PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1098035)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Conscious Sedation and Emergency Department Length of Stay: A Comparison of Propofol, Ketamine, and Fentanyl/Versed 
Study Objectives:
Three of the most commonly used agents for conscious sedation in the Emergency Department (ED) are ketamine, fentanyl/versed, and propofol. In this study, we measured and compared the total times spent in the ED with each of these agents. Our objective was to determine whether the use of propofol for conscious sedation was associated with a shorter length of ED stay as compared to the other two agents.
Methods:
This was a consecutive case series. All patients who required procedural conscious sedation who presented to the ED at University of California, Irvine Medical Center from January 2003 through April 2004 were included in the study. The attending ED physician evaluated the patient and determined which medication(s) would be administered. All patients underwent procedural sedation according to the ED’s standardized sedation protocol. The times and dosages of administered medications and the sedation/consciousness level (SCL) scores were recorded by ED nurses at 3–5 minute intervals. Data was abstracted prospectively. The time to sedation (first dose of agent to SCL score of 2 or less) and time to recovery (last dose of agent to SCL score of 4) of the different regimens were then analyzed and compared.
Results:
Thirty-eight patients received propofol, 38 received ketamine, and 14 received fentanyl/versed. The mean times to sedation (minutes) were: propofol 4.5 (95% CI: 3.3–5.7), ketamine 10.6 (95% CI: 5.8–15.4), fentanyl/versed 11.5 (95% CI: 3.5–19.4). The mean times to recovery were: propofol 21.6 (95% CI: 16.1–27.1), ketamine 55.4 (95% CI: 46.2–64.5), fentanyl/versed 59.9 (95% CI: 20.3–99.5). Propofol had a statistically significant shorter time to sedation than both ketamine (p<.001) and fentanyl/versed (p=.022). Propofol also produced shorter recovery times than both ketamine (p<.001) and fentanyl/versed (p=.002).
Conclusion:
In this study, sedation and recovery times were shorter with propofol than with ketamine or fentanyl/versed. The use of propofol for conscious sedation in this non-randomized study was associated with a shorter ED length of stay.
PMCID: PMC2872520  PMID: 20505814
2.  Sedation practice in a Scottish teaching hospital emergency department 
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ  2006;23(9):684-686.
Objectives
To conduct a prospective survey in a teaching hospital emergency department to evaluate performance according to safe sedation principles, to establish the demographics of those sedated, and to review the drugs used and doses given to patients in the department. Any adverse events were reviewed for identification of preventable causes.
Methods
Pre‐sedation checklists, peri‐procedural observations, and patient notes were reviewed for 101 cases from 4 December 2004 to 3 September 2005. There are departmental guidelines outlining the principles of safe sedation.
Results
Emergency department procedural sedation was performed for a variety of acute conditions in patients aged from 7 to 91 years old. A variety of sedation agents were administered, morphine and midazolam being used most frequently. Drug administration, maximum sedation level, and time to recovery and discharge were recorded. Four adverse events were reported, none of which were clinically significant. Departmental guidelines were followed.
Conclusion
Emergency department sedation is a safe and effective procedure if appropriately trained practitioners follow the principles of safe sedation.
doi:10.1136/emj.2006.035220
PMCID: PMC2564208  PMID: 16921079
emergency department; guidelines; sedation
3.  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
4.  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
5.  Propofol and Etomidate are Safe for Deep Sedation in the Emergency Department 
This study describes deep sedations performed for painful procedures completed in the emergency department at an academic tertiary care hospital during an 18-month period. One hundred consecutive cases were retrospectively reviewed to describe indications, complications, procedural lengths, medication dosing, and safety of these sedations. Propofol and etomidate were the preferred agents. We found that there were relatively few complications (10%), with only 2 of these (2%) being major complications. All complications were brief and did not adversely affect patient outcomes. This data further demonstrate the safety profile of deep sedation medications in the hands of emergency physicians trained in sedation and advanced airway techniques.
doi:10.5811/westjem.2011.5.2099
PMCID: PMC3236171  PMID: 22224127
6.  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
7.  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
8.  Combined sedation with midazolam/propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients 
BMC Gastroenterology  2010;10:11.
Background
Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, data on combined sedation with midazolam/propofol are very limited for this age group.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 454 endoscopic procedures in 347 hospitalized patients ≥ 70 years who had received combined sedation with midazolam/propofol. 513 endoscopic procedures in 397 hospitalized patients < 70 years during the observation period served as controls. Characteristics of endoscopic procedures, co-morbidity, complications and mortality were compared.
Results
Elderly patients had a higher level of co-morbidity and needed lower mean propofol doses for sedation. We observed no major complication and no difference in the number of minor complications. The procedure-associated mortality was 0%; the 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the elderly (2.9% vs. 1.0%).
Conclusions
In this study on elderly patients with high level co-morbidity, a favourable safety profile was observed for a combined sedation with midazolam/propofol with a higher sensitivity to propofol in the elderly.
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-10-11
PMCID: PMC2823646  PMID: 20105314
9.  Average recovery time from a standardized intravenous sedation protocol and standardized discharge criteria in the general dental practice setting. 
Anesthesia Progress  2002;49(3):77-81.
Intravenous sedation has been used in dentistry for many years because of its perceived advantages over general anesthesia, including shorter recovery times. However, there is limited literature available on recovery from intravenous dental sedation, particularly in the private general practice setting. The aim of this study was to describe the recovery times when sedation was conducted in private dental practice and to consider this in relation to age, weight, procedure type, and procedure time. The data were extracted from the intravenous sedation records available with 1 general anesthesia-trained dental practitioner who provides ambulatory sedation services to a number of private general dental practices in the Perth, Western Australia Metropolitan Area. Standardized intravenous sedation techniques as well as clear standardized discharge criteria were utilized. The sedatives used were fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol. Results from 85 patients produced an average recovery time of 19 minutes. Recovery time was not associated with the type or length of dental procedures performed.
PMCID: PMC2007342  PMID: 15384295
10.  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
11.  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
12.  Spectral entropy for assessing the depth of propofol sedation 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2012;62(3):234-239.
Background
For patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) or under monitored anesthetic care (MAC), the precise monitoring of sedation depth facilitates the optimization of dosage and prevents adverse complications from underor over-sedation. For this purpose, conventional subjective sedation scales, such as the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) or the Ramsay scale, have been widely utilized. Current procedures frequently disturb the patient's comfort and compromise the already well-established sedation. Therefore, reliable objective sedation scales that do not cause disturbances would be beneficial. We aimed to determine whether spectral entropy can be used as a sedation monitor as well as determine its ability to discriminate all levels of propofol-induced sedation during gradual increments of propofol dosage.
Methods
In 25 healthy volunteers undergoing general anesthesia, the values of response entropy (RE) and state entropy (SE) corresponding to each OAA/S (5 to 1) were determined. The scores were then analyzed during each 0.5 mcg/ml- incremental increase of a propofol dose.
Results
We observed a reduction of both RE and SE values that correlated with the OAA/S (correlation coefficient of 0.819 in RE-OAA/S and 0.753 in SE-OAA/S). The RE and SE values corresponding to awake (OAA/S score 5), light sedation (OAA/S 3-4) and deep sedation (OAA/S 1-2) displayed differences (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
The results indicate that spectral entropy can be utilized as a reliable objective monitor to determine the depth of propofol-induced sedation.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.3.234
PMCID: PMC3315652  PMID: 22474549
Entropy; Propofol; Sedation
13.  Deep sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography 
Sedation and analgesia comprise an important element of unpleasant and often prolonged endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography (ERCP), contributing, however, to better patient tolerance and compliance and to the reduction of injuries during the procedure due to inappropriate co-operation. Although most of the studies used a moderate level of sedation, the literature has revealed the superiority of deep sedation and general anesthesia in performing ERCP. The anesthesiologist’s presence is mandatory in these cases. A moderate sedation level for ERCP seems to be adequate for octogenarians. The sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP seems to be propofol due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Its therapeutic spectrum, however, is much narrower and therefore careful monitoring is much more demanding in order to differentiate between moderate, deep sedation and general anesthesia. Apart from conventional monitoring, capnography and Bispectral index or Narcotrend monitoring of the level of sedation seem to be useful in titrating sedatives in ERCP.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v3.i2.34
PMCID: PMC3055942  PMID: 21403815
Deep sedation; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography; Monitoring; Sedatives
14.  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
15.  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
16.  Sedation practice in the intensive care unit: a UK national survey 
Critical Care  2008;12(6):R152.
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate sedation practice in UK intensive care units (ICUs), particularly the implementation of daily sedation holding, written sedation guidelines, sedation scoring tools and choice of agents.
Methods
A national postal survey was conducted in all UK ICUs.
Results
A total of 192 responses out of 302 addressed units were received (63.5%). Of the responding ICUs, 88% used a sedation scoring tool, most frequently the Ramsey Sedation Scale score (66.4%). The majority of units have a written sedation guideline (80%), and 78% state that daily sedation holding is practiced. A wide variety of sedating agents is used, with the choice of agent largely determined by the duration of action rather than cost. The most frequently used agents were propofol and alfentanil for short-term sedation; propofol, midazolam and morphine for longer sedation; and propofol for weaning purposes.
Conclusions
Most UK ICUs use a sedation guideline and sedation scoring tool. The concept of sedation holding has been implemented in the majority of units, and most ICUs have a written sedation guideline.
doi:10.1186/cc7141
PMCID: PMC2646317  PMID: 19046459
17.  Procedural sedation and analgesia for paediatric patients in the emergency department 
Paediatrics & Child Health  2003;8(8):503-507.
Children presenting to the emergency department (ED) often require sedation for brief procedures such as fracture and dislocation reductions, laceration repairs, and imaging procedures that are painful, anxiety provoking or both. This article presents three cases of paediatric patients who require sedation and/or analgesia, and summarizes important aspects of procedural sedation for the primary care practitioner in the emergency setting. Presedation assessment and monitoring equipment are detailed. Discussion of routes of administration and different agents including barbiturates, opiates, benzodiaxepines, the ‘cardiac coctail’, ketamine, propofol, nitrous oxide, and etomidate follow. Emphasis is placed on indications, contraindications, dosing, timing and advantages and disadvantages of each. Reversal agents are mentioned, and discharge criteria are outlined.
PMCID: PMC2791554  PMID: 20019936
Procedural sedation; Emergency; Sedatives; Analgesia
18.  The safety of single‐physician procedural sedation in the emergency department 
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ  2006;23(12):922-923.
Background
Pevious research has shown the safety of procedural sedation in the emergency department in university settings involving multiple emergency physicians.
Objective
To examine sedation in the emergency department conducted by a single emergency physician with monitoring by the emergency nurse.
Methods
The Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department Registry is a prospective observational database of procedural sedation cases directed by the emergency physicians. Among other parameters, the registry tracts whether emergency physicians or emergency nurses monitored patient sedation. The incidence of complications and outcomes were compared between these two monitoring groups.
Results
1028 procedural sedations were performed on 977 patients at 14 sites. In 885 (86.1%) cases the emergency physician directed the sedation, and performed the procedure with monitoring by the emergency nurse. Complications occurred in 42 (4.1%) patients, 35 (4.0%) EN monitored patients and 6 (4.2%) EP monitored patients (p>0.7). Procedures were successful in 863 (97.5%) cases monitored by emergency nurses and in 140 (97.9%) patients monitored by emergency physicians (p>0.7).
Conclusion
Procedural sedation in the emergency department performed by a single emergency physician is safe and effective.
doi:10.1136/emj.2006.040956
PMCID: PMC2564254  PMID: 17130600
19.  A Comparison of Equisedative Infusions of Propofol and Midazolam for Conscious Sedation During Spinal Anesthesia - A Prospective Randomized Study 
Background:
Supplemental sedation with an intravenous agent is often required to allay fear and anxiety in patients subjected to spinal anesthesia .We studied and compared the properties of propofol and midazolam as equisedative continuous infusions.
Patients & Methods:
100, ASA grade 1 and 2 patients, 18 to 60 years of age, undergoing spinal anesthesia, were randomly allocated to receive either propofol 1mg/ml or midazolam 0.1mg/ml in 50ml syringes through syringe pump. The infusion rates were titrated in order to maintain a desired sedation score of 4 on the Observer's assessment of alertness/ sedation scale. Anxiety score was assessed at regular intervals by a single observer in all cases, using a 100mm visual analog scale.Intraoperative and postoperative amnesia was assessed using visual task of recall of pictures and verbal task of recall of words.
Results:
Propofol infusion was found to be superior to that of midazolam as it showed a statistically significant faster onset in achieving the desired sedation score, significantly lower mean anxiety scores, a clear headed, rapid recovery and significantly lesser postoperative impairment of recall, but midazolam infusion was seen to be associated with deeper intraoperative amnesia over the former which was beneficial.
Conclusion:
Equisedatine infusion of propofol & midazolam as an adjunct & spinal anesthesia offer good anxiolysis and cardio respiratory stability. Propofol her faster onset & recovery while midazolam provides better intraoperative annesia.
PMCID: PMC3146158  PMID: 21804706
Conscious sedation; Propofol; Midazolam; Spinal anesthesia; Amnesia; Anxiolysis; Recall
20.  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
21.  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
22.  Comparison of Midazolam and Propofol for BIS-Guided Sedation During Regional Anaesthesia 
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  2009;53(6):662-666.
Summary
Regional anaesthesia has become an important anaesthetic technique. Effective sedation is an essential for regional techniques too. This study compares midazolam and propofol in terms of onset & recovery from sedation, dosage and side effects of both the drugs using Bispectral Index monitoring. Ninety eight patients were randomly divided into two groups,one group recieved midazolam infusion while the other recieved propofol infusion until BIS reached 75. We observed Time to reach desired sedation, HR, MABP, time for recovery, dose to reach sedation and for maintenance of sedation and side effects if any. The time to reach required sedation was 11 min in Midazolam group(Group I) while it was 6 min in Propofol group(Group II) (p=0.0). Fall in MABP was greater with propofol. Recovery in with midazolam was slower than with propofol (18.6 ± 6.5 vs 10.10±3.65 min) (p=0.00). We concluded that both midazolam and propofol are effective sedatives, but onset and offset was quicker with propofol, while midazolam was more cardiostable.
PMCID: PMC2900075  PMID: 20640093
Propofol; Midazolam; Sedation; BIS
23.  The Effect of Sedation During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 
Background/Aim:
We aimed to study whether sedation reduces discomfort during endoscopy and a comparison of longer-acting diazepam with shorter-acting midazolam.
Patients and Methods:
A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was conducted at the Department of Medicine at Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, and was completed over a period of 6 months. The patients were randomized to receive either placebo or sedation with midazolam or diazepam before endoscopy. The endoscopist and the observer recording patient’s/physician’s responses were blinded to the drugs administered. Two hundred and fifty two consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were recruited. The patient’s discomfort and the physician’s comfort during the procedure were recorded on a visual analogue scale rated from 1-10 with-in 10 minutes of the procedure by an independent observer. The Patient’s discomfort ratings were further divided into 3 groups, comfortable (score, 1-3), satisfactory (score, 4-7) and uncomfortable (a score of >7). Similarly the physician’s ease of performing the procedure was also recorded on the same scale. This was again divided into 3 groups: easy (score, 1-3), satisfactory (score, 4-7) and difficult (a score of >7).
Results:
Out of the total of 252 patients, 82 patients received no sedation (group I), 85 received diazepam (group II) and 85 received midazolam (group III). There was no statistical difference in the discomfort experienced by the patients during endoscopy when sedation was used (P=0.0754). Out of 252 patients, 49 underwent endoscopic procedures. Nineteen patients were included in group I, 18 in group II and 12 in group III. Only 10 (20%) patients undergoing endoscopic procedures complained of significant discomfort, but there was no difference in the ones undergoing interventions with or without sedation (P=0.854). The physicians were more comfortable in performing endoscopic procedure in sedated patients, however, the difference between patients in group II and group III was not statistically significant (P=0.0461). Both diazepam and midazolam fared equally well in increasing physician’s comfort (P=0.617).
Conclusion:
There was no difference in the patient’s discomfort with regard to the sedative used (midazolam or diazepam). Although endoscopy was easy or satisfactory in the majority of patients in the unsedated as well as the sedated groups, more often the endoscopist found it difficult to do endoscopy on the unsedated patients.
doi:10.4103/1319-3767.70616
PMCID: PMC2995098  PMID: 20871194
Endoscopic procedures; gastrointestinal endoscopy; patient’s perception; sedation
24.  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
25.  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

Results 1-25 (1098035)