Patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the safety, effectiveness, and patient acceptance of patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in a group of elderly patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred patients over 65 years of age were recruited and randomized to patient-controlled sedation (n = 50) or intravenous sedation (n = 50) groups by means of computer-generated numbers. In the patient-controlled sedation group, a mixture of propofol and alfentanil was delivered by means of a patient-controlled pump; each bolus delivered 4.8 mg propofol and 12 microg alfentanil. No loading dose was used and the lockout time was set at zero. In the intravenous sedation group, fixed doses of diazemuls (0.1 mg/kg) and meperidine (0.5 mg/kg) were given with further increases in dosages administered at the discretion of the endoscopist. Outcome measures assessed included cardiopulmonary complications, recovery time, pain score, and satisfaction score. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of patients in the patient-controlled sedation and intravenous sedation groups were, respectively, 72.4 years (5.3) and 73.5 years (6.1). The mean dose of propofol consumed in the patient-controlled sedation group was 0.79 (0.46) mg/kg. The mean doses of diazemuls and meperidine consumed in intravenous sedation group were, respectively, 5.8 (1.3) mg and 30.1 (6.8) mg. Hypotension occurred in 2 (4%) patients in the patient-controlled sedation group and 14 (28%) in the intravenous sedation group (p < 0.01). Oxygen desaturation was recorded for 4 patients (8%) in the intravenous sedation group. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) recovery time was significantly shorter in the patient-controlled sedation group compared with the intravenous sedation group (respectively, 0 minutes [IQR 0-5] vs. 5 minutes [IQR 5-10]; p < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for pain and satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-controlled sedation appears to be safer than intravenous sedation, with comparable effectiveness and acceptance, in elderly patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy.     

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.     

Relaxation music decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to test the hypotheses that music decreases the dose of sedative medication required for colonoscopy and that the combination of music and patient-controlled sedation improves patient acceptance of colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred sixty-five patients scheduled to undergo elective colonoscopy were randomized to receive 1 of 3 different modes of sedation: Group 1, a combination of music and patient-controlled sedation with a mixture of propofol and alfentanil; Group 2, patient-controlled sedation alone; Group 3, music alone with diazemuls and meperidine administered intravenously if requested by the patient. Each bolus of patient-controlled sedation delivered 4.8 mg propofol and 12 microg alfentenil. Music was provided by means of a portable compact disc machine with headphones. Outcome measures assessed immediately after colonoscopy and 24 hours later included dose of patient-controlled sedation used, complications, recovery time, pain score, satisfaction score, and willingness to repeat the procedure with the same mode of sedation. RESULTS: The mean (SD) dose of propofol used in Group 1 was significantly less than Group 2 (0.84 mg/kg [0.69 mg/kg] vs. 1.15 mg/kg [0.83 mg/kg]; p = 0.02, t test). The mean (SD) satisfaction score was higher in Group 1 (7.8 [2.1]) compared with Group 2 (6.8 [2.3]) and Group 3 (7.4 [2.3]) (p = 0.05, 1-way analysis of variance). The majority of patients in Group 1 were willing to repeat the same mode of sedation when queried immediately after colonoscopy (87%) and 24 hours later (75%), which was significantly different from the corresponding results in the other 2 groups; p = 0.04 and p < 0.01 respectively, chi-square test. CONCLUSIONS: Music can decrease the dose of sedative medication required for colonoscopy. The combination of music and patient-controlled sedation was the best-accepted mode of sedation among 3 groups.     

Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for colonoscopy in adults

BACKGROUND: There are few published data on how different types of colonoscopes affect success in reaching the cecum and patient comfort. We examined the feasibility of using a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in adults and investigated whether there were subgroups of patients in whom use of this instrument was preferable. METHODS: One-hundred fifty adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (Olympus CF-100L) or with a pediatric colonoscope (Olympus PCF-100). All procedures were performed by a faculty endoscopist and timed by an independent observer. After examinations, the endoscopist graded procedure difficulty and patients were given a questionnaire that assessed their experience. RESULTS: The adult (n = 77) and pediatric (n = 73) colonoscope groups were comparable in all outcomes measured, including success in reaching the cecum (91% vs. 93%, p = 0.61), mean time to reach the cecum (11.4 vs. 9.7 min, p = 0.07), mean total procedure time (21.8 vs. 21.9 min, p = 0.95), mean meperidine dose (55 vs. 52 mg, p = 0.17); median midazolam dose (2.0 mg in both groups, p = 0.10), the endoscopists' perception of procedure difficulty, and patient comfort scales. Of the 7 patients in whom colonoscopy with the adult colonoscope was unsuccessful, the cecum was reached in 4 by switching to a pediatric colonoscope (all women, 3 of whom had prior hysterectomy). In the 5 patients in whom colonoscopy with the pediatric colonoscope was unsuccessful, the cecum was reached in 1 by switching to an adult colonoscope. Including the cases in which the cecum was reached by switching to the alternative colonoscope, the overall frequency of cecal intubation was 143 of 150 (95%). Subgroup analysis disclosed no difference between the 2 groups in outcomes when gender, presence of diverticulosis, and patient size were considered. Colonoscopy with the pediatric colonoscope was more successful than with the adult instrument in reaching the cecum in women with prior hysterectomy (11 of 12 [92%] vs. 15 of 21 [71%]); however, the numbers in each group were relatively small and the difference was not significant (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric colonoscope is suitable for routine colonoscopy in adults. It is also useful in patients in whom colonoscopy with the adult colonoscope is unsuccessful in reaching the cecum (particularly in women). Additional study is needed to see if the pediatric colonoscope is actually superior to the adult colonoscopy for routine colonoscopy in women with prior hysterectomy.     

Superiority of split dose midazolam as conscious sedation for outpatient colonoscopy

AIM: To elucidate the efficacy and safety of a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine for colonoscopy. METHODS: Eighty subjects undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to group A or B. Group A ( n = 40) received a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Group B ( n = 40) received a single dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Outcome measurements were level of sedation, duration of sedation and recovery, degree of pain and satisfaction, procedure-related memory, controllability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Group A had a lower frequency of significant hypoxemia ( P = 0.043) and a higher sedation score on withdrawal of the endoscope from the descending colon than group B ( P = 0.043). Group B recovered from sedation slightly sooner than group A ( P < 0.002). Scores for pain and memory, except insertion-related memory, were lower in group A one week after colonoscopic examination ( P = 0.018 and P < 0.030, respectively). Poor patient controllability was noted by the endoscopist and nurse in group B ( P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively). CONCLUSION: Split dose midazolam in combination with meperidine resulted in a safer, more equable sedation status during colonoscopic examination and a reduction in procedure-related pain and memory, but resulted in longer recovery time.     

Superiority of split dose midazolam as conscious sedation for outpatient colonoscopy

AIM： To elucidate the efficacy and safety of a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine for colonoscopy.
METHODS： Eighty subjects undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to group A or B. Group A （n = 40） received a split dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Group B （n = 40） received a single dose of midazolam in combination with meperidine. Outcome measurements were level of sedation, duration of sedation and recovery, degree of pain and satisfaction, procedure-related memory, controllability, and adverse events.
RESULTS： Group A had a lower frequency of significant hypoxemia （P = 0.043） and a higher sedation score on withdrawal of the endoscope from the descending colon than group B （P = 0.043）. Group B recovered from sedation slightly sooner than group A （P 〈 0.002）. Scores for pain and memory, except insertion-related memory, were lower in group A one week after colonoscopic examination （P = 0.018 and P 〈 0.030, respectively）. Poor patient controllability was noted by the endoscopist and nurse in group B （P = 0.038 and P = 0.032, respectively）.
CONCLUSION： Split dose midazolam in combination with meperidine resulted in a safer, more equable sedation status during colonoscopic examination and areduction in procedure-related pain and memory, but resulted in longer recovery time.     

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.     

Conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: midazolam or midazolam plus meperidine?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists for the safest and most effective agent and for optimal drug doses for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We aimed to compare the efficacy of midazolam with that of midazolam+meperidine, which provided comfort for the patient during ERCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were randomized to sedation with midazolam only (2.87+/-0.67 mg) (n=48, median age 55.54+/-14.66, 21 women, 27 men) or midazolam (1.82+/-0.71 mg) with meperidine (42.81+/-14.61 mg) (n= 48, median age 55.48+/-2.57, 20 women, 28 men). Procedure-related parameters and the efficacy of sedation as assessed by the endoscopist and the patients were compared. RESULTS: Prior endoscopic history, preprocedure anxiety scores, age, sex, baseline vital signs and type of interventions were similar in both groups. Sedation level, duration of procedure and recovery time were comparable in both groups. Sedation quality assessment scale was significantly higher in the midazolam with meperidine group. Degree of pain sensed during the procedure was significantly lower in the midazolam with meperidine group. Midazolam with meperidine group had better patient satisfaction. Twenty-four hours after the procedure, the degree of amnesia between both sedation groups was similar. The number of patients unwilling to repeat the procedure was distinctly higher in midazolam group. Development of hypoxia and arrythmia in the midazolam and midazolam with meperidine groups were comparable. Two patients in the midazolam group developed paradoxical agitation. CONCLUSIONS: Conscious sedation for ERCP can be successfully and safely achieved by using either only midazolam or a low dose of midazolam with meperidine. Adding of meperidine to midazolam resulted in better patient and endoscopist comfort.     

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.     

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…     

Sedation for colonoscopy using a single bolus is safe, effective, and efficient: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE: Practice guidelines call for the careful titration of sedatives and analgesics during endoscopy, with time taken between incremental doses to assess effect. This approach is time-consuming and has never been validated in a prospective trial. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of titration, as outlined in practice guidelines, with a single, rapid bolus of sedatives before colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to a single, rapid bolus of meperidine and midazolam or to a titration of doses every 3 min until predefined levels of somnolence were achieved. The colonoscopist was not present during sedation and remained blinded as to which technique was used. Supplemental O2 was given for SaO2 <90% on three or more occasions. Total physician time was calculated from the first injection of sedatives to the removal of the colonoscope. Patient assessments of pain and tolerance were obtained at the time of discharge using visual analog scales of 100 mm (0 = excellent and 100 = unbearable). RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were randomized (49 bolus, 52 titration). Demographic features were similar for both groups. Titration required more physician time than did bolus (32.2 min vs 20.1 min, p < 0.001) and was associated with an increased need for supplemental O2 (44% vs 14%, p = 0.002). Mean tolerance scores were similar (titration 16.3 vs bolus 15.3, p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid bolus sedation for colonoscopy saves significant endoscopist time, is associated with less O2 desaturation, and provides equivalent levels of patient comfort. A revision of the guidelines for sedation and analgesia during endoscopy should be considered.     

Magnetic imaging of colonoscopy: an audit of looping, accuracy and ancillary maneuvers

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is one of the most frequently performed outpatient examinations. However, the procedure is still technically challenging, largely due to unpredictable looping during insertion. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the frequency of loop formation and types of loop during colonoscopy, (2) to determine the accuracy of the endoscopist's assessment of the anatomic location of the endoscope tip and of the presence and type of endoscope loop formation, and (3) to determine the efficacy of abdominal compression and change in patient position in promoting colonoscope advancement. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine, day-case colonoscopy were studied using real-time, three-dimensional magnetic endoscope imaging. All examinations were performed by expert colonoscopists, blinded to the imager view. The endoscopist estimated the position of the colonoscope tip, assessed when and what type of loop had formed, and the efficacy of ancillary maneuvers such as hand pressure or patient position change. The magnetic imager view of each procedure was recorded and retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred complete colonoscopies were performed. Looping occurred in 91% with N-sigmoid (79%) and deep transverse (34%) being most common. Most loops (69%) were incorrectly diagnosed by the endoscopist. Atypical loops were more common in women than men (p = 0.025). The endoscopist's assessment of tip location was correct 85% of the time overall, but 100% in the cecum. Abdominal pressure was less effective (54 of 145 times, 37%) than patient position change (95 of 144 times, 66%) in promoting endoscope tip advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Looping occurs frequently during routine colonoscopy. Although the endoscopist's assessment of tip location is fairly accurate, the majority of colonoscope loops are incorrectly appreciated. Although used frequently, ancillary maneuvers (abdominal compression and patient position change) are effective in only 52% of attempts.     

Routine versus "on demand" sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The safety and tolerance of routine sedation and analgesia versus "on demand" sedation were compared in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine outpatients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A (n = 125) received midazolam, 0.07 mg/kg intravenously plus meperidine, 0.77 mg/kg intravenously immediately preceding the colonoscope insertion. Group B (n = 124) received the same medication upon request during the procedure. Tolerance was assessed 24 hours later by phone interview performed by a nurse blinded to the medication regimen administered. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients (66%) in Group B required sedation during colonoscopy. Among men in Group B more than 60 years of age, only 23% required sedation. The proportion of patients reporting moderate or severe pain (34% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001) and of those stating they would not be willing to undergo colonoscopy again in the future (22% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.005) was significantly higher in the "on demand" sedation group. By multivariate analysis the randomization group was the single variable independently associated with both such outcomes. The frequency of side effects was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of sedative and analgesic drugs routinely before colonoscopy is superior to "on demand" sedation in terms of tolerance and is not associated with an increase in side effects.     

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive propofol or midazolam plus fentanyl, administered by a registered nurse and supervised only by an endoscopist. Endpoints were patient satisfaction, procedure and recovery times, neuropsychologic function, and complications. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol administered was 277 mg; mean doses of midazolam and fentanyl were 7.2 mg and 117 microg, respectively. Mean time to sedation was faster with propofol (2.1 vs. 6.1 min; P<0.0001), and depth of sedation was greater (P<0.0001). Patients receiving propofol reached full recovery sooner (16.5 vs. 27.5 min; P=0.0001) and were discharged sooner (36.5 vs. 46.1 min; P=0.01). After recovery, the propofol group scored better on tests reflective of learning, memory, working memory span, and mental speed. Six minor complications occurred in the propofol group: 4 episodes of hypotension, 1 episode of bradycardia, and 1 rash. Five complications occurred with the use of midazolam and fentanyl: one episode of oxygen desaturation requiring mask ventilation and 4 episodes of hypotension. Patients in the propofol vs. midazolam and fentanyl groups reported similar degrees of overall satisfaction using a 10-cm visual analog scale (9.3 vs. 9.4, P>0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction.     

Use of a variable-stiffness colonoscope decreases the dose of patient-controlled sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison of 3 colonoscopes

BACKGROUND: The variable-stiffness colonoscope incorporates different degrees of stiffness of the insertion tube, which can be adjusted during the examination. Whether its use can lead to reduced procedure-related pain and sedative use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the use of 3 types of colonoscope with different shaft stiffnesses in relation to procedure-related pain and sedative consumption. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Endoscopy unit of a university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment was made of patients into 3 groups to receive colonoscopic examinations by one of the 3 types of colonoscope: conventional standard adult size, 1.3-m; 1.6-m; and the new variable-stiffness adult size, full-length (1.6-m) colonoscope. A mixture of propofol and afentanil, delivered by a patient-controlled syringe pump, was used for sedation in all groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included dose of patient-controlled sedation consumed, pain score, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, requirement of abdominal pressure and change of patients' positions during colonoscopy, and endoscopists and patients' satisfaction scores according to a visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were randomized. Patients in group 3 used significantly less propofol (in milligrams per kilograms, mean [SD]) compared with the other 2 groups (group 1: 1.00 [0.75], group 2: 0.93 [0.62], and group 3: 0.75 [0.65]; P = .02; 1-way analysis of variance). The mean (SD) pain score was also lower in group 3. LIMITATIONS: The endoscopists were not blinded. CONCLUSION: The use of the new variable-stiffness adult-size colonoscope significantly reduced procedure-related pain and doses of sedative medications during colonoscopy.     

Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy: a prospective,randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether a single bolus of meperidine in addition to midazolam improves patient tolerance during colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to receive a single rapid intravenous bolus of 5 mg of midazolam and placebo (Group A, n = 125) or 5 mg midazolam plus 50 mg meperidine (Group B, n = 128). Tolerance (4-point scale: 1 excellent, 4 unbearable), pain (4-point scale: 1 none, 4 severe) and willingness to undergo another colonoscopy were assessed 24 to 48 hours later in a telephone interview conducted by an independent observer blinded to the regimen of sedative medication. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in Group A reported moderate or severe pain (28% vs. 9%; p < 0.001), poor or unbearable tolerance (18% vs. 6%; p < 0.01) and unwillingness to undergo colonoscopy again in the future (14% vs. 5%; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, randomization to the midazolam group and younger age were the only variables independently associated with the risk of reporting at least one of these outcomes. Recovery time, frequency of oxygen desaturation, and need for supplemental oxygen were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a single bolus of meperidine to midazolam improves patient tolerance and lessens pain during colonoscopy without significantly increasing the frequency of side effects or prolonging recovery time.     

Patient-controlled analgesia for conscious sedation during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether patient-controlled anesthesia (PCA) can improve patient tolerance for colonoscopy. We compared baseline sedation and analgesia with baseline sedation and PCA. METHODS: Fifty-six consecutive patients were alternatively allocated to 1 of 2 groups: either to control group (n = 28) to receive standard sedation (meperidine and midazolam as baseline and additional doses of meperidine administered by the anesthesiologist) or to a PCA group (n = 28) to receive the same baseline premedication but additional analgesia with meperidine being self-administered. Cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded and tolerance for the examination was evaluated by a numeric rating scale, 0 meaning "no pain" and 10 meaning "maximal pain." RESULTS: Patients' mean pain score (on a scale of 0 to 10) was 4.85 +/- 3.74 for the PCA group and 5.30 +/- 3.53 (not significant) for the control group. Physicians' assessment of patient tolerance registered a lower numeric rating score than patients' assessment. The duration of the procedure was slightly longer in the PCA group. None of the patients experienced a decline in oxygen saturation below 90%; a decrease in expiratory carbon dioxide during the examination was noted in both groups of patients, particularly during the first minutes of the examination. Mean additional sedation per patient in the PCA group was slightly higher, but not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patient-controlled analgesia during colonoscopy is as effective as standard sedation with respect to patient tolerance and safety of the examination.     

Usefulness of a pediatric colonoscope for routine colonoscopy in women who have undergone hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy can be difficult in some women who have undergone hysterectomy, which can be associated with a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon caused by postoperative pelvic adhesions. Our goal was to determine whether colonoscopy is easier and more comfortable for women after hysterectomy when performed with a pediatric colonoscope, which is thinner in diameter and more flexible than a standard "adult" colonoscope. METHODS: One hundred women with a history of hysterectomy undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized in unblinded fashion to colonoscopy with a standard colonoscope (CF-100L or CF-Q140L, Olympus) or with a pediatric colonoscope (PCF-100, Olympus). All procedures were performed by a faculty endoscopist and timed. After examination, the endoscopist graded procedure difficulty, and patients were given a questionnaire that assessed their experience. RESULTS: The cecum was intubated more frequently in the pediatric colonoscope group than in the standard colonoscope group (96.1% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001). Success increased in the standard colonoscope group to 89.8% when the pediatric colonoscope was used to complete the examination. There were no differences in the two groups in terms of mean total procedure times (21.4 minutes vs. 22.6 minutes), mean doses of meperidine administered (57 mg both groups), mean doses of midazolam administered (1.5 mg vs. 1.7 mg), scales of procedure difficulty as graded by the endoscopists, and comfort scales as graded by patients. For the cases in which the cecum was intubated, the mean time to reach the cecum (11.7 minutes for the pediatric colonoscope group vs. 12.7 minutes for the adult) was similar. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric colonoscope is a reasonable choice for colonoscopy in women who have had a hysterectomy. Alternatively, if the endoscopist elects to start the procedure with a standard colonoscope, it is helpful to have a pediatric colonoscope available for use should a fixed, angulated sigmoid colon be encountered that cannot be easily or safely traversed with the standard colonoscope.     

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.     

Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows the patient to titrate the dosage of sedative drugs according to need. METHODS: To compare the efficacy of PCS by using propofol with anesthetist-administered midazolam during colonoscopy, 88 patients were randomized to receive either intravenous midazolam 0.05 mg/kg bolus (1 mg increments as required) or propofol PCS (0.3 mg/kg bolus, zero lockout). Heart and respiratory rates, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were monitored. Patient cooperation, endoscopist satisfaction, and level of sedation were scored. Patient satisfaction was assessed by questionnaire. To correct for multiple testing of data, statistical significance was asserted only for individually stated p values with p < 0.01. RESULTS: Oxygen saturation and hemodynamics were stable in both groups. Better patient cooperation (good vs. minimal; p = 0.008) and higher endoscopist satisfaction (very good vs. good; p = 0.001) were achieved with PCS. Although more sedated intraoperatively (sedation score 4 vs. 2; p = 0.03 for a single test of hypothesis; correction for multiple testing of data removes this significance), patients in the propofol PCS group were more alert by 30 minutes and discharged earlier (mean and SD times were 43.3 [12.1] min compared with 61.0 [29.7] min; p = 0.001.) More patients in the PCS group (86 vs. 6l%; p < 0.001) were satisfied with their overall level of comfort. CONCLUSION: PCS with propofol is effective and results in high patient satisfaction and faster discharge.