PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1003441)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  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
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.  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
5.  Comparison of Dexmedetomidine, Propofol and Midazolam for Short-Term Sedation in Postoperatively Mechanically Ventilated Neurosurgical Patients 
Background: Effective management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit depends on the needs of the patient, subjective and/or objective measurement and drug titration to achieve specific endpoints.
Aim: The present study compared the efficacy of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for sedation in neurosurgical patients for postoperative mechanical ventilation.
Materials and Methods: Ninety patients aged 20-65 years, ASA physical status I to III, undergoing neurosurgery and requiring postoperative ventilation were included. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group D received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.7 mcg/kg/h. Group P received propofol 1 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 1-3 mg/kg/h. Group M received midazolam 0.04 mg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.08 mg/kg/h.
Measurements: Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, sedation level, fentanyl requirement, ventilation and extubation time were recorded.
Results: Adequate sedation level was achieved with all three agents. Dexmedetomidine group required less fentanyl for postoperative analgesia. In group D there was a decrease in HR after dexmedetomidine infusion (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference in HR between group P and group M. After administration of study drug there was a significant decrease in MAP comparison to baseline value in all groups at all time intervals (p<0.05), except postextubation period (p>0.05). Extubation time was lowest in group P (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is safer and equally effective agent compared to propofol and midazolam for sedation of neurosurgical mechanically ventilated patients with good hemodynamic stability and extubation time as rapid as propofol. Dexmedetomidine also reduced postoperative fentanyl requirements.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/8797.4817
PMCID: PMC4225903  PMID: 25386451
Hemodynamic changes; Neuroprotection; Opioids
6.  Patient-controlled sedation with propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy, a randomized, controlled double-blind study 
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia  2014;8(Suppl 1):S36-S40.
Context:
Many techniques are used for sedation of colonoscopies. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) is utilizing many drugs or drug combinations.
Aims:
The aim of this study is to compare the safety and feasibility of propofol/remifentanil versus propofol/alfentanil given to sedate patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies through a patient-controlled technique.
Settings and Design:
Controlled randomized and double-blind study.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 80 patients were randomly divided into two groups; PA group received a combination of propofol/alfentanil and PR group received propofol/remifentanil combination. Patients were monitored for heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), oxygen saturation, and Ramsay sedation scale (RSS). Times of the following events were recorded; initiation of sedation, insertion and removal of the colonoscope, recovery and discharge. Five intervals were calculated; time to sedation, procedure time, postprocedure time, procedure room time, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) time. Endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores were obtained.
Statistical Analysis Used:
Unpaired Student's t-test was used to compare between the two groups. Paired Student's t-test was used to compare baseline readings with readings after 30 min of sedation in the same group when needed.
Results:
Both groups showed slowing of the HR and decrease in mean arterial BP. HR and mean arterial BP were significantly lower 5 and 10 min after initiation of sedation in PR group when compared with PA group. Both HR and mean arterial BP returned to presedation readings 30 min after initiation of sedation in PR group but not in PA group. No differences between the two groups concerning oxygen saturation, RSS, endoscopist and patient satisfaction scores. Postprocedure and PACU times were significantly prolonged in PA group.
Conclusion:
PCS with either remifentanil/propofol or alfentanil/propofol for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy is safe and feasible. Remifentanil/proofol has more beneficial advantages in this setting secondary to its more rapid clearance.
doi:10.4103/1658-354X.144068
PMCID: PMC4268525  PMID: 25538518
Alfentanil; colonoscopy; patient-controlled sedation; remifentanil
7.  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
8.  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
9.  Comparison of Propofol-Remifentanil Versus Propofol-Ketamine Deep Sedation for Third Molar Surgery 
Anesthesia Progress  2012;59(3):107-117.
This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.
doi:10.2344/12-00001.1
PMCID: PMC3468288  PMID: 23050750
Propofol; Ketamine; Remifentanil; Deep sedation; TIVA
10.  Abuse potential assessment of propofol by its subjective effects after sedation 
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences  2014;30(6):1247-1252.
Objective: In this study, we examined the euphoric effect of propofol and its high satisfaction ratio regarding its liability to be abused, particularly in painless procedures, such as colonoscopy.
Methods: Fifty subjects aged between 18 and 65 years who fulfilled the criteria for ASA 1-2 and were prepared for colonoscopy were enrolled into this study. For intravenous sedation induction, 2 mg/kg propofol was used, and additional injections were administered according to BIS values. After colonoscopy, the subjects were taken to a recovery room and observed for 30 minutes. Patients were interviewed with the modified Brice questionnare regarding the incidence and the content of dreams. A 5-point Likert scale was used to classify their dreams, and the content of the dreams was also recorded. To assess the subjective effects of propofol, the patients were asked to use the Hall and Van der Castle emotion scale; their biological states were also assessed. The patients’ feelings regarding propofol were each rated as absent or present. We used the Morphine-Benzedrine Group scale to measure the euphoric effects of propofol. At the end of the study, subjects scored their satisfaction on a five-point scale.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences in sex age, weight, propofol dose, or satisfaction ratio (p>0.05) in the groups, although male patients received a higher dose of propofol and had higher satisfaction ratio. Patients reported no residual after-effects. The incidence of dreaming was 42%. There was no statistically significant difference in dreaming between the sexes, but male patients had a higher dreaming ratio. Dreamers received higher propofol doses and had a higher satisfaction ratio (p>0.05). All dreamers reported happy dreams regarding daily life, and their mean MBG score was 10.5. There was no correlation between MBG scores and propofol doses (r= -0.044, p= 0.761).
Conclusions: We conclude that propofol functions as a reward; that patients enjoy its acute effects; and that no residual after-effects should arise. We suggest that propofol may carry potential for abuse, and further abuse liability testing is indicated.
doi:10.12669/pjms.306.5811
PMCID: PMC4320709
Abuse potential; Euphoric effect; Propofol; Sedation
11.  Feasibility of Bispectral Index-Guided Propofol Infusion for Flexible Bronchoscopy Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial 
PLoS ONE  2011;6(11):e27769.
Objectives
There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.
Methods
After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.
Results
The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.
Conclusions
BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00789815
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027769
PMCID: PMC3223212  PMID: 22132138
12.  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
13.  Feasibility of breath monitoring in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy under propofol sedation: A single-center pilot study 
AIM: To determine whether a newly developed respiratory rate monitor can practically and accurately monitor ventilation under propofol sedation in combination with standard monitoring.
METHODS: Patients [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification I-III] scheduled for elective colonoscopy under propofol sedation were monitored with a new device that measures the respiratory rate based on humidity in expired air. Patients with clinically significant cardiac disorders or pulmonary disease and patients requiring emergency procedures were excluded from study participation. All of the patients also received standard monitoring with pulse oximetry. This was a single-center study conducted in a community hospital in Switzerland. After obtaining written informed consent from all subjects, 76 patients (51 females and 25 males) were monitored during colonoscopy under propofol sedation. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any respiratory event (apnea or hypopnea). Apnea was defined as the cessation of breathing for a minimum of 10 s. Significant apnea was defined as the cessation of breathing for more than 30 s. Hypopnea was defined as a reduction in the respiratory rate below 6/min for a minimum of 10 s. Any cases of significant apnea triggered interventions by the endoscopy team. The interventions included withholding propofol, verbal stimulation of the patients, and increased oxygen supplementation or the chin lift maneuver. A secondary endpoint was the correlation of apnea or hypopnea with hypoxemia (measured as a decrease in SaO2 of at least 5% from baseline or less than 90%).
RESULTS: At least one respiratory event was detected in thirty-seven patients (48.7%). In total, there were 73 respiratory events, ranging from one to six events in a single patient. Significant apnea (> 30 s) occurred in five patients (6%). Only one episode of apnea led to a relative SaO2 reduction (from 98% to 93%) after a 50 s lag time. No event requiring assisted ventilation was recorded. Our analysis revealed that the total propofol dose was an independent risk factor for respiratory events (P = 0.01). Artifacts developed with the same frequency with the new device as with conventional pulse oximetry. Compared with pulse oximetry alone, this new monitoring device detected more respiratory events and may provide earlier warning of impending respiratory abnormalities.
CONCLUSION: Apnea commonly occurs during endoscopy under sedation and may precede hypoxemia. We recommend this respiration rate monitor as an alternative to capnography to aid in detecting ventilatory problems.
doi:10.4253/wjge.v6.i3.82
PMCID: PMC3952164  PMID: 24634712
Apnea; Colonoscopy; Conscious sedation; Deep sedation; Propofol; Pulse oximetry; Respiratory monitoring
14.  Clinical analysis of propofol deep sedation for 1,104 patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: A three year prospective study 
AIM: To analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory effects of propofol on patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.
METHODS: In this prospective study, conducted over a period of three years, 1,104 patients referred for a same day GI endoscopy procedure were analyzed. All patients were given a propofol bolus (0.5-1.5 mg/kg). Arterial blood pressure (BP) was monitored at 3 min intervals and heart rate and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded continuously by pulse oximetry. Analyzed data acquisition was carried out before, during, and after the procedure.
RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in mean arterial pressure was demonstrated (P <0.001) when compared to pre-intervention values, but severe hypotension, defined as a systolic blood pressure below 60 mmHg, was noted in only 5 patients (0.5%). Oxygen saturation decreased from 96.5% to 94.4 % (P<0.001). A critical decrease in oxygen saturation (<90%) was documented in 27 patients (2.4%).
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant hemodynamic side effects if carefully titrated. All the patients (and especially ASA III group) require monitoring and care of an anesthesiologist.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v12.i2.327
PMCID: PMC4066048  PMID: 16482639
Endoscopy; Conscious sedation; Propofol; Hemodynamic adverse effects
15.  Conscious Sedation and Analgesia in Colonoscopy: Ketamine/Propofol Combination has Superior Patient Satisfaction Versus Fentanyl/Propofol 
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine  2013;3(1):208-213.
Background
Colonoscopy is performed without preparing sedation in many countries. However, according to the current literature patients are more satisfied when appropriate sedation is prepared for them.
Objectives
We hypothesize that propofol-ketamine may prepare more patient satisfaction compared to propofol-fentanyl combination.
Patients and Methods
Sixty adult patients older than 18 with ASA physical status of I, II or III were enrolled in the present study after providing the informed consent. They were prospectively randomized into two equal groups: 1- Group PF: was scheduled to receive IV bolus dose of fentanyl 1µg/kg and propofol 0.5mg/kg. 2- Group PK: was scheduled to receive IV bolus dose of ketamine 0.5mg/kg and propofol 0.5mg/kg. As a primary goal, patient’s satisfaction was assessed by the use a Likert five-item scoring system in the recovery. Comparisons of hemodynamic parameters (mean heart rate, mean systolic blood pressure, mean diastolic blood pressure), mean Spo2 values during the procedure and side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and psychological reactions during the recovery period were our secondary goals. Level of sedation during the colonoscopy was assessed with the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score (OAA/S).
Results
Mean satisfaction scores in the group PK were significantly higher than the group PF (P = 0.005) while the level of sedation during the procedure was similar (P = 0.17). Hemodynamic parameters and SpO2 values were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Incidence of nausea and vomiting was the same in both groups.
Conclusions
IV bolus injection of propofol-ketamine can lead to more patients’ satisfaction than the other protocols during colonoscopy.
doi:10.5812/aapm.9653
PMCID: PMC3821150  PMID: 24223364
Colonoscopy; Ketamine; Propofol; Fentanyl; Patient Satisfaction
16.  Comparison of the Changes in Blood Glucose Level During Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol in Implant Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial 
Journal of Dentistry  2014;15(3):135-139.
Statement of the Problem: Reducing the patients' stress can prevent, or at least, limit the increase in blood glucose level.
Purpose: The study compares the effect of propofol and midazolam on blood glucose level in the patients undergoing dental implant surgery. The effect of pre-operational stress on blood glucose level during the surgery is also evaluated.
Materials and Method: This prospective randomized clinical trial recruited 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery and divided into two groups. Conscious sedation was performed by midazolam in one group and with propofol in another group. The pre-operational stress was scored and the blood glucose level was measured in 4 different stages; before the operation, two minutes after the local anesthetic injection; thirty minutes after the onset of operation and at the end of the operation. The results were analyzed by employing ANOVA and Pearson test. The p Value was adopted 0.05 and the confidence coefficient was assumed 95%.
Results: The average levels of the blood glucose in midazolam and propofol group were 93.82 mg/dl and 94 mg/dl before the operation which displayed a meaningful increase of blood glucose level in both groups as the operation went on. The values were 103.76 mg/dl for midazolam and 108.56 mg/dl for the propofol group (p< 0.05) at the end of the operation.
No statistically significant difference was found in the average blood glucose level between two groups in the different stages of the operation (p= 0.466). The Pearson correlation coefficient test revealed a higher increase in the blood glucose level in the patients with a higher pre-operational stress score (r= 0.756, p< 0.001).
Conclusion: Based on the results yielded by this study, patients who receive venous sedation, either by midazolam or propofol, experience increase in the blood glucose level while undergoing an operation. No statistically significant difference was detected between midazolam and propofol.
PMCID: PMC4149896  PMID: 25191663
Sedation; Midazolam; Propofol; Blood glucose; Dental implant
17.  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
18.  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
19.  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
20.  Effect of Sub hypnotic Doses of Propofol and Midazolam for Nausea and Vomiting During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section 
Background:
Spinal anesthesia has been associated with intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV), especially during cesarean section, which is attributed to several mechanisms.
Objectives:
In the present study, therapeutic and preventive properties of sub hypnotic dose midazolam and propofol and their effects on the occurrence and severity of intraoperative nausea and vomiting during elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were evaluated.
Patients and Methods:
In a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial, 90 parturients, ASA class I and II, aged 20-30 years, who undergone spinal anesthesia for cesarean section were randomly allocated to one of three groups receiving midazolam (1 mg bolus and 0.1 mg/kg/hr, n=30), propofol (20 mg bolus and 0.1 mg/kg/hr, n = 30), and placebo (saline, n=30) intravenously (IV) immediately after umbilical cord clamping. Bupivacaine hydrochloride (10 mg) was used for induction of the anesthesia. Patients’ hemodynamics was monitored at 3-minute intervals. Furthermore, intraoperative and post-delivery emetic episodes, severity of emesis, scores of sedation and ephedrine consumption were recorded.
Results:
The incidence of nausea, retching, and vomiting was significantly higher in the control group compared to propofol and midazolam groups. Overall, PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting) in midazolam group was as low as propofol group without any significant hemodynamic changes as seen in placebo group or even with propofol group.
Conclusions:
Subhypnotic doses of midazolam or propofol are effective in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during and after cesarean section with spinal anesthesia and does not significantly influence hemodynamic of the patients.
doi:10.5812/aapm.19384
PMCID: PMC4205801  PMID: 25346896
Propofol; Midazolam; Nausea; Vomiting; Cesarean section
21.  A comparison of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations used for sedation in the endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a prospective, single-blind, randomized study 
Journal of Thoracic Disease  2014;6(6):742-751.
Objective
We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations for procedural sedation in endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).
Methods
Sixty patients who were undergoing EBUS-TBNA were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 was given 0.25 mg/kg intravenous (iv) ketamine, 2 min later than 0.05 mg/kg iv midazolam. Group 2 received 0.125 mg/kg ketamine-propofol mixture (ketofol), 2 min subsequent to injection of 0.25 mg/kg each. Sedation was maintained with additional doses of ketamine 0.25 mg/kg, and ketofol 0.125 mg/kg each in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Blood pressure, heart rate (HR), peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate (RR), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), and severity of cough were recorded prior to and after administration of sedation agent in the beginning of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) and every 5 min of the procedure. The consumption of the agents, the satisfactions of the bronchoscopist and the patients, and the recovery time were also recorded.
Results
HR in the 10th min and RSS value in the 35th min of induction in Group 1 were higher than the other group (P<0.05). The recovery time in Group 1 was statistically longer than Group 2 (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to other parameters (P>0.05).
Conclusions
It was concluded that both ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations for sedation during EBUS-TBNA were similarly effective and safe without remarkable side effects.
doi:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.04.10
PMCID: PMC4073394  PMID: 24976998
Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA); sedation; ketamine; midazolam; propofol
22.  The cardiovascular effects of midazolam co-induction to propofol for induction in aged patients 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2012;62(6):536-542.
Background
The aim of this study was to investigate whether a small dose of midazolam and lessening the propofol dosage could prevent cardiovascular change at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.
Methods
Eighty patients over 65 years (ASA physical status 1, 2) scheduled for elective surgery received general anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol or midazolam. Patients in group P (n = 40) were induced with 0.9% NaCl 0.03 ml/kg, propofol 1. 2 mg/kg and remifentanil. Patients in group MP (n = 40) were induced with midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, propofol 0.8 mg/kg and remifentanil. The time taken to reach loss of consciousness (LOC) and the value of bispectral index score (BIS) at LOC were recorded. After LOC, 0.8 mg/kg of rocuronium was given and tracheal intubation was performed. The mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded before induction as the base value, before intubation, immediately post-intubation and 3 minutes after intubation.
Results
Compared with the base values, MBP at before intubation and 3 minutes after intubation was significantly decreased in group P and group MP (P < 0.05). Compared with group P, the decrease of MBP was significantly less at before intubation, immediately after intubation and 3 minutes after intubation in group MP (P < 0.05). The time taken to reach LOC was significantly decreased in group MP compared with that in group P (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences of HR at any time between the two groups.
Conclusions
Co-induction with midazolam and propofol could prevent a marked BP decrease at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2012.62.6.536
PMCID: PMC3384791  PMID: 22778889
Aged; Cardiovascular system; Drug synergism; Midazolam; Propofol
23.  Accuracy and precision of calibrated arterial pulse contour analysis in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy: a prospective observational clinical trial 
Critical Care  2014;18(1):R25.
Introduction
Calibrated arterial pulse contour analysis has become an established method for the continuous monitoring of cardiac output (PCCO). However, data on its validity in hemodynamically instable patients beyond the setting of cardiac surgery are scarce. We performed the present study to assess the validity and precision of PCCO-measurements using the PiCCO™-device compared to transpulmonary thermodilution derived cardiac output (TPCO) as the reference technique in neurosurgical patients requiring high-dose vasopressor-therapy.
Methods
A total of 20 patients (16 females and 4 males) were included in this prospective observational clinical trial. All of them suffered from subarachnoid hemorrhage (Hunt&Hess grade I-V) due to rupture of a cerebral arterial aneurysm and underwent high-dose vasopressor therapy for the prevention/treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). Simultaneous CO measurements by bolus TPCO and PCCO were obtained at baseline as well as 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after inclusion.
Results
PCCO- and TPCO-measurements were obtained at baseline as well as 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after inclusion. Patients received vasoactive support with (mean ± standard deviation, SD) 0.57 ± 0.49 μg · kg-1 · min-1 norepinephrine resulting in a mean arterial pressure of 103 ± 13 mmHg and a systemic vascular resistance of 943 ± 248 dyn · s · cm-5. 136 CO-data pairs were analyzed. TPCO ranged from 5.2 to 14.3 l · min-1 (mean ± SD 8.5 ± 2.0 l · min-1) and PCCO ranged from 5.0 to 14.4 l · min-1 (mean ± SD 8.6 ± 2.0 l · min-1). Bias and limits of agreement (1.96 SD of the bias) were −0.03 ± 0.82 l · min-1 and 1.62 l · min-1, resulting in an overall percentage error of 18.8%. The precision of PCCO-measurements was 17.8%. Insufficient trending ability was indicated by concordance rates of 74% (exclusion zone of 15% (1.29 l · min-1)) and 67% (without exclusion zone), as well as by polar plot analysis.
Conclusions
In neurosurgical patients requiring extensive vasoactive support, CO values obtained by calibrated PCCO showed clinically and statistically acceptable agreement with TPCO-measurements, but the results from concordance and polar plot analysis indicate an unreliable trending ability.
doi:10.1186/cc13715
PMCID: PMC4057342  PMID: 24499533
24.  Propofol for procedural sedation in the emergency department 
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ  2007;24(7):459-461.
Objectives
To observe procedural sedation practice within a district general hospital emergency department (ED) that uses propofol for procedural sedation.
Methods
Prospective observation of procedural sedation over an 11 month period. Patients over 16 years of age requiring procedural sedation and able to give informed consent were recruited. The choice of sedation agent was at the discretion of the physician. The following details were recorded on a standard proforma for each patient: indication for procedural sedation; agent used; depth and duration of sedation; ease of reduction; use of a reversal agent; complications and reasons for delayed discharge from the ED.
Results
48 patients were recruited; propofol was used in 32 cases and midazolam in 16 cases. The median period of sedation was considerably shorter in the propofol group (3 vs 45 min) but this did not confer a shorter median time in the ED (200 vs 175 min). There were no documented cases of over‐sedation in the propofol group; however, four patients in the midazolam group were over‐sedated, three requiring reversal with flumazenil. There were no other significant complications in either group. There was no difference in the median depth of sedation achieved or ease of reduction between the two groups.
Conclusions
Propofol is effective and safe for procedural sedation in the ED. Propofol has a considerably shorter duration of action than midazolam, thereby shortening the period of sedation.
doi:10.1136/emj.2007.046714
PMCID: PMC2658387  PMID: 17582032
25.  Sevoflurane versus propofol for interventional neuroradiology: a comparison of the maintenance and recovery profiles at comparable depths of anesthesia 
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology  2014;66(4):290-294.
Background
Sevoflurane and propofol are used widely for interventional neuroradiology (INR). Using the bispectral index (BIS), we compared the clinical properties of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing INR at comparable depths of anesthesia.
Methods
The patients were allocated randomly into two groups. The sevoflurane group received propofol (1.5 mg/kg), alfentanil (5 µg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg) for induction, and the propofol group was induced with a target effect-site concentration of propofol (4 µg/ml), alfentanil (5 µg/kg), and rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg). After intubation, anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane or propofol with 67% nitrous oxide in 33% oxygen. Sevoflurane and propofol concentrations were titrated to maintain the BIS at 50-60. Phenylephrine or opioid was used to maintain the mean arterial pressure within 20% of the baseline values. The amounts of phenylephrine or alfentanil used, the number of patients showing movement during the procedure, and the recovery times were recorded.
Results
Compared to the propofol group, the sevoflurane group showed faster recovery in spontaneous ventilation, eye opening, extubation, and orientation (4 vs. 7 min, 7 vs. 9 min, 8 vs. 10 min, 10 vs. 14 min, respectively; P < 0.01). In the propofol group, significantly greater amounts phenylephrine were used (P < 0.05), and more patients moved during the procedure (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
The use of sevoflurane in maintaining anesthesia during INR was associated with faster recovery, less patient movement during the procedure, and a more stable hemodynamic response when compared to propofol.
doi:10.4097/kjae.2014.66.4.290
PMCID: PMC4028556  PMID: 24851164
Bispectral index; Interventional radiology; Propofol; Sevoflurane

Results 1-25 (1003441)