital (IRB097-18) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002575)
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-12-164
PMCID: PMC3607964  PMID: 23170921
Balanced propofol sedation; Alfentanil; Fentanyl; Deep sedation; Diagnostic endoscopy; Cost benefit
8.  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.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i22.3439
PMCID: PMC3683682  PMID: 23801836
Endoscopy; Deep sedation; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Adverse effects
9.  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.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463
PMCID: PMC3558570  PMID: 23382625
Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Endoscopy; Sedation; Analgesia; Digestive system
10.  Safety and Efficacy of Deep Sedation with Propofol Alone or Combined with Midazolam Administrated by Nonanesthesiologist for Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection 
Gut and Liver  2012;6(4):464-470.
Background/Aims
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.
Methods
A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).
Results
The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).
Conclusions
Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.
doi:10.5009/gnl.2012.6.4.464
PMCID: PMC3493727  PMID: 23170151
Deep sedation; Propofol; Midazolam; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal
11.  Clinical Effectiveness of an Anesthesiologist-Administered Intravenous Sedation Outside of the Main Operating Room for Pediatric Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Thailand 
Objectives. To review our sedation practice and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an anesthesiologist-administered intravenous sedation outside of the main operating room for pediatric upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) in Thailand. Subjects and Methods. We undertook a retrospective review of the sedation service records of pediatric patients who underwent UGIE. All endoscopies were performed by a pediatric gastroenterologist. All sedation was administered by staff anesthesiologist or anesthetic personnel. Results. A total of 168 patients (94 boys and 74 girls), with age from 4 months to 12 years, underwent 176 UGIE procedures. Of these, 142 UGIE procedures were performed with intravenous sedation (IVS). The mean sedation time was 23.2 ± 10.0 minutes. Propofol was the most common sedative drugs used. Mean dose of propofol, midazolam and fentanyl was 10.0 ± 7.5 mg/kg/hr, 0.2 ± 0.2 mg/kg/hr, and 2.5 ± 1.2 mcg/kg/hr, respectively. Complications relatively occurred frequently. All sedations were successful. However, two patients became more deeply than intended and required unplanned endotracheal intubation. Conclusion. The study shows the clinical effectiveness of an anesthesiologist-administered IVS outside of the main operating room for pediatric UGIE in Thailand. All complications are relatively high. We recommend the use of more sensitive equipments such as end tidal CO2 and carefully select more appropriate patients.
doi:10.1155/2010/748564
PMCID: PMC2929513  PMID: 20811603
12.  Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy 
Conscious sedation has been the standard of care for many years for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As procedures have become more complex and lengthy, additional medications became essential for adequate sedation. Often time’s deep sedation is required for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiography which necessitates higher doses of narcotics and benzodiazepines or even use of other medications such as ketamine. Given its pharmacologic properties, propofol was rapidly adopted worldwide to gastrointestinal endoscopy for complex procedures and more recently to routine upper and lower endoscopy. Many studies have shown superiority for both the physician and patient compared to standard sedation. Nevertheless, its use remains highly controversial. A number of studies worldwide show that propofol can be given safely by endoscopists or nurses when well trained. Despite this wealth of data, at many centers its use has been prohibited unless administered by anesthesiology. In this commentary, we review the use of anesthesia support for endoscopy in the United States based on recent data and its implications for gastroenterologists worldwide.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v5.i1.1
PMCID: PMC3547114  PMID: 23330047
Propofol; Ketamine; Conscious sedation; Deep sedation; Anesthesiology; Gastrointestinal endoscopy
13.  Propofol Sedation for ERCP Procedures: A Dilemna? Observations from an Anesthesia Perspective 
Propofol sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is a popular current technique that has generated controversy in the medical field. Worldwide, both anesthetic and nonanesthetic personnel administer this form of sedation. Although the American and Canadian societies of gastroenterologists have endorsed the administration of propofol by nonanesthesia personnel, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not licensed its use in this manner. There is some evidence for the safe use of propofol by nonanesthetic personnel in patients undergoing endoscopy procedures, but there are few randomized trials addressing the safety and efficacy of propofol in patients undergoing ERCP procedures. A serious possible consequence of propofol sedation in patients is that it may result in rapid and unpredictable progression from deep sedation to general anesthesia, and skilled airway support may be required as a rescue measure. Potential complications following deep propofol sedation include hypoxemia and hypotension. Propofol sedation for ERCP procedures is an area of clinical practice where discussion and mutual cooperation between anesthesia and nonanesthesia personnel may enhance patient safety.
doi:10.1155/2012/639190
PMCID: PMC3261459  PMID: 22272061
14.  Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection 
Clinical Endoscopy  2011;44(1):22-26.
Background/Aims
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone.
doi:10.5946/ce.2011.44.1.22
PMCID: PMC3363047  PMID: 22741108
Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Sedation; Midazolam; Propofol
15.  The impact of diphenhydramine and promethazine in patients undergoing advanced upper endoscopic procedures 
Background
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP ) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures are more complex and longer duration than standard endoscopy, requiring deeper levels of sedation. While prior studies have compared standard sedation (meperidine and midazolam) to propofol, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the use of adjunct sedatives in these procedures.
Aims
To prospectively compare the use of promethazine and diphenhydramine as adjunct sedatives to standard sedation in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures.
Methods
This was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study in a single, tertiary-care referral center. Promethazine (P), diphenhydramine (B), or normal saline (NS) were given as adjunct sedatives along with meperidine and midazolam in adult patients undergoing upper EUS and/or ERCP procedures. The main outcome measurement was sedation failure.
Results
292 patients (P: 97, B: 93, NS: 102) were randomized over 36 months. No significant differences in sedation failures (P: 8, B: 13, NS: 11, p=0.449) or in the times needed to achieve adequate sedation (P: 11.8 minutes, B: 12.9 minutes, NS: 14.0 minutes, p=0.054) were seen between the groups. Sedation using P (43.7 minutes) was associated with a significantly longer recovery time compared to B (28.0 minutes) or NS (24.5 minutes).
Conclusions
The use of promethazine and diphenhydramine as adjunct sedatives did not improve sedation failure rates or reduce the time needed to achieve sedation in patients undergoing upper EUS or ERCP. Patients with anticipated sedation difficulties should proceed directly to propofol-based sedation.
doi:10.7178/jig.124
PMCID: PMC3896573  PMID: 24498528
promethazine; diphenhydramine; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic ultrasound; sedation
16.  Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country 
Introduction
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.
Methods
We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.
Results
PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17–65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65–80 years) were in the 65–80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81–97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.
Conclusion
In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.
doi:10.2147/CEG.S31275
PMCID: PMC3401056  PMID: 22826640
deep sedation; propofol; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic ultrasonography; elderly; developing country
17.  Bispectral index monitoring as an adjunct to nurse-administered combined sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 
AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.
RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.
CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i43.6284
PMCID: PMC3501778  PMID: 23180950
Conscious sedation; Bispectral index monitors; Pancreatic neoplasm; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
18.  Sedation-related complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy 
Sedation practices for gastrointestinal endoscopic (GIE) procedures vary widely in different countries depending on health system regulations and local circumstances. The goal of procedural sedation is the safe and effective control of pain and anxiety, as well as to provide an appropriate degree of memory loss or decreased awareness. Sedation-related complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy, once occurred, can lead to significant morbidity and occasional mortality in patients. The risk factors of these complications include the type, dose and mode of administration of sedative agents, as well as the patient’s age and underlying medical diseases. Complications attributed to moderate and deep sedation levels are more often associated with cardiovascular and respiratory systems. However, sedation-related complications during GIE procedures are commonly transient and of a mild degree. The risk for these complications while providing any level of sedation is greatest when caring for patients already medically compromised. Significant unwanted complications can generally be prevented by careful pre-procedure assessment and preparation, appropriate monitoring and support, as well as post-procedure management. Additionally, physicians must be prepared to manage these complications. This article will review sedation-related complications during moderate and deep sedation for GIE procedures and also address their appropriate management.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v5.i11.527
PMCID: PMC3831194  PMID: 24255744
Sedation; Complication; Gastrointestinal; Endoscopy
19.  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
20.  Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods. 
Gut  1995;36(3):462-467.
A prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in 36 hospitals across two regions provided data from 14,149 gastroscopies of which 1113 procedures were therapeutic and 13,036 were diagnostic. Most patients received gastroscopy under intravenous sedation; midazolam was the preferred agent in the North West and diazepam was preferred in East Anglia. Mean doses of each agent used were 5.7 mg and 13.8 mg respectively, although there was a wide distribution of doses reported. Only half of the patients endoscoped had some form of intravenous access in situ and few were supplied with supplementary oxygen. The death rate from this study for diagnostic endoscopy was 1 in 2000 and the morbidity rate was 1 in 200; cardiorespiratory complications were the most prominent in this group and there was a strong relation between the lack of monitoring and use of high dose benzodiazepines and the occurrence of adverse outcomes. In particular there was a link between the use of local anaesthetic sprays and the development of pneumonia after gastroscopy (p < 0.001). Twenty perforations occurred out of a total of 774 dilatations of which eight patients died (death rate 1 in 100). A number of units were found to have staffing problems, to be lacking in basic facilities, and to have poor or virtually non-existent recovery areas. In addition, a number of junior endoscopists were performing endoscopy unsupervised and with minimal training.
PMCID: PMC1382467  PMID: 7698711
21.  Ketamine and midazolam sedation for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world 
AIM: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous ketamine-midazolam sedation during pediatric endoscopy in the Arab world.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all pediatric endoscopic procedures performed between 2002-2008 at the shared endoscopy suite of King Abdullah University Hospital, Jordan University of Science & Technology, Jordan was conducted. All children were > 1 year old and weighed > 10 kg with American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. Analysis was performed in terms of sedation-related complications (desaturation, respiratory distress, apnea, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, emergence reactions), adequacy of sedation, need for sedation reversal, or failure to complete the procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 301 patients (including 160 males) with a mean age of 9.26 years (range, 1-18 years) were included. All were premedicated with atropine; and 79.4% (239/301) had effective and uneventful sedation. And 248 (82.4%) of the 301 patients received a mean dose of 0.16 mg/kg (range, 0.07-0.39) midazolam and 1.06 mg/kg (range, 0.31-2.67) ketamine, respectively within the recommended dosage guidelines. Recommended maximum midazolam dose was exceeded in 17.6% patients [34 female (F):19 male (M), P = 0.003] and ketamine in 2.7% (3 M:5 F). Maximum midazolam dose was more likely to be exceeded than ketamine (P < 0.001). Desaturation occurred in 37 (12.3%) patients, and was reversible by supplemental oxygen in all except 4 who continue to have desaturation despite supplemental oxygen. Four (1.3%) patients had respiratory distress and 6 (2%) were difficult to sedate and required a 3rd sedative; 12 (4%) required reversal and 7 (2.3%) failed to complete the procedure. None developed apnea, bradycardia, arrest, or emergence reactions.
CONCLUSION: Ketamine-midazolam sedation appears safe and effective for diagnostic pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Arab world for children aged > 1 year and weighing > 10 kg without co-morbidities.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i31.3630
PMCID: PMC3180020  PMID: 21987610
Pediatric endoscopy; Sedation; Ketamine; Arab
22.  Propofol infusion for sedation in the intensive care unit: preliminary report. 
Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.
PMCID: PMC1245409  PMID: 3101895
23.  Patient-Controlled Sedation 
Anesthesia Progress  1998;45(3):117-126.
Patient-controlled sedation was utilized in patients aged 15 to 85 yr who were undergoing surgery under local or regional anesthesia. Midazolam, propofol, and methohexitone were used, either by themselves or in combination with fentanyl or alfentanil. Sedation was mild to moderate in the majority of patients, and operating conditions were good. The sedation method provided patients the ability to control the sedation and to vary the degree of sedation according to the environment and to the stress of the procedure. Sedation of the elderly, which tends to be problematic, was made easy using this method, and the elderly patients appeared to enjoy the option. The problems encountered were oversedation, respiratory depression, pain during injection, and postural hypotension.
Images
PMCID: PMC2148957  PMID: 19598717
Patient-controlled sedation; Review
24.  Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? A randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam 
Background
This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.
Aims
The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.
Methods
Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.
Result
Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).
Conclusion
This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.
doi:10.1007/s12245-010-0162-3
PMCID: PMC2885259  PMID: 20606819
Procedural sedation analgesia; Midazolam; Propofol; Emergency department
25.  Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam is superior to intranasal midazolam for emergency paediatric procedural sedation 
Objectives—This study compared intranasal midazolam (INM) with a combination of intravenous ketamine and intravenous midazolam (IVKM) for sedation of children requiring minor procedures in the emergency department.
Method—A single blinded randomised clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of a major urban paediatric hospital. Subjects requiring sedation for minor procedures were randomised to receive either INM (0.4 mg/kg) or intravenous ketamine (1 mg/kg) plus intravenous midazolam (0.1 mg/kg). Physiological variables and two independent measures of sedation (Sedation Score and Visual Analogue Sedation Scale) were recorded before sedation and at regular intervals during the procedure and recovery period. Times to adequate level of sedation and to discharge were compared.
Results—Fifty three patients were enrolled over a 10 month period. Sedation was sufficient to complete the procedures in all children receiving IVKM and in 24 of the 26 receiving INM. Onset of sedation was an average of 5.3 minutes quicker with IVKM than with INM (95%CI 3.2, 7.4 minutes, p<0.001). Children given INM were discharged an average of 19 minutes earlier than those given IVKM (95%CI 4, 33 minutes, p=0.02). Mean Sedation Scores and Visual Analogue Sedation Scale scores for the 30 minutes after drug administration were significantly better in children given IVKM compared with INM (2.4 and 1.8 versus 3.5 and 3.8, respectively). Both doctors and parents were more satisfied with sedation by intravenous ketamine and midazolam.
Conclusions—Intravenous ketamine plus midazolam used in an appropriate setting by experienced personnel provides an excellent means of achieving sedation suitable for most non-painful minor procedures for children in the emergency department. This combination is superior to INM in terms of speed of onset and consistency of effect. INM delivered via aerosol spray has a more variable effect but may still be adequate for the completion of many of these procedures.
doi:10.1136/emj.18.1.39
PMCID: PMC1725505  PMID: 11310461

Results 1-25 (806989)