PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (859562)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: Comparison of propofol and midazolam 
AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5389
PMCID: PMC3471107  PMID: 23082055
Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Propofol; Hypoventilation; Blood gas monitoring; Transcutaneous
2.  A Comparison between Sedative Effect of Propofol-Fentanyl and Propofol-Midazolam Combinations in Microlaryngeal Surgeries 
Considering the growing trend of laryngeal surgeries and the need to protect the airway during and after surgery, among several therapeutic regimens to induce sedation, two regimens of propofol-fentanyl and propofol-midazolam were compared in microlaryngeal surgeries.
Forty ASA I-II class patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgeries and referring routinely for postoperative visits were randomly recruited into two groups. For all the patients, 0.5 mg/Kg of propofol was used as bolus and then, 50 mcg/Kg/min of the drug was infused intravenously. For one group, 0.03 mg/Kg bolus of midazolam and for the other group, 2 mcg/Kg bolus of fentanyl was administered in combination with propofol. Ramsay system was used in order to evaluate the effect of the two drugs in inducing sedation. The need for additional dose, blood pressure, heart rate, arterial blood oxygen saturation, and also recovery time and adverse effects such as nausea/vomiting and recalling intra-operative memories, were assessed.
The patients in the two groups were not statistically different regarding the number of patients, age, sex, preoperative vital signs, the need for additional doses of propofol, systolic blood pressure and mean systolic blood pressure during laryngoscopy. However, mean systolic blood pressure 1 min after removal of laryngoscope returned faster to the baseline in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Mean heart rate returned sooner to the baseline in fentanyl group following removal of stimulation. Besides, heart rate showed a more reduction following administration of fentanyl (p < 0.02). Mean arterial blood oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy significantly decreased in fentanyl group (p < 0.05) compared to the other group. The time it took to achieve a full consciousness was shorter in midazolam group (p < 0.01). Nausea/vomiting was significantly more prevalent in fentanyl group while the patients in midazolam group apparently experienced more of amnesia, comparatively (p < 0.01).
Inducing laryngeal block and local anesthesia using propofol-midazolam regimen is not only associated with a more rapid recovery and less recalling of unpleasant memories, but also better in preventing reduction of arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy compared with propofol-fentanyl regimen.
PMCID: PMC3813093  PMID: 24250451
Sedation; Microlaryngeal surgery; Propofol; Midazolam; Fentanyl
3.  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
4.  Sedative Efficacy of Propofol in Patients Intubated/Ventilated after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 
Background:
Sedation after open heart surgery is important in preventing stress on the heart. The unique sedative features of propofol prompted us to evaluate its potential clinical role in the sedation of post-CABG patients.
Objectives:
To compare propofol-based sedation to midazolam-based sedation after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Patients and Methods:
Fifty patients who were admitted to the ICU after CABG surgery was randomized into two groups to receive sedation with either midazolam or propofol infusions; and additional analgesia was administered if required. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients 40-60 years old, hemodynamic stability, ejection fraction (EF) more than 40%; exclusion criteria included patients who required intra-aortic balloon pump or inotropic drugs post-bypass. The same protocol of anesthetic medications was used in both groups. Depth of sedation was monitored using the Ramsay sedation score (RSS). Invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), arterial blood gas (ABG) and ventilatory parameters were monitored continuously after the start of study drug and until the patients were extubated.
Results:
The depth of sedation was almost the same in the two groups (RSS=4.5 in midazolam group vs 4.7 in propofol group; P = 0.259) but the total dose of fentanyl in the midazolam group was significantly more than the propofol group (12.5 mg/hr vs 4 mg/hr) (P = 0.0039). No significant differences were found in MAP (P = 0.51) and HR (P = 0.41) between the groups. The mean extubation time in patients sedated with propofol was shorter than those sedated with midazolam (102 ± 27 min vs 245 ± 42 min, respectively; P < 0.05) but the ICU discharge time was not shorter (47.5 hr vs 36.3 hr, respectively; P = 0.24).
Conclusions:
Propofol provided a safe and acceptable sedation for post-CABG surgical patients, significantly reduced the requirement for analgesics, and allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than midazolam but did not result in earlier ICU discharge.
doi:10.5812/aapm.17109
PMCID: PMC3961039  PMID: 24660162
Propofol; Analgesics; Coronary Artery Bypass; Deep Sedation; Midazolam; Airway Extubation; Length of Stay
5.  PROPOFOL-FENTANYL VERSUS PROPOFOL ALONE FOR LUMBAR PUNCTURE SEDATION IN CHILDREN WITH ACUTE HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCIES: PROPOFOL DOSING AND ADVERSE EVENTS 
Objective
We sought to determine whether the combination of propofol and fentanyl results in lower propofol doses and fewer adverse cardiopulmonary events than propofol and placebo for lumbar puncture (LP) in children with acute hematologic malignancies.
Design
Randomized, controlled, double blind, crossover study.
Setting
Pediatric Sedation Program
Patients
Children with acute leukemia or lymphoma receiving sedation for LP.
Interventions
Each patient received two sedations in random order, one with propofol/placebo and one with propofol/fentanyl. The study investigator and patient/parent were blinded to placebo or fentanyl. Data collected included patient age and diagnosis, propofol dose and adverse events. Adverse events included oxygen saturation < 94%, airway obstruction, apnea, hypotension and bradycardia (< 5% mean for age). Logistic regression analysis was utilized to assess probability of adverse events and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank and McNemar’s tests were used for paired comparisons.
Measurements and Main Results
Twenty-two patients were enrolled. Fourteen patients were male and 8 were female. Each patient was studied twice for a total of 44 sedations. The median age was 5.0 years (range 2.2–17.2 years). All procedures were successfully completed. The median total dose of propofol was 5.05 mg/kg (range 2.4–10.2 mg/kg) for propofol/placebo versus 3.00 mg/kg (range 1.4–10.5 mg/kg) for propofol/fentanyl (p < 0.001). Twelve adverse events occurred in 11 of 22 patients (50.0%) propofol/placebo compared to 6 of 22 (18.2%) propofol/fentanyl (p= 0.02). The most common adverse event was hypotension.
Conclusions
The combination of propofol and fentanyl versus propofol alone for LP sedation in children with acute hematologic malignancies resulted in lower propofol doses and fewer adverse events.
doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e31818e3ad3
PMCID: PMC3076743  PMID: 18838923
propofol; fentanyl; pediatric oncology; procedural sedation
6.  Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet? 
Critical Care  2013;17(3):320.
Expanded abstract
Citation
Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.
Background
Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.
Methods
Objective
The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients' interaction with nursing care.
Design
Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.
Setting
The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.
Subjects
The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.
Intervention
After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.
Outcomes
For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.
Results
Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).
Conclusions
Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.
doi:10.1186/cc12707
PMCID: PMC3706806  PMID: 23731973
7.  Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study 
BMC Anesthesiology  2012;12:20.
Background
ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP.
Methods
ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n = 103) and the controls (n = 102). For induction, a combination of 25 mg of meperidine and 2.5 mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1 mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25 mg of meperidine or 2.5 mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation.
Results
In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2 mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03 mg/kg and 0.12 mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients’ satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67 minutes and 12.89 minutes (P = 0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal.
Conclusions
Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients’ satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01540084
doi:10.1186/1471-2253-12-20
PMCID: PMC3434082  PMID: 22873637
Cocktail sedation containing propofol; Meperidine; Midazolam; ERCP
8.  Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial 
Critical Care  2006;10(3):R91.
Introduction
Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.
Methods
In this prospective, open-label, randomised, single-centre study, a total of 80 patients (18 to 75 years old), who had undergone cardiac surgery, were postoperatively assigned to one of two treatment regimens for sedation in the ICU for 12 to 72 hours. Patients in the remifentanil/propofol group received remifentanil (6- max. 60 μg kg-1 h-1; dose exceeds recommended labelling). Propofol (0.5 to 4.0 mg kg-1 h-1) was supplemented only in the case of insufficient sedation at maximal remifentanil dose. Patients in the midazolam/fentanyl group received midazolam (0.02 to 0.2 mg kg-1 h-1) and fentanyl (1.0 to 7.0 μg kg-1 h-1). For treatment of pain after extubation, both groups received morphine and/or non-opioid analgesics.
Results
The time intervals (mean values ± standard deviation) from arrival at the ICU until extubation (20.7 ± 5.2 hours versus 24.2 h ± 7.0 hours) and from arrival until eligible discharge from the ICU (46.1 ± 22.0 hours versus 62.4 ± 27.2 hours) were significantly (p < 0.05) shorter in the remifentanil/propofol group. Overall costs of the ICU stay per patient were equal (approximately €1,700 on average).
Conclusion
Compared with midazolam/fentanyl, a remifentanil-based regimen for analgesia and sedation supplemented with propofol significantly reduced the time on mechanical ventilation and allowed earlier discharge from the ICU, at equal overall costs.
doi:10.1186/cc4939
PMCID: PMC1550941  PMID: 16780597
9.  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
10.  Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Current issues 
Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i4.463
PMCID: PMC3558570  PMID: 23382625
Gastrointestinal endoscopy; Endoscopy; Sedation; Analgesia; Digestive system
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.  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
13.  Risk Factors With Intravenous Sedation for Patients With Disabilities 
Anesthesia Progress  2013;60(4):153-161.
The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with low peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and delayed recovery of dental patients with disabilities after intravenous sedation. A total of 1213 patients with disabilities were retrospectively investigated with respect to demographic parameters and sedation conditions. Multivariate logistic analyses were conducted for patients with an SpO2 <90% and a recovery period of >60 minutes to identify the risk factors for poor sedation conditions. A significant odds ratio related to decreased SpO2 was observed for age, sex, midazolam and propofol levels, concurrent use of nitrous oxide, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and mental retardation. The most problematic patients were those diagnosed with Down syndrome (odds ratio, 3.003–7.978; 95% confidence interval; P < .001). Decision tree analysis showed an increased risk of decreased SpO2 in males with Down syndrome or after administration of >0.493 mg/kg propofol in combination with midazolam. An increased risk of delayed awakening was seen in patients aged less than 21 years and in males administered >0.032 mg/kg of midazolam. Intravenous sedation for dental patients with disabilities, particularly those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, or mental retardation, increases the risk of decreased SpO2. In addition, delayed recovery is expected after midazolam administration.
doi:10.2344/0003-3006-60.4.153
PMCID: PMC3891456  PMID: 24423418
Dental sedation; Low peripheral oxygen saturation; Delayed recovery
14.  Comparative evaluation of recovery characteristics of fentanyl and butorphanol when used as supplement to propofol anaesthesia 
Background and Aim:
Narcotics have been used since long as a component of balanced anaesthesia, thus minimizing the anaesthetic requirement both during induction and maintenance as well as attenuating the pressor response during laryngoscopy and intubation. Equally significant is their role in provision of smoother recovery period by minimizing postoperative pain. Other than pain, the factors like postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), shivering, sedation and respiratory depression are equally important in recovery from the effects of anaesthetic drugs. The present study aimed at comparing the postoperative recovery characterstics of fentanyl and butorphanol in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia.
Materials and Methods:
The present study configured one hundred adults patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade 1 or 2 of either sex scheduled to undergo elective open cholecystectomy and were randomly assigned to receive fentanyl (group F; n = 50) or butorphanol (group B; n = 50). Both group were premedicated with midazolam 0.04 mg/kg intravenously followed by injection fentanyl 2 mcg/kg or butorphanol 40 mcg/kg. Standard induction was done with propofol 2 mg/kg and vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg was used for intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol infusion and 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters were observed and recorded. Postoperatively analgesia, sedation, PONV, shivering, respiratory depression and recovery score were observed.
Results:
The recovery time was less in group F (P > 0.05) while post operative analgesia (P < 0.001) and sedation (P > 0.05) was more in group B. The incidence of respiratory depression was more in group B (P > 0.05). PONV was comparable in both the groups. Postoperative shivering was significantly low in group B (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
It is concluded that besides easy availability and lower cost, butorphanol decreased propofol consumption intraoperatively and provided better analgesia and prophylaxis against shivering in postoperative period.
doi:10.4103/2229-516X.106350
PMCID: PMC3678702  PMID: 23776820
Butorphanol; fentanyl; propofol; recovery
15.  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
16.  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
17.  Additional clinical observations utilizing bispectral analysis. 
Anesthesia Progress  2000;47(3):84-86.
Additional observations were made in the use of the bispectral (BIS) index with the use of ketamine and in performing general anesthesia without the use of local anesthesia in nonintubated patients. Twenty-five subjects undergoing extraction procedures in an outpatient setting were analyzed using bispectral analysis with ketamine and midazolam. Despite repeated injections of midazolam during the procedure, only transient decreases of the BIS occurred to the 80s, with a low value of 77 in all but 1 patient where ketamine was used. In comparison, values in the 50-70 range are typically seen immediately after the administration of sedative doses of midazolam, propofol, or methohexital. In the second study, once propofol anesthesia was initiated, BIS readings in the 30s were commonly seen in patients during their procedure. The lowest BIS level observed was 18. Bispectral analysis was useful to trend the present anesthetic state and adjust the dose of propofol accordingly. In no case was laryngospasm or total airway obstruction observed. In 1 case, partial airway obstruction secondary to retro-positioning of the tongue occurred with a subsequent decrease in oxygen saturation to 89%. This was rectified by repositioning the patient to alleviate the obstruction. Consistent with previous studies utilizing ketamine, BIS values are consistently higher when compared with other hypnotic agents. With the subsequent injection of midazolam, the BIS level did not decrease to anticipated levels. In the final study reviewed, when local anesthesia was not used during general anesthesia, bispectral analysis was a useful adjunct in helping maintain a steady state of general anesthesia in nonintubated patients undergoing third molar extractions. Bispectral analysis offers additional information on the depth of the hypnotic state and is useful in helping control the depth of anesthesia. A limitation of the index includes the inability to titrate the level of sedation induced by hypnotic agents such as midazolam when ketamine is concomitantly administered.
PMCID: PMC2149025  PMID: 11432161
18.  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
19.  Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: The first Italian experience 
AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a balanced approach using midazolam in combination with propofol, administered by non-anesthesiologists, in a large series of diagnostic colonoscopies.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were sedated with a single dose of midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and low-dose propofol (starter bolus of 0.5 mg/kg and repeated boluses of 10 to 20 mg). Induction time and deepest level of sedation, adverse and serious adverse events, as well as recovery times, were prospectively assessed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were also collected.
RESULTS: Overall, 1593 eligible patients were included. The median dose of propofol administered was 70 mg (range: 40-120 mg), and the median dose of midazolam was 2.3 mg (range: 2-4 mg). Median induction time of sedation was 3 min (range: 1-4 min), and median recovery time was 23 min (range: 10-40 min). A moderate level of sedation was achieved in 1561 (98%) patients, whilst a deep sedation occurred in 32 (2%) cases. Transient oxygen desaturation requiring further oxygen supplementation occurred in 8 (0.46%; 95% CI: 0.2%-0.8%) patients. No serious adverse event was observed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were 93.5% and 23.4% (27.8% for male and 18.5% for female, subjects), respectively.
CONCLUSION: A balanced sedation protocol provided a minimalization of the dose of propofol needed to target a moderate sedation for colonoscopy, resulting in a high safety profile for non-anesthesiologist propofol sedation.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i33.3818
PMCID: PMC3181443  PMID: 21987624
Colonoscopy; Propofol; Sedation
20.  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
21.  Respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine in the surgical patient requiring intensive care 
Critical Care  2000;4(5):302-308.
The respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine were retrospectively examined in 33 postsurgical patients involved in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU). Morphine requirements were reduced by over 50% in patients receiving dexmedetomidine. There were no differences in respiratory rates, oxygen saturations, arterial pH and arterial partial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) between the groups. Interestingly the arterial partial oxygen tension (PaO2) : fractional inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratios were statistically significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group. Dexmedetomidine provides important postsurgical analgesia and appears to have no clinically important adverse effects on respiration in the surgical patient who requires intensive care.
Introduction:
The α2-agonist dexmedetomidine is a new class of sedative drug that is being investigated for use in ICU settings. It is an effective agent for the management of sedation and analgesia after cardiac, general, orthopaedic, head and neck, oncological and vascular surgery in the ICU [1]. Cardiovascular stability was demonstrated, with significant reductions in rate-pressure product during sedation and over the extubation period.
Dexmedetomidine possesses several properties that may additionally benefit those critically ill patients who require sedation. In spontaneously breathing volunteers, intravenous dexmedetomidine caused marked sedation with only mild reductions in resting ventilation at higher doses [2]. Dexmedetomidine reduces the haemodynamic response to intubation and extubation [3,4,5] and attenuates the stress response to surgery [6], as a result of the α2-mediated reduction in sympathetic tone. Therefore, it should be possible to continue sedation with dexmedetomidine over the stressful extubation period without concerns over respiratory depression, while ensuring that haemodynamic stability is preserved.
The present study is a retrospective analysis of the respiratory response to dexmedetomidine in 33 postsurgical patients (who were involved in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial [1]) after extubation in the ICU.
Methods:
Patients who participated in the present study were admitted after surgery to our general or cardiothoracic ICUs, and were expected to receive at least 6 h of postsurgical sedation and artificial ventilation.
On arrival in the ICU after surgery, patients were randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine or placebo (normal saline) with rescue sedation and analgesia being provided, only if clinically needed, with midazolam and morphine boluses, respectively. Sedation was titrated to maintain a Ramsay Sedation Score [7] of 3 or greater while the patients were intubated, and infusions of study drug were continued for a maximum of 6 h after extubation to achieve a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 or greater.
The patients were intubated and ventilated with oxygen-enriched air to attain acceptable arterial blood gases, and extubation occurred when clinically indicated. All patients received supplemental oxygen after extubation, which was delivered by a fixed performance device. Assessment of pain was by direct communication with the patient.
Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise stated. Patient characteristics, operative details and morphine usage were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Statistical differences for respiratory measurements between the two groups were determined using analysis of variance for repeated measures, with the Bonferroni test for post hoc comparisons.
Results:
Of the 40 patients who participated in the study, seven patients could not be included in the analysis of respiratory function because they did not receive a study drug infusion after extubation. Consequently, data from 33 patients are used in the analysis of respiratory function; 16 received dexmedetomidine and 17 placebo. Inadequate arterial blood gas analysis was available in five patients (two from the dexmedetomidine group, and three from the placebo group). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics and operative details between the groups.
Requirements for morphine were reduced by more than 50% in patients receiving dexmedetomidine when compared with placebo after extubation (0.003 ± 0.004 vs 0.008 ± 0.006 mg/kg per h; P= 0.040).
There were no statistically significant differences between placebo and dexmedetomidine for oxygen saturations measured by pulse oximetry (P= 0.26), respiratory rate (P= 0.16; Fig. 1), arterial pH (P= 0.77) and PaCO2 (P= 0.75; Fig. 2) for the 6 h after extubation.
The dexmedetomidine group showed significantly higher PaO2: FIO2 ratios throughout the 6-h intubation (P= 0.036) and extubation (P= 0.037) periods (Fig. 3). There were no adverse respiratory events seen in either the dexmedetomidine or placebo group.
Respiratory rate for the 6-h periods before and after extubation. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
PaCO2 (PCO2) for the 6-h periods before and after extubation, and baseline values (B) on admission to ICU immediately after surgery. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
PaO2 : FIO2 ratio for the 6-h periods before and after extubation, and baseline values (B) on admission to ICU immediately after surgery. (Filled circle) Dexmedetomidine; (Empty circle) placebo. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Discussion:
Lack of respiratory depression in patients sedated with α2-adrenoceptor agonists was first reported by Maxwell [8] in a study investigating the respiratory effects of clonidine. However, more recent data suggests that clonidine may cause mild respiratory depression in humans [9], and α2-adrenoceptor agonists are well known to produce profound intraoperative hypoxaemia in sheep [10,11]. The effects of dexmedetomidine on other ventilation parameters also appear to be species specific [12].
Belleville et al [2] investigated the ventilatory effects of a 2-min intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine on human volunteers. According to those investigators, minute ventilation and arterial PaCO2 were mildly decreased and increased, respectively. There was a rightward shift and depression of the hypercapnic response with infusions of 1.0 and 2.0 μg/kg.
Previous studies that investigated the respiratory effects of dexmedetomidine have only been performed in healthy human volunteers, who have received either single intramuscular injections or short (= 10 min) intravenous infusions of dexmedetomidine. It is therefore reassuring that no deleterious clinical effects on respiration and gas exchange were seen in the patients we studied, who were receiving long-term infusions. However, there are important limitations to the present results. No dose/response curve for dexmedetomidine can be formulated from the data, and further investigation is probably ethically difficult to achieve in the spontaneously ventilating intensive care patient. We also have no data on the ventilatory responses to hypercapnia and hypoxia, which would also be difficult to examine practically and ethically. The placebo group received more than twice as much morphine as patients receiving dexmedetomidine infusions after extubation, but there were no differences in respiratory rate or PaCO2 between the groups. We can not therefore determine from this study whether dexmedetomidine has any benefits over morphine from a respiratory perspective.
There were no differences in oxygen saturations between the groups because the administered oxygen concentration was adjusted to maintain satisfactory gas exchange. Interestingly, however, there were statistically significant higher PaO2 : FIO2 ratios in the dexmedetomidine group. This ratio allows for the variation in administered oxygen to patients during the study period, and gives some clinical indication of alveolar gas exchange. However, this variable was not a primary outcome variable for the present study, and may represent a type 1 error, although post hoc analysis reveals that the data have 80% power to detect a significant difference (α value 0.05). Further studies are obviously required.
Sedation continued over the extubation period, has been shown to reduce haemodynamic disturbances and myocardial ischaemia [13]. We have previously shown [1] that dexmedetomidine provides cardiovascular stability, with a reduction in rate-pressure product over the extubation period. A sedative agent that has analgesic properties, minimal effects on respiration and offers ischaemia protection would have enormous potential in the ICU. Dexmedetomidine may fulfill all of these roles, but at present we can only conclude that dexmedetomidine has no deleterious clinical effects on respiration when used in doses that are sufficient to provide adequate sedation and effective analgesia in the surgical population requiring intensive care.
PMCID: PMC29047  PMID: 11056756
α2-Adrenoceptor agonist; analgesia; dexmedetomidine; intensive care; postoperative; respiratory; sedation
22.  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
23.  Usefulness of applying lidocaine in esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed under sedation with propofol 
AIM: To determine whether topical lidocaine benefits esophagogastroduoduenoscopy (EGD) by decreasing propofol dose necessary for sedation or procedure-related complications.
METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, single centre, double blind, randomised clinical trial and was conducted in 2012 between January and May (NCT01489891). Consecutive patients undergoing EGD were randomly assigned to receive supplemental topical lidocaine (L; 50 mg in an excipient solution which was applied as a spray to the oropharynx) or placebo (P; taste excipients solution without active substance, similarly delivered) prior to the standard propofol sedation procedure. The propofol was administered as a bolus intravenous (iv) dose, with patients in the L and P groups receiving initial doses based on the patient’s American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA I-II: 0.50-0.60 mg/kg; ASA III-IV: 0.25-0.35 mg/kg), followed by 10-20 mg iv dose every 30-60 s at the anaesthetist’s discretion. Vital signs, anthropometric measurements, amount of propofol administered, sedation level reached, examination time, and the subjective assessments of the endoscopist’s and anaesthetist’s satisfaction (based upon a four point Likert scale) were recorded. All statistical tests were performed by the Stata statistical software suite (Release 11, 2009; StataCorp, LP, College Station, TX, United States).
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups treated with lidocaine or placebo in terms of total propofol dose (310.7 ± 139.2 mg/kg per minute vs 280.1 ± 87.7 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.15) or intraprocedural propofol dose (135.3 ± 151.7 mg/kg per minute vs 122.7 ± 96.5 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.58). Only when the L and P groups were analysed with the particular subgroups of female, < 65-year-old, and lower anaesthetic risk level (ASA I-II) was a statistically significant difference found (L: 336.5 ± 141.2 mg/kg per minute vs P: 284.6 ± 91.2 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.03) for greater total propofol requirements). The total incidence of complications was also similar between the two groups, with the L group showing a complication rate of 32.2% (95%CI: 21.6-45.0) and the P group showing a complication rate of 26.7% (95%CI: 17.0-39.0). In addition, the use of lidocaine had no effect on the anaesthetist’s or endoscopist’s satisfaction with the procedure. Thus, the endoscopist’s satisfaction Likert assessments were equally distributed among the L and P groups: unsatisfactory, [L: 6.8% (95%CI: 2.2-15.5) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 10.1% (95%CI: 4.2-19.9) vs P: 15% (95%CI: 7.6-25.7)]; satisfactory, [L: 25.4% (95%CI: 10-29.6) vs P: 18.3% (95%CI: 15.5-37.6); and very satisfactory, L: 57.6% (95%CI: 54-77.7) vs P: 66.6% (95%CI: 44.8-69.7)]. Likewise, the anaesthetist’s satisfaction Likert assessments regarding the ease of maintaining a patient at an optimum sedation level without agitation or modification of the projected sedation protocol were not affected by the application of lidocaine, as evidenced by the lack of significant differences between the scores for the placebo group: unsatisfactory, L: 5.8% (95%CI: 1.3-13.2) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 16.9% (95%CI: 8.9-28.4) vs P: 16.7% (95%CI: 8.8-27.7); satisfactory, L: 15.2% (95%CI: 7.7-26.1) vs P: 20.3% (95%CI: 11.3-31.6); and very satisfactory, L: 62.7% (95%CI: 49.9-74.3) vs P: 63.3% (95%CI: 50.6-74.7).
CONCLUSION: Topical pharyngeal anaesthesia is safe in EGD but does not reduce the necessary dose of propofol or improve the anaesthetist’s or endoscopist’s satisfaction with the procedure.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v5.i5.231
PMCID: PMC3653022  PMID: 23678376
Lidocaine; Propofol; Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; Sedation; Adverse effects
24.  A prospective study of high dose sedation for rapid tranquilisation of acute behavioural disturbance in an acute mental health unit 
BMC Psychiatry  2013;13:225.
Background
Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a common problem in psychiatry and both physical restraint and involuntary parenteral sedation are often required to control patients. Although guidelines are available, clinical practice is often guided by experience and there is little agreement on which drugs should be first-line treatment for rapid tranquilisation. This study aimed to investigate sedation for ABD in an acute mental healthcare unit, including the effectiveness and safety of high dose sedation.
Methods
A prospective study of parenteral sedation for ABD in mental health patients was conducted from July 2010 to June 2011. Drug administration (type, dose, additional doses), time to sedation, vital signs and adverse effects were recorded. High dose parenteral sedation was defined as greater than the equivalent of 10 mg midazolam, droperidol or haloperidol (alone or in combination), compared to patients receiving 10 mg or less (normal dose). Effective sedation was defined as a fall in the sedation assessment tool score by two or a score of zero or less. Outcomes included frequency of adverse drug effects, time to sedation/tranquilisation and use of additional sedation.
Results
Parenteral sedation was given in 171 cases. A single drug was given in 96 (56%), including droperidol (74), midazolam (19) and haloperidol (3). Effective sedation occurred in 157 patients (92%), and the median time to sedation was 20 min (Range: 5 to 100 min). The median time to sedation for 93 patients receiving high dose sedation was 20 min (5-90 min) compared to 20 min (5-100 min; p = 0.92) for 78 patients receiving normal dose sedation. Adverse effects occurred in 16 patients (9%); hypotension (14), oxygen desaturation (1), hypotension and oxygen desaturation (1). There were more adverse effects in the high dose sedation group compared to the normal dose group [11/93 (12%) vs. 5/78 (6%); p = 0.3]. Additional sedation was given in 9 of 171 patients (5%), seven in the high dose and two in the normal dose groups.
Conclusions
Large initial doses of sedative drugs were used for ABD in just over half of cases and additional sedation was uncommon. High dose sedation did not result in more rapid or effective sedation but was associated with more adverse effects.
doi:10.1186/1471-244X-13-225
PMCID: PMC3848824  PMID: 24044673
Violence; Sedation; Acute psychiatric unit; Droperidol; Benzodiazepine; Antipsychotic
25.  Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care unit patients with brain injuries: a randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN50308308] 
Critical Care  2004;8(4):R268-R280.
Introduction
This randomised, open-label, observational, multicentre, parallel group study assessed the safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil in the neuro-intensive care unit.
Methods
Patients aged 18–80 years admitted to the intensive care unit within the previous 24 hours, with acute brain injury or after neurosurgery, intubated, expected to require mechanical ventilation for 1–5 days and requiring daily downward titration of sedation for assessment of neurological function were studied. Patients received one of two treatment regimens. Regimen one consisted of analgesia-based sedation, in which remifentanil (initial rate 9 μg kg-1 h-1) was titrated before the addition of a hypnotic agent (propofol [0.5 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 1–3, midazolam [0.03 mg kg-1 h-1] during days 4 and 5) (n = 84). Regimen two consisted of hypnotic-based sedation: hypnotic agent (propofol days 1–3; midazolam days 4 and 5) and fentanyl (n = 37) or morphine (n = 40) according to routine clinical practice. For each regimen, agents were titrated to achieve optimal sedation (Sedation–Agitation Scale score 1–3) and analgesia (Pain Intensity score 1–2).
Results
Overall, between-patient variability around the time of neurological assessment was statistically significantly smaller when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.44 versus fentanyl 0.86 [P = 0.024] versus morphine 0.98 [P = 0.006]. Overall, mean neurological assessment times were significantly shorter when using remifentanil (remifentanil 0.41 hour versus fentanyl 0.71 hour [P = 0.001] versus morphine 0.82 hour [P < 0.001]). Patients receiving the remifentanil-based regimen were extubated significantly faster than those treated with morphine (1.0 hour versus 1.93 hour, P = 0.001) but there was no difference between remifentanil and fentanyl. Remifentanil was effective, well tolerated and provided comparable haemodynamic stability to that of the hypnotic-based regimen. Over three times as many users rated analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil as very good or excellent in facilitating assessment of neurological function compared with the hypnotic-based regimen.
Conclusions
Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil permitted significantly faster and more predictable awakening for neurological assessment. Analgesia-based sedation with remifentanil was very effective, well tolerated and had a similar adverse event and haemodynamic profile to those of hypnotic-based regimens when used in critically ill neuro-intensive care unit patients for up to 5 days.
doi:10.1186/cc2896
PMCID: PMC522854  PMID: 15312228
analgesia-based sedation; fentanyl; intensive care; morphine; remifentanil

Results 1-25 (859562)