A randomized, double-blind study of the use of droperidol for conscious sedation during therapeutic endoscopy in difficult to sedate patients

BACKGROUND: Droperidol has been used in combination with narcotics and benzodiazepines to achieve conscious sedation. We performed a randomized, double-blind, study of droperidol in patients at risk for difficult sedation scheduled for therapeutic endoscopy. METHODS: Patients with regular ethanol, narcotic, or benzodiazepine usage, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, or a history of difficult sedation were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either droperidol or placebo along with midazolam and meperidine as preprocedure sedation. Time to achieve sedation, interruptions due to undersedation, medication dosages, recovery time, and subjective assessments of sedation were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred one patients were randomized. The droperidol group had significantly fewer procedure interruptions and observer ratings of difficulty with sedation and required significantly less midazolam (23%) and meperidine (16%) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in time to achieve sedation, incomplete procedures, procedure length, recovery room time, or complications. There were significantly higher observer ratings of the quality of sedation for patients who received droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use results in significantly fewer interruptions due to poor sedation and improved sedation ratings compared with sedation using midazolam and meperidine alone.     

Anesthesiologist-managed sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Experience at the University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital

Providing sedation and analgesia to patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is challenging because of patient position, procedure duration, and depth of sedation required. Conventionally, sedation for ERCP is managed by endoscopists with intravenously administered benzodiazepines and opioids. With increasing complexity of ERCP procedures, there is a trend to involve anesthesiologists to provide sedation and anesthesia. Anesthesiologists are able to provide general anesthesia in failed sedation. Moreover, patients at high risk of aspiration should be identified, and general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation would be a recommended approach in these patients. Anesthesiologists are also experienced in using potent and short-acting intravenous sedation and in management of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events that arise from sedation. Use of short-acting sedatives would enhance recovery from ERCP. We discuss our experience with sedation for ERCP at the University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital.     

Nurse-administered propofol sedation without anesthesia specialists in 9152 endoscopic cases in an ambulatory surgery center

Narcotics and benzodiazepines are commonly used for sedation for endoscopy in the United States. Propofol has certain advantages over narcotics and benzodiazepines, but its use is often controlled by anesthesia specialists. This report describes our experience with dosage, safety, patient satisfaction, and discharge time with nurse-administered propofol sedation in 9152 endoscopic cases.The study was performed in a private practice ambulatory surgery center in Medford, Oregon. With the assistance of an anesthesiologist, we developed a protocol for administration of propofol in routine endoscopic cases, in which propofol was given by registered nurses under the supervision of endoscopists or gastroenterologists. We then applied the protocol with 9152 patients.There were seven cases of respiratory compromise (three prolonged apnea, three laryngospasm, one aspiration requiring hospitalization), all associated with upper endoscopy. Five patients required mask ventilation, but none required endotracheal intubation. There were seven colonic perforations (<1 per 1000 colonoscopies), of which three may have involved forceful sigmoid disruption. Of patients who had previously received narcotic or benzodiazepine sedation, 84% preferred propofol. Gastroenterologists strongly preferred propofol. The mean time from completion of procedures to discharge in a sample of 100 patients was 18 min.Nurse-administered propofol sedation in an ambulatory surgery center was safe and resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction and rapid postprocedure recovery and discharge.     

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.     

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.     

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in conscious sedated patients

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to determine whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance or tolerance in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: Ninety-five patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to receive either topical pharyngeal anesthesia with 2% tetracaine/14% benzocaine spray or no pharyngeal anesthesia. Conscious sedation was achieved in all patients using intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Patients were asked to rate their pretest anxiety, comfort during endoscopy, recollection of the procedure, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Additionally, they were asked to estimate procedure duration and rate their tolerance for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. All examinations were performed by two endoscopists who were blinded to whether or not patients had received pharyngeal anesthesia. Endoscopists were asked to determine whether they believed that patients had received topical pharyngeal anesthesia and to estimate ease of esophageal intubation and procedure performance using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Procedure duration and doses of midazolam and meperidine were measured. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, and previous endoscopic history. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to pretest anxiety, procedural comfort, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations. Patients receiving topical pharyngeal anesthesia rated it as moderately unpleasant. Endoscopists were able to discriminate patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia from those who did not with a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.59. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to ease of intubation, procedure performance, procedure duration, and dosing of midazolam or meperidine. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy using intravenous midazolam and meperidine, the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve patient tolerance or procedure performance. Elimination of this agent in the performance of diagnostic upper endoscopy will save time and money without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.     

Use of anesthesia on the rise in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Conscious sedation has been the standard of care for many years for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. As procedures have become more complex and lengthy, additional medications became essential for adequate sedation. Often time’s deep sedation is required for procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiography which necessitates higher doses of narcotics and benzodiazepines or even use of other medications such as ketamine. Given its pharmacologic properties, pro-pofol was rapidly adopted worldwide to gastrointestinal endoscopy for complex procedures and more recently to routine upper and lower endoscopy. Many studies have shown superiority for both the physician and patient compared to standard sedation. Nevertheless, its use remains highly controversial. A number of studies worldwide show that propofol can be given safely by endoscopists or nurses when well trained. Despite this wealth of data, at many centers its use has been pro-hibited unless administered by anesthesiology. In this commentary, we review the use of anesthesia support for endoscopy in the United States based on recent data and its implications for gastroenterologists world-wide.     

Flumazenil in children after esophagogastroduodenoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate if the routine use of the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil would shorten postprocedure recovery times after esophagogastroduodenoscopy in pediatric patients receiving standard intravenous conscious sedation with the benzodiazepine diazepam in combination with meperidine. METHODS: Upper endoscopy was performed using intravenous conscious sedation with standardized doses of diazepam and meperidine on 29 children, age range 6-18 yr. Patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either intravenous normal saline (placebo) or 0.01 mg/kg (maximum, 1.0 mg) flumazenil within 5 min of procedure completion. Evaluation of the degree of sedation using a modified Observer' s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale was performed presedation, immediately before reversal solution administration, and serially over 60 min after reversal solution injection. RESULTS: Fifteen patients received flumazenil and 14 received placebo; patient group composition did not vary significantly in age and weight. Fifty-four percent of flumazenil patients and 30% of control patients achieved full alertness within 10 min of reversal solution injection. However, this difference between groups was not significant (p > 0.45). Resedation or side effects directly attributable to flumazenil were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: A single postsedation dose of flumazenil is well-tolerated in children >6 yr old. However, its routine use after esophagogastroduodenoscopy is of questionable benefit in shortening recovery time in this age group.     

Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although moderate (conscious) sedation is intended during elective gastrointestinal endoscopy, unintended levels of deep sedation occur. The aims of this study were to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of deep sedation during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam intended to maintain a level of moderate sedation. METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiology class 1-2, outpatients presenting for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) were offered enrollment. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered according to a standardized protocol. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of sedation were assessed and recorded by a single observer at 3-min intervals. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale (ranging 1-5) is a subjective sedation assessment scale used to assess sedation levels. Occurrence of deep sedation, defined by MOAA/S 1-2, was recorded. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess predictors of deep sedation. RESULTS: Deep sedation occurred in 54/80 (68%) patients for a total of 204/785 (26%) of total sedation assessments. The percentage of deep sedation episodes of all sedation-level observations by procedure was 26% for EGD, 11% for colonoscopy, 35% for ERCP, and 29% for EUS. Deep sedation occurred at least once in 60% of EGD, 45% of colonoscopy, 85% of ERCP, and 80% of EUS. Multivariable analysis showed that only ERCP and EUS were independent risk factors of deep sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam used with the intent of moderate sedation. ERCP and EUS are risk factors for the occurrence of deep sedation, independent of sedation dose or length of procedure.     

Intramuscular meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine: analysis of use and complications in 487 pediatric emergency department patients

Despite widespread use of a parenterally administered mixture of meperidine, promethazine, and chlorpromazine (Demerol, Phenergan, and Thorazine, DPT), there has been no systematic evaluation of its efficacy and complications in emergency department patients. We reviewed the medical records of all patients less than 16 years old who received DPT in our ED during the 24-month period ending December 31, 1987. Of 487 patients who received DPT, the maximum dose was 50/25/25 mg, respectively. Wound repair (69%) and fracture reduction (12%) were the two most common indications. Lacerations most commonly involved the face (65%) or digits (20%). Efficacy was not directly reported, but only eight patients received repeat sedation. Head injuries and a lower mean initial meperidine dosage were more prevalent in patients requiring repeat sedation (P less than .05). Three patients (0.6%) experienced significant complications. All had respiratory depression and received IV naloxone. An abnormal initial mental status examination or an underlying neurologic abnormality was significantly associated with complications (P less than .05). DPT appears to be a safe and relatively effective sedative for selected pediatric ED patients when administered as a ratio of 2:1:1 mg/kg, respectively. Complications are increased in patients with acute or underlying neurologic abnormalities.     

Droperidol, when used for sedation during ERCP, may prolong the QT interval

BACKGROUND: Droperidol is a known effective adjunctive agent for sedation/analgesia during endoscopic procedures, particularly in patients who are difficult to sedate with narcotics and benzodiazepines alone. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning about potential droperidol-related fatal cardiac arrhythmias, issued in December 2001, led to concern about its safety in current clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the effects of droperidol on the Bazett's corrected QT interval (QTcB) administered to patients undergoing ERCP and frequency of cardiac arrhythmias. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who, at our institute, underwent ERCP while under sedation/analgesia and who received droperidol. Our protocol for patients who are considered to be candidates for droperidol use includes obtaining an ECG before and 1 to 3 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: From April 2002 to October 2004, 6292 ERCPs were performed, of which 3113 patients with normal baseline QTcB (2001 women, 1112 men) received droperidol. Mean dosages were 4.3 mg (range, 1.25-10 mg) in women and 4.5 mg (range, 1.25-13.75 mg) in men. A total of 233 patients (7.48%; 133 women, 100 men) developed QTcB prolongation. Mean increases of the QTcB above the upper limit of normal were 16 milliseconds in women (range, 1-194 milliseconds) and 22 milliseconds in men (range, 1-310 milliseconds). Of these, 15 patients (0.48%; 8 women, 7 men) had marked prolongation of the QTcB (defined QTcB, >500 milliseconds). No serious dysrhythmias occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol at usual doses during sedation/analgesia may precipitate QTcB prolongation above the normal range. However, no QT-related arrhythmias were noted in this study. Clinically significant cardiac events are probably rare with droperidol, despite documented QTcB effects. Baseline electrocardiogram for excluding patients with prolonged baseline QTcB and 1 to 3 hours afterward monitoring appears adequate when using droperidol. The study is still too small to detect very infrequent arrhythmia events.     

Analgesic efficacy of meperidine hydrochloride used alone and in combination with promethazine hydrochloride

Summary and Conclusions Initially, 51 consecutive patients who had undergone hemorrhoidectomy were included in a double-blind, cross-over study to determine whether or not 50 mg. of meperidine would provide postoperative analgesia equivalent to 100 mg. of meperidine when the 50 mg. of meperidine was supplemented with 50 mg. of promethazine. Postoperatively, 40 of the 51 patients completed the cross-over study, nine required only one analgesic dose, and two did not require any medication for the relief of pain. The results were tabulated and the data were interpreted on a statistical basis, according to analytic methods of Beecher and Herdan. There was no significant difference between the relief of pain afforded by one preparation as compared to the relief produced by the other. This was true for members of the cross-over group and members of the total group. The side effects observed were insignificant, except for the marked decrease in blood pressure noted in several patients after the administration of meperidine. It would appear that the use of promethazine with meperidine diminishes the characteristic effect of meperidine. The addition of promethazine to the meperidine did not increase the number of patients who slept after the administration of the medication. It can be concluded, therefore, that the addition of promethazine to a given amount of narcotic analgesic agent affords relief of pain comparable to that obtained by double the amount of narcotic analgesic agent alone. This conclusion substantiates what has been suggested in medical literature; namely, that promethazine potentiates the analgesic action of a narcotic agent.     

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.     

Utility of droperidol for conscious sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Although narcotics and benzodiazepines are widely used as premedications for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, we have found a significant number of patients in whom this combination is either inadequate for sedation or results in paradoxical agitation. Over the last 54 months, we have administered droperidol, a neuroleptic, as an adjunct to narcotics and benzodiazepines in 764 patients undergoing 1,102 procedures. The most common indication for droperidol usage was active alcohol abuse or withdrawal (45%). The most frequent dose administered was 2.5 mg (41.1%) followed by 3.75 mg (25.8%). The level of sedation and cooperation was adequate in all but 22 procedures (2.0%). Complications related to droperidol use were infrequent, occurring in 17 procedures (1.5%). There was no mortality or major morbidity resulting from droperidol usage. In our endoscopic population, we find droperidol to be a safe and efficacious adjunctive agent for conscious sedation.     

Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the use of propofol, an ultrashort-acting hypnotic agent, for sedation during endoscopic examinations. A protocol was developed for administration of propofol, combined with small doses of midazolam and meperidine, for endoscopic sedation under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Initial experience with using this protocol is described. METHODS: A total of 819 consecutive endoscopic examinations under sedation with propofol, midazolam, and meperidine (or fentanyl), in adherence with the sedation protocol, were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: There were 638 colonoscopies and 181 EGDs; 89% of patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II. Mean dosages of medications were: propofol 63 (33.5) mg, meperidine 48 (7.2) mg, and midazolam 1 (0.12) mg. The dose of propofol was inversely correlated with age and ASA class, and positively correlated with patient weight and duration of examination. Hypotension (>20 mm Hg decline in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure) developed in 218 (27%) patients, and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <90%) developed in 75 (9%). All episodes of hypotension and hypoxemia were transient, and no patient required administration of a pharmacologic antagonist or assisted ventilation. The average time for recovery after colonoscopy and after EGD was, respectively, 25 minutes and 28 minutes. All EGDs and 98% of colonoscopies were completed successfully. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this initial experience, it is believed that propofol, potentiated by small doses of midazolam and meperidine, can be safely and effectively administered under the direction of a gastroenterologist. Additional research will be necessary to determine whether propofol is superior to the current methods of sedation.     

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.     

Endoscopist controlled administration of propofol: an effective and safe method of sedation in endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Propofol is a short-acting, hypnotic agent that is increasingly being used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation. There are concerns about the use of propofol by non anesthesiologists due to its potential for respiratory and cardiovascular depression. This report describes our experience concerning effectiveness and safety of propofol administered in endoscopic procedures by the endoscopist and the assistant nurse. METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 102 consecutive endoscopies (60 colonoscopies and 42 upper endoscopies) performed under sedation with propofol were included. In 27 (26.47%) endoscopies propofol was administered alone and in 75 endoscopies (73.53%) it was combined with benzodiazepines and/or opioids. Seventy-six (74.51%) endoscopies were performed in patients under 65 years of age and 26 (25.49%) in patients over 65 years of age. Ninety-one (89.22%) endoscopies were performed in patients with low surgical risk (ASA I-II) and 11 (10.78%) in patients with high surgical risk. The medication was administered by the endoscopist that performed the procedure and the assistant nurse. RESULTS: The mean dose of propofol used was 72.14 mg for gastroscopies and 71.33 for colonoscopies (p = 0.92). The mean dose of propofol when infused alone was 84.81 mg whereas in combination with benzodiazepines/opioids was 66.93 mg (p = 0.06). The doses of propofol required were lower for those colonoscopies in which midazolam and/or meperidine was combined and in patients over 65 years of age (p = 0.006 y p = 0.001, respectively). Eleven (10.8%) minor complications were reported, and managed by the own endoscopist. Patients had no memories of the procedure. The tolerance rated by the endoscopist was excellent-good, fair, bad-very bad in 83, 5 and 12% of the gastroscopies and in 79, 8 and 13% of the colonoscopies respectively. Nevertheless bad tolerance did not hinder the completion of the procedure in any case. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of propofol by the endoscopist and the assistant nurse, is an effective and safe method of sedation in patients of low and high-risk as well as in elderly patients. The doses of propofol required for an adequate sedation were lower in patients over 65 years of age and for colonoscopies in which medication was combined.     

Prospective evaluation of adjunctive ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility in humans

Background and Aim:  Performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) at endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatogram (ERCP) is technically demanding and requires that the patient be well sedated. Droperidol is used as an adjunctive agent in patients who are difficult to sedate. Concerns regarding the safety profile of droperidol and its effects on sphincter of Oddi motility has resulted in the search for other potent sedative agents that do not influence SOM readings. Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, is increasingly being used as an adjunctive agent for conscious sedation. This study evaluates the effect of ketamine on sphincter of Oddi motility when used as an adjunctive sedative agent during ERCP.
Patients and Methods:  This is a prospective study of 30 consecutive patients undergoing SOM who were difficult to sedate and required adjunctive ketamine. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous administration of diazepam plus meperidine or a combination of diazepam plus meperidine and midazolam. After the initial two pull-throughs, 20 mg of ketamine was administered intravenously and the measurements were repeated 5 min later.
Results:  The basal pressures of the biliary sphincter and of the pancreatic sphincter were not significantly altered by ketamine. By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure ≥40 mmHg, concordance (normal vs abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after ketamine was seen in 28 patients (93%). Ketamine also did not lead to a difference in phasic wave amplitude, duration, or frequency. No complication was associated with ketamine use.
Conclusions:  Ketamine at 20 mg did not significantly affect SOM parameters. Further studies are required to confirm our preliminary findings before ketamine can be added to the armamentarium of agents used for performance of sphincter of Oddi manometry.     

Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases

OBJECTIVES: Propofol has certain advantages over benzodiazepines plus narcotics as sedation for endoscopy. In a few centers, propofol has reportedly been used in endoscopic procedures and administered by nurses supervised by gastroenterologists without attendance by anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists. METHODS: As part of our continuous quality improvement program, we prospectively recorded the doses of propofol and adverse reactions to the drug in our initial 2000 cases. In all cases propofol was administered by nurses who were supervised by gastroenterologists, with no involvement by an anesthesia specialist. RESULTS: The 2000 cases included 2222 procedures. There were five episodes of oxygen desaturation to <85%, four of which seemed to be related to excessive administration of propofol and were treated by brief (< 1 min) periods of mask ventilation. No patient required endotracheal intubation or hospital admission, or suffered long-term sequelae from propofol administration. There were no perforations in 977 colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol can be given safely by appropriately trained nurses under supervision by endoscopists. Technology that allows immediate detection of apnea would likely further improve its safety.     

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.