Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide in patients undergoing colonoscopy with patient-controlled sedation

BACKGROUND: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted to investigate the effect of the antispasmodic hyoscine N-butyl bromide (Buscopan) during colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 120 patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either 40 mg of hyoscine N-butyl bromide (n=60) or normal saline solution (n=60) intravenously as premedication. Colonoscopy was performed under patient-controlled sedation. Outcome measures included cecal intubation and total procedure time, demanded and administered doses of patient-controlled sedation, spasm score, pain score, endoscopist satisfaction score, patient willingness to repeat colonoscopy, and vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: Mean cecal intubation time in the hyoscine N-butyl bromide group was significantly longer than the control group (12.20 vs. 9.74 minutes; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance). The use of hyoscine N-butyl bromide was associated with a significantly lower endoscopist mean satisfaction score (6.47 vs. 7.30; p=0.04; but correction for multiple testing of data removed this significance), higher demanded and administered mean doses of patient-controlled sedation (respectively, 34.80 and 7.25 vs. 24.20 and 5.87; p=0.045; p=0.04, respectively; but correction for multiple testing of data removed these findings of significance), fewer patients willing to repeat colonoscopy (60% vs. 83.9%; p=0.005), and more hemodynamic instability (p<0.001) when compared with the control group. No significant difference was found in the total procedure time, spasm score, or pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenously administered hyoscine N-butyl bromide impedes colonoscope insertion and causes greater patient discomfort, as well as hemodynamic instability.     

Safer colonoscopy with patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol and alfentanil.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol/alfentanil for colonoscopy compared with continuous drug infusion and conventional nurse-administered medication. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients undergoing colonoscopy on an outpatient basis were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 medication regimens. To maintain blinding, all patients were connected to an infusion pump. Group I patients could self-administer boluses of 4.8 mg propofol and 125 microg alfentanil without restriction. Group II patients received a continuous infusion with 0.048 mg/kg propofol and 0.12 microg/kg alfentanil per minute. Group III patients received intravenous premedication with 0.035 mg/kg midazolam and 0.35 mg/kg meperidine. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups with respect to pain (visual analogue scale) and procedure time. Patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol/alfentanil (group I) resulted in less of an increase in the transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (p = 0.0004) during colonoscopy and less of a decrease in mean arterial blood pressure (p = 0.0021) during recovery, as well as more complete recovery (p = 0.0019) after 45 minutes compared with conventional administration of midazolam/meperidine. Furthermore, patient-controlled analgesia and sedation yielded a higher degree of patient satisfaction than continuous infusion of propofol/alfentanil (p = 0.0033) or nurse-administered midazolam/meperidine (p = 0.0094). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-controlled administration of propofol and alfentanil for colonoscopy may provide a better margin of safety than conventional administration of midazolam and meperidine and results in a higher level of patient satisfaction and shorter recovery.     

Comparison of Glucagon and Scopolamine Butylbromide as Premedication for Colonoscopy in Unsedated Patients

Purpose Premedication with glucagon or hyoscyamine is reported to be effective in reducing colonic spasm. However, these drugs can be associated with unfavorable events. This prospective study was designed to compare the effects of premedication with glucagon with those of scopolamine butylbromide on cardiopulmonary parameters, intubation time, and patient discomfort in unsedated patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Methods One hundred consecutive adult patients (65 males) undergoing colonoscopy without sedation were randomized toreceive 1 mg of glucagon (n = 50) or 20 mg of scopolamine butylbromide (n = 50), intramuscularly. Physiologic changes, including systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, were monitored before colonoscope insertion and at three-minute intervals during colonoscopy. The percentages of completed procedure and time to cecal intubation were recorded. Patients were asked to rate pain by using a five-point pain score (0 = no pain; 4 = severe pain). Results The percentages of completed procedure (96 vs. 98 percent), time to cecal intubation (16.3 vs. 14.5 minutes), and pain score (1.7 vs. 1.5) did not differ significantly between two groups. An increase in heart rate of more than ten beats per minute from baseline during colonoscopy occurred significantly more often in scopolamine group (44 percent of 50 patients) than in the glucagon group (12 percent of 50 patients; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences between the two study groups with regard to changes in systolic blood pressure and decrease in oxygen saturation during colonoscopy. Conclusions Premedication with 1 mg of glucagon facilitates favorable examination with respect to physiologic changes compared with 20 mg of scopolamine. These features favor glucagon as the preferred premedication for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Presented at the meeting of Digestive Disease Week, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 15 to 20, 2004.     

Pilot Feasibility Study of the Method of Water Infusion Without Air Insufflation in Sedated Colonoscopy

One study in sedated patients demonstrated a reduction in pain score but not midazolam dosage when warm water infusion was used to manage colonic spasm. We describe pilot data with a modified warm water infusion technique. We tested the hypothesis that patients receiving even only half of the usual dose of sedation medications would have acceptable cecal intubation and tolerate the procedure well, based on retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Group 1 included 32 consecutive patients who received full-dose and group 2 included 43 consecutive patients who received half-dose premedication. Insertion of colonoscope was aided by warm water infusion in lieu of air insufflation. Pain scores during insertion, cecal intubation rate, and total amount of medications were monitored. The novel technique permitted equal cecal intubation rate at reduced total dose of medications. Pain scores were not significantly different. The uncontrolled nonrandomized observational nature of the data is one limitation. The nonsignificant difference in pain scores may be affected by a type II error. These pilot data suggest that insertion is feasible without air when water infusion is used. The novel technique may be a useful adjunct for minimizing the dosage of sedation medications without adversely affecting cecal intubation. Further study is needed to compare air insufflation and water infusion with regard to patient tolerance and success, particularly in the presence of an on-demand sedation policy.     

Hyoscyamine as a pharmacological adjunct in colonoscopy: a randomized, double blinded, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Investigators have assessed the utility of antispasmodic agents in colonoscopy, with conflicting results. The aim of this study is to determine the effects of premedication with hyoscyamine, an anticholinergic antispasmodic, on outcomes in colonoscopy. METHODS: A total of 165 patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomized in a double blinded fashion to one of three arms: intravenous hyoscyamine (0.25 mg), oral hyoscyamine (0.25 mg), or placebo, administered 20-40 min before colonoscopy. Primary outcome measures included insertion time to cecum, patient's assessment of pain, and physician assessment of spasm. Secondary outcome measures included amount of analgesic medications used, total procedure time, amount and type of pathology visualized, and physician assessment of patient's pain. RESULTS: Bivariate analysis showed no difference between the three groups in insertion time (13.8 min, 14.8 min, and 13.8 min for placebo, intravenous hyoscyamine, and oral hyocyamine, respectively), analgesic medication necessary, or any other primary or secondary outcome variable. Multivariate analysis controlling for potential confounders also failed to demonstrate any differences between the groups. Women had higher procedure duration and analgesic requirement, and reported more pain than did men. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, double blinded, placebo-controlled trial did not demonstrate efficacy of either intravenous or oral hyoscyamine as a premedication for colonoscopy.     

Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol

OBJECTIVES: Nurse-administered propofol has gained attention as a safe and effective means of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. However, little is known about the effect of propofol on the technical performance of colonoscopy. METHODS: Three separate studies were conducted. In the first study, we reviewed procedure notes from consecutive colonoscopies performed by a single experienced endoscopist at our hospital endoscopy unit on patients sedated with either nurse-administered propofol (n = 162) or midazolam/narcotic (n = 164). In the second study, 100 eligible colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to receive either nurse-administered propofol (n = 50) or midazolam/fentanyl (n = 50). In both studies, the measured parameters included visualization of the cecum, time required to reach the cecum, repositioning of the patient, and the application of abdominal counterpressure. In a third study, we reviewed the rate of cecal intubation and colonic perforation in the first 2357 patients in our unit receiving nurse-administered propofol. RESULTS: In the retrospective comparative study, there was no difference in the cecal intubation rate in those receiving propofol (99.4%) compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (97%; p= 0.1), and three of five failed cecal intubations in the latter group resulted from obstructing masses. Patients sedated with propofol were repositioned less frequently compared to those receiving midazolam/narcotic (3.7%vs 26.2%) (p < 0.0001). Abdominal pressure was employed in 9.9% of patients sedated with propofol compared to 19.5% (p= 0.01) of those given midazolam/narcotic. The mean time to reach the cecum was lower in the propofol group than in the midazolam/narcotic group (4.6 min vs 6.0 min, p= 0.002). In the prospective randomized study, the endoscopist intubated the cecum in all 100 patients. Patients in the propofol group were repositioned less frequently than those in the midazolam/fentanyl group (2%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.001). The number of cases requiring abdominal counterpressure was not significantly different between the propofol and midazolam/fentanyl groups (12%vs 24%, respectively, p= 0.1). The mean time to reach the cecum in the propofol group (3.2 min) was similar to that in the midazolam/fentanyl group (3.8 min, p= 0.08). Among the first 2357 patients in our unit undergoing colonoscopy with nurse-administered propofol, the rate of complete colonoscopy was 99.2% and there were no perforations. CONCLUSION: Nurse-administered propofol sedation is safe and simplifies the technical performance of colonoscopy compared to midazolam/narcotic sedation.     

Nitrous oxide for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: Intravenous sedation/analgesia for colonoscopy is accompanied with certain risks and postprocedure drowsiness. We sought to determine whether inhaled nitrous oxide (Entonox: 50% nitrous oxide, 50% oxygen) provides adequate analgesia for colonoscopy and the impact of this agent on recovery. METHODS: All patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were considered for the study (n = 248) except those with previous colonic resection. Data for patients unsuitable for randomization (n = 58) and those who declined to participate (n = 88) were also analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred two patients were randomized to receive inhaled Entonox alone (n = 56) or intravenous midazolam and meperidine (n = 46). Forty-nine (88%) patients randomized to Entonox underwent complete colonoscopy without conversion to intravenous medications. Entonox patients reported more pain (p < 0.0001), tolerated colonoscopy less well (p < 0.0001), were less satisfied (p = 0.01), and less willing to undergo colonoscopy again under the same circumstances (p = 0.04). Of patients receiving intravenous medication, 91% found colonoscopy less unpleasant and 9% as unpleasant as anticipated; this compares with 52% and 21% Entonox patients, respectively, and an additional 27% Entonox patients who found colonoscopy more unpleasant than anticipated. Recovery was faster among Entonox patients (median 30 versus 60 minutes, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Entonox is less effective than midazolam with meperidine for colonoscopy but is acceptable in many patients and allows faster recovery.     

Effect of music on patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION Colonoscopy plays an important role in the prevention of colon cancer through the diagnosis and removal of premalignant polyps. It is also the most accurate diagnostic tool for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease and many other struct…     

Methylene blue chromoendoscopy for detection of short-segment Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND: Whether an opiate-benzodiazepine combination is superior to benzodiazepine alone for sedation in upper endoscopy is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravenous midazolam alone versus the combination of intravenous midazolam and intravenous meperidine for the sedation of patients undergoing upper endoscopy. METHODS: One hundred seven patients scheduled for outpatient diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg intravenous meperidine (53 of 107) or placebo (54 of 107). All patients received topical lidocaine spray and as much midazolam as the endoscopist thought the patient needed. Patients and endoscopists were blinded as to assignment. Data collected included intubation time (seconds), procedure time (minutes), pulse, blood pressure, complications, and the need for reversal agents. The endoscopist evaluated the quality of sedation immediately after the procedure (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, and 4 = poor). The patient evaluated the procedure the next day by phone (1 = no discomfort or did not remember, 2 = slightly uncomfortable, 3 = extremely uncomfortable, and 4 = unacceptable). Patients were also asked whether they would agree to another esophagogastroduodenoscopy if their doctor thought it was medically necessary. RESULTS: The intubation time, procedure time and blood pressure were not significantly different between the 2 groups. In comparing the meperidine group versus placebo group, the highest pulse (82.3 vs. 93.7, p = 0.0010), lowest pulse (67.2 vs. 72.3, p = 0.0194) and amount of midazolam used (4.0 vs. 4.8 mg, p = 0.0185 or 0.53 vs. 0.67 mg/kg, p = 0.0083) were significantly different by using a t test analysis. Patient evaluations comparing meperidine versus placebo showed responses of 1 (52 vs. 49), 2 (1 vs. 3), 3 (0 vs. 2) and 4 (0 vs. 0), which were not significantly different. The endoscopists'evaluation comparing meperidine versus placebo gave responses of excellent (44 vs. 27), good (6 vs. 22), fair (3 vs. 5) and poor (0 vs. 0), which were highly significantly different (p < 0.001) by using chi-square statistical techniques. CONCLUSION: The addition of meperidine to midazolam in sedating patients undergoing upper endoscopy adds no benefit from the patient viewpoint, whereas endoscopists favored the use of both medications.     

Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists

BACKGROUND: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Eighty outpatients (ASA Class I or II) undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either propofol or midazolam plus meperidine, administered by a nurse and supervised by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychological function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 218 mg; mean doses of midazolam and meperidine were, respectively, 4.7 mg and 89.7 mg. Mean time to sedation was faster in the propofol patients (2.1 min vs. 7.0 min; p < 0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (p < 0.0001). On average, after the procedure, the propofol patients could stand at the bedside sooner (14.2 vs. 30.2 min), reached full recovery faster (14.4 vs. 33.0 min), and were discharged sooner (40.5 vs. 71.1 min) (all p < 0.0001). Patients who received propofol also expressed greater overall mean satisfaction on a 10-point visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 8.6; p < 0.05). At discharge, the propofol group had better scores on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Four patients in the midazolam/meperidine group developed minor complications (1 hypotension and bradycardia, 2 hypotension alone, and 1 tachycardia) and 1 patient in the propofol group had oxygen desaturation develop during an episode of epistaxis. CONCLUSION: For outpatient colonoscopy, propofol administered by nurses and supervised by endoscopists has several advantages over midazolam plus meperidine and deserves additional investigation.     

Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVES: Adequate patient sedation is mandatory for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this respect it is known that the short-acting anesthetic propofol offers certain potential advantages for sedation during ERCP, but there are no controlled studies concerning the feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in elderly, high-risk patients. METHODS: One hundred and fifty consecutive patients aged >or=80 yr with high comorbidity (ASA score >or=III: 91 %), randomly received midazolam plus meperidine (n = 75) or propofol alone (n = 75) for sedation during ERCP. Vital signs were continuously monitored and procedure-related parameters, recovery time, and quality as well as patients' cooperation and tolerance of the procedure were assessed. RESULTS: Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a temporary oxygen desaturation (<90%) occurring in eight patients in the propofol-group and seven patients receiving midazolam/meperidine (n.s.). Hypotension was documented in two patients in the propofol group and one patient receiving midazolam/meperidine. Propofol provided a significantly better patient cooperation than midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01), but the procedure tolerability was rated nearly the same by both groups. Mean recovery time was significantly shorter in the propofol group (22 +/- 7 min vs 31 +/- 8 min for midazolam/meperidine (p < 0.01)) while the recovery score was significantly higher under propofol (8.3 +/- 1.2 vs 6.1 +/- 1.1(p < 0.01)). During recovery a significant lower number of desaturation events (<90%) were observed in the propofol group (12%) than in the midazolam/meperidine group (26%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Under careful monitoring the use of propofol for sedation during ERCP is superior to midazolam/meperidine even in high-risk octogenarians.     

Propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Propofol (2,6-diisopropyl phenol) is a relatively new intravenous sedative hypnotic with an ideal pharmacokinetic profile for conscious sedation. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of propofol versus the conventional regimen of midazolam and meperidine for conscious sedation in GI endoscopy. METHODS: In this prospective study, 274 patients that included many elderly patients with multiple comorbid conditions underwent GI endoscopic procedures at our hospital. A total of 150 patients received propofol (20-120 mg) and fentanyl (0.25-1.5 mg). The control group of 124 patients was given midazolam (2-6 mg) and meperidine (25-75 mg). The dose of medication was titrated according to patient need and the duration of the procedure. A "comfort score" on a scale of 1-4 assessed the efficacy of the drugs based on pain or discomfort to the patient and ease of endoscopy. A "sedation score" was used to assess the degree of sedation on a scale of 1-5. The Aldrete score was used to measure recovery from anesthesia at 5 and 10 min after the procedure. RESULTS: After controlling for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status Classification (ASA grade), and type and duration of procedure, logistic regression analysis determined that propofol resulted in 2.04 times better patient comfort (p = 0.033, 95% CI = 1.058-3.923). Propofol was 1.84 times more likely to produce deeper sedation than the regimen of midazolam and meperidine (p = 0.027, 95% CI = 1.071-3.083). The recovery from sedation was faster in patients receiving propofol, although this did not reach statistical significance. The safety parameters between the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: Propofol was associated with a statistically significant improvement in comfort and sedation score when compared to midazolam and meperidine.     

Warm water irrigation for dealing with spasm during colonoscopy: simple,inexpensive, and effective

BACKGROUND: Colonic spasm can interfere with colonoscopy by hindering insertion of the colonoscope and by making polypectomy difficult, painful, and dangerous. Methods for dealing with colonic spasm include waiting for it to subside and administration of antispasmodic agents such as glucagon or hyoscyamine. Glucagon is expensive and hyoscyamine has side effects. This study evaluated an inexpensive technique, warm water irrigation, for overcoming colonic spasm during colonoscopy. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a consecutive series of patients was conducted to compare warm water irrigation for relaxation of spasm with standard examination techniques. Patients in whom the sigmoid colon had been resected were excluded. In the test group, water from the hot water tap at approximately body temperature was instilled into the colon by means of the accessory channel of the colonoscope with a 30 mL syringe. Any irrigation, either for removal of stool or control of spasm, was performed with warm water in the test group and water at room temperature in the control group. After each colonoscopy, the level of pain experienced by the patient was recorded with a linear analog scale. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized. The groups were similar with respect to gender distribution, age, and degree of spasm. There was no difference between groups for insertion time, total duration of colonoscopy, dose of midazolam administered, or frequency of severe spasm. Patients who had warm water irrigation had significantly less discomfort than control patients (median 2.0, interquartile range: 1-4 on a 10 point linear analog scale, vs. 4.0, interquartile range: 2-5). CONCLUSIONS: Although glucagon and hyoscyamine remain options for treatment of colonic spasm, the results of this study suggest that warm water is also effective. It has no side effects and costs practically nothing.     

Conscious sedation and cardiorespiratory safety during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND: Cardiorespiratory events during colonoscopy are common. The effect of sedative premedication on cardiorespiratory parameters during colonoscopy has not been studied in controlled, prospective trials. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients undergoing colonoscopy were divided into 3 groups: (1) sedation with intravenous midazolam (midazolam group); (2) sedation with intravenous saline (placebo group); and (3) no intravenous cannula (control group). Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO(2)), systolic and diastolic blood pressure and continuous electrocardiogram were recorded prior to, during and after the endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: Midazolam produced lower SaO(2) values during colonoscopy compared with placebo or control groups (p < 0.001, repeated measures analysis of variance). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure during colonoscopy were lower in the midazolam group than in the placebo group (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively), but no difference was found between the midazolam and the control groups. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg) occurred more frequently in the midazolam group (19%) than in the placebo (3%; p < 0.01) or control groups (7%; p < 0.05). ST-segment depression developed in 7% of patients during the recording with no difference between the groups. In 75% of cases ST-depression appeared prior to the endoscopic procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with midazolam induced a statistically significant decrease in arterial oxygen saturation and increased the risk for hypotension. However, colonoscopy proved to be a safe procedure both with and without sedation.     

Effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on patient tolerance and sedation requirements during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Pain during colonoscopy is primarily related to mesenteric stretching from looping of the colonoscope insertion tube. Prompt recognition and removal of loops reduces patient discomfort and may lessen sedation requirements. Magnetic endoscope imaging allows real-time visualization of the colonoscope during insertion. The effect of magnetic endoscope imaging on patient pain and sedation requirements was assessed in a prospective randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 122 consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy by a single experienced endoscopist were randomized to have the procedure performed either with the endoscopist viewing the imager display (n = 62), or without the imager view (n = 60). Procedures began with administration of hyoscine-N-butylbromide alone, and sedative medications (midazolam and meperidine) were self-administered by the patient with a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Cardiorespiratory parameters were recorded and patient pain was assessed with a 100-mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The number of attempts at straightening the colonoscope was fewer (median 8 [0-66] vs. 15 [0-87], p = 0.0076) and the duration of looping less (median 4.5 min [0-27.3 min] vs. 6.4 min [0-29.4 min]), when the endoscopist was able to see the imager view. The total number of patient demands (by patient-controlled analgesia) for medication (median 1 vs. 2.5) and total doses of midazolam (median 0.44 mg vs. 0.88 mg) and meperidine (median 16.75 mg vs. 32.5 mg) administered did not significantly differ between patients examined with or without the imager. Patient pain scores were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic endoscope imaging allows accurate assessment and straightening of loops during colonoscopy, but without a significant reduction in patient requirements for sedative medication or improvement in patient tolerance. However, the dosages of sedation drugs used were small.     

Safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative agent for pediatric GI endoscopy

BACKGROUND: The ideal sedation for children undergoing GI endoscopy remains elusive. After ketamine was introduced as a sedative agent in our GI procedure suite, improved sedation and reduced complications were observed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative agent for GI endoscopy in pediatric patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 402 procedures (EGD, colonoscopy) was performed. Sedation-related complications were defined as hypoxia (oxygen saturation <95% by pulse oximetry), agitation, emergence reactions, stridor, laryngospasm, nausea, vomiting, aspiration, and muscle twitching, or any combination thereof. Sedation groups were defined as the following: Group I, midazolam and meperidine (n=192); Group II, midazolam, meperidine, and ketamine (n=82); and Group III, midazolam and ketamine (n=128). RESULTS: Group 1 (midazolam and meperidine) had the highest frequency of complications, most commonly hypoxia. Group 3 (midazolam and ketamine) had the lowest rate of complications (p=0.001) and the highest rate of adequate sedation, although the difference was not significant (p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of midazolam and ketamine appears to provide safe and effective sedation for pediatric patients undergoing endoscopy.     

Nurse-administered propofol versus midazolam and meperidine for upper endoscopy in cirrhotic patients

OBJECTIVES: Upper GI endoscopy is often performed in patients with chronic liver disease to screen for esophageal and gastric varices. Propofol is currently under evaluation as an alternative to the combination of midazolam and meperidine for sedation during endoscopic procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare nurse-administered propofol to midazolam and meperidine for sedation in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: Twenty outpatients who had known chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh class A or B) and were undergoing variceal screening were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus meperidine for sedation. Administration of sedation was performed by a registered nurse and supervised by the endoscopist. Outcome measures studied were induction and recovery times, efficacy and safety of sedation, patient satisfaction, and return to baseline function. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol and meperidine/midazolam administered was 203 mg (SD 43.7, range 150-280) and 71.3 mg (SD 17.7, range 50-100)/5.3 mg (SD 0.9, range 3.0-6.0), respectively. The mean time to achieve adequate sedation was 3.6 min (SD 1.2) for the propofol group in comparison to 7.3 min (SD 2.8) for the meperidine/midazolam group (p<0.05). Procedure times between the groups were similar: propofol, 3.9 min (SD 1.9); midazolam/meperidine, 2.7 min (SD 0.8) (p=0.11). The level of sedation achieved by the propofol group was greater (p=0.0001). Time to full recovery was faster in the propofol group: 34.9 min (SD 10.3) versus 51.6 min (SD 18.4) (p<0.05). The mean time to reach a maximal level of alertness on the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale for the propofol group was 15 min (SD 3.6) versus 29 min (SD 10.5) (p=0.001). Although both groups recorded a high level of satisfaction, patients receiving propofol expressed greater overall mean satisfaction with the quality of their sedation at the time of discharge (p<0.05), and reported a return to baseline function sooner in the majority of cases. Propofol achieved comparable levels of efficacy and safety to meperidine/midazolam in our study group. Both were well tolerated with minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation administered by registered nurses in the setting of adequate patient monitoring is efficacious and well tolerated in patients with liver disease who are undergoing variceal screening by upper endoscopy. Patients were more satisfied with the quality of sedation, and return to baseline function was usually sooner compared to results achieved with midazolam/meperidine. Propofol offers advantages over meperidine/midazolam in cirrhotic patients.     

Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients

Background and Aim: The technical performance of colonoscopy performed in deeply sedated patients differs from that performed without sedation or under minimal to moderate sedation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors affecting cecal intubation during colonoscopy performed under deep sedation. Methods: A total of 5352 consecutive subjects who underwent a screening colonoscopy as part of a health check‐up between January 2008 and December 2008 at an academic hospital were reviewed. All endoscopies were performed with deep sedation using combination propofol or propofol alone. Data collected included characteristics of the patients (age, gender, body mass index, bowel habits, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, quality of bowel preparation, and presence/absence of colonic diverticula) and characteristics of the colonoscopists (experience level, colonoscopy procedure volume, and instrument handling method). These factors were analyzed to evaluate their impact on cecal intubation rates. Results: The crude cecal intubation rate was 98% and the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 98.3%. The mean cecal intubation time was 5.6 ± 3.2 min. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patient age greater than 60 years, constipation, poor colon preparation and a two‐person colonoscopy procedure were independently associated with lower cecal intubation rates. Conclusions: Colonoscopy performed under deep sedation by experienced colonoscopists results in high cecal intubation rates. Among the significant patient‐related predictors influencing the cecal intubation, the quality of the bowel preparation was the only modifiable factor. When performed by experienced hands, the one‐person method was associated with higher cecal intubation rates than the two‐person method.     

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of droperidol as a sedative premedication for EUS.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol is a neuroleptic agent with anti-emetic properties that produces mild sedation, reduced anxiety, and a state of mental detachment and indifference to one's surroundings. Routine premedication with droperidol has been shown to improve sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was to determine whether premedication with droperidol improves sedation during routine upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in a cost-effective manner. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients referred for EUS were randomly assigned to receive either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of droperidol or placebo before the procedure. After EUS, the physician, nurse, and recovered patient scored various parameters of procedural sedation. RESULTS: In the group receiving 5 mg of droperidol there was significantly less gagging at intubation, less retching during the procedure, better patient cooperation, less need for physical restraint, and improved nurses' and physician's impression of sedation. Significantly less meperidine and less midazolam were required for sedation, making medication costs significantly lower in the group receiving 5 mg droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: A 5 mg dose of droperidol given as premedication for routine upper EUS improves sedation during the procedure while significantly decreasing the overall cost of sedation.     

Diazepam versus midazolam for colonoscopy: a prospective evaluation of predicted versus actual dosing requirements

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy of the currently recommended low doses of midazolam for conscious sedation compared with diazepam for colonoscopy. Each agent was administered in a fixed ratio dose in combination with meperidine, and titrated incrementally to allow for adequate sedation prior to initiating and during the procedure. The currently recommended starting dose of midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) proved to be very appropriate for pre-medication. In contrast, the currently recommended starting dose of diazepam (0.10 mg/kg) proved excessive in 21% of patients (especially in those aged > 65). The low initial and incremental doses of midazolam compared favorably with diazepam in all efficacy parameters studied and exceeded diazepam in post-procedure amnesia scores (p = 0.01). Moreover, the sedative effects of midazolam at these lower doses were not lost despite long duration procedures (> 40 min). We conclude that midazolam, given in small incremental doses, in combination with meperidine, produces effective conscious sedation for colonoscopy and exceeds diazepam in its amnestic effect.