The use of propofol as a sedative agent in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: To assess the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing propofol with traditional sedative agents.RCTs comparing the effects of propofol and traditional sedative agents during gastrointestinal endoscopy were found on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Cardiopulmonary complications (i.e., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia, and apnea) and sedation profiles were assessed.Twenty-two original RCTs investigating a total of 1,798 patients, of whom 912 received propofol only and 886 received traditional sedative agents only, met the inclusion criteria. Propofol use was associated with shorter recovery (13 studies, 1,165 patients; WMD -19.75; 95% CI -27.65, 11.86) and discharge times (seven studies, 471 patients; WMD -29.48; 95% CI -44.13, -14.83), higher post-anesthesia recovery scores (four studies, 503 patients; WMD 2.03; 95% CI 1.59, 2.46), better sedation (nine studies, 592 patients; OR 4.78; 95% CI 2.56, 8.93), and greater patient cooperation (six studies, 709 patients; WMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.53, 2.02), as well as more local pain on injection (six studies, 547 patients; OR 10.19; 95% CI 3.93, 26.39). Effects of propofol on cardiopulmonary complications, procedure duration, amnesia, pain during endoscopy, and patient satisfaction were not found to be significantly different from those of traditional sedative agents.Propofol is safe and effective for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures and is associated with shorter recovery and discharge periods, higher post-anesthesia recovery scores, better sedation, and greater patient cooperation than traditional sedation, without an increase in cardiopulmonary complications. Care should be taken when extrapolating our results to specific practice settings and high-risk patient subgroups.
Project description:Dexmedetomidine, as a sole or combinable sedative, has served in pediatric sedation undergoing MRI. However, clinical effects of dexmedetomidine are still controversial. This meta-analysis was to assess the effects between dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing MRI, especially outcomes and adverse events of patients. Multiple Electronic Database searched including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library, and updated to April 2015. All statistical analysis utilized review manager to perform, the Cochrane collaboration's software preparation and maintenance of Cochrane systematic reviews. Five trials with a total of 337 patients were included. Compared with propofol group, dexmedetomidine significantly increased the recovery time (WMD: 10.70 min; 95% CI: 4.26-17.13; P = 0.001). The duration of sedation did not appear to decrease for the patients who received dexmedetomidine than for those who received propofol (WMD: 19.96 min; 95% CI: -4.12-44.04; P = 0.1). There were statistically significant increased in the pediatric anesthesia emergence Delirium scores of 5-min after awakening (WMD: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.81; P = 0.0008) and 10-min after awakening (WMD: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.81 to 4.31; P < 0.00001) in patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine than propofol. Improved the prognosis of patients, nonetheless, dexmedetomidine must have an indispensable role to undergoing pediatric MRI scanning. Compared with propofol, however, dexmedetomidine did not induce the duration of sedation and might lead to a longer recovery time.
Project description:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a widely applied diagnostic approach for detection of pediatric diseases. Sedatives are commonly used to acquire the accurate MRI images. Dexmedetomidine and propofol serve as sole or combined sedatives in pediatric MRI scanning. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and propofol in children ubdergoing MRI. Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched up to June, 2017. Onset of sedation time, recovery time, sedation time, MRI time, MRI quality and emergence delirium were analyzed. 6 studies with 368 subjects were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooling data showed that propofol had a shorter onset of sedation time (WMD: 6.05, 95% CI: 3.12 - 8.98, P < 0.0001) and recovery time (WMD: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.36-1.67, P < 0.001) than dexmedetomidine. But for sedation time and MRI scanning time, there were no differences between the two groups (sedation time: P = 0.29; MRI scanning time: P = 0.50). There were no significance between dexmedetomidine and propofol on MRI quality (MRI quality 1: P = 1.00; MRI quality 2: P = 0.68; MRI quality 3: P = 0.45). Two studies using Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) to assess emergence delirium 10 minutes after awakening showed that propofol had a lower PAED than dexmedetomidine (WMD: 2.57, 95% CI: 0.15-5.00, P = 0.04). Thus, propofol should be encouraged in pediatric patients undergoing MRI for its better sedative effects and a low incidence of emergence delirium.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy. METHODS:Randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:Five studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol. CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.
Project description:Objectives:We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods:A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge. Results:There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child-Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001). Conclusion:The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>According to current guidelines flexible bronchoscopy is usually performed under sedation. Previously it has been demonstrated that combined sedation with e. g. the combination of midazolam and propofol or an opioid might have several advantages over sedation with just one sedative drug. However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of combined sedation with midazolam, fentanyl and propofol (MFP) compared to sedation with midazolam and fentanyl (MF) or midazolam and propofol (MP).<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a retrospective analysis of bronchoscopies performed under triple (MFP) or double sedation (MF and MP) in an academic hospital. 1392 procedures were analyzed (MFP: n = 824; MF: n = 272; MP: n = 296). In particular, we compared the occurrence of complications and the dosage of administered sedative drugs between the groups.<h4>Results</h4>The occurrence of adverse events (MFP vs. MF: odds ratio (OR) 1.116 [95% CI 0.7741 to 1.604]; MFP vs. MP: OR 0.8296 [95% CI 0.5939 to 1.16] and severe adverse events (MFP vs. MF: OR 1.581 [95% CI 0.5594 to 4.336]; MFP vs. MP: OR 3.47 [95% CI 0.908 to 15.15]; all p>0.05) was similar in all groups. The dosage of midazolam was lower in the MFP compared to the MF or MP group (MFP vs. MF: Cohen's d 0.075; MFP vs. MP: Cohen's d 0.225; all p<0.001). In addition patients in the MFP group received significantly less propofol compared to the MP group (Cohen's d 1.22; p<0.001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>In summary we were able to demonstrate that triple sedation can safely be administered during flexible bronchoscopy and is associated with a reduced dosage of midazolam and propofol.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Outcomes associated with a sedative regimen comprised ketamine + propofol for pediatric procedural sedation outside of both the pediatric emergency department and operating room are underreported. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to describe a multicenter experience with ketamine + propofol by pediatric sedation providers. DESIGN:Prospective observational study of children receiving IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation outside of the operating room and emergency department using data abstracted from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium during 2007-2015. SETTING:Procedural sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals, and pediatric wards within general hospitals. PATIENTS:Children from birth to less than or equal to 21 years old. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 7,313 pediatric procedural sedations were performed using IV ketamine + propofol as the primary sedative regimen. Median age was 84 months (range, < 1 mo to ? 21 yr; interquartile range, 36-144); 80.6% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedation was performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (76.1%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.8% of patients. Anticholinergics (glycopyrrolate and atropine) or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) were used in 14.2% and 41.3%, respectively. The overall adverse event and serious adverse event rates were 9.79% (95% CI, 9.12-10.49%) and 3.47% (95% CI, 3.07-3.92%), respectively. No deaths occurred. Risk factors associated with an increase in odds of adverse event included ASA status greater than or equal to III, dental suite, cardiac catheterization laboratory or radiology/sedation suite location, a primary diagnosis of having a gastrointestinal illness, and the coadministration of an anticholinergic. CONCLUSIONS:Using Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium data, we describe the diverse use of IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation in the largest reported cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective randomized, double-blind studies comparing outcomes of sedation between commonly administered sedative and analgesic medication regimens.
Project description:Sedative and analgesic practices in intensive care units (ICUs) are frequently based on anesthesia regimes but do not take account of the important patient related factors. Pharmacologic properties of sedatives and analgesics change when used as continuous infusions in ICU compared to bolus or short-term infusions during anesthesia. In a prospective observational cohort study, we investigated the association between patient related factors and sedatives/analgesics doses in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and their association with cessation of sedation/analgesia. We included patients expected to receive MV for at least 24 hours and excluded those with difficulty in assessing the depth of sedation. We collected data for the first 72 hours or until extubation, whichever occurred first. Multivariate analysis of variance, multivariate regression as well as logistic regression were used. The final cohort (N = 576) was predominantly male (64%) with mean (SD) age 61.7 (15.6) years, weight 63.4 (18.2) Kg, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 28.2 (8) and 30% hospital mortality. Increasing age was associated with reduced propofol and fentanyl doses requirements, adjusted to the weight (p<0.001). Factors associated with higher propofol and fentanyl doses were vasopressor use (Relative mean difference (RMD) propofol 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-1.90); fentanyl 1.48 (1.25-1.76) and central venous line placement (CVL, RMD propofol 1.64 (1.15-2.33); fentanyl 1.41 (1.03-1.91). Male gender was also associated with higher propofol dose (RMD 1.27 (1.06-1.49). Sedation cessation was less likely to occur in restrained patients (Odds Ratio, OR 0.48 (CI 0.30-0.78) or those receiving higher sedative/analgesic doses (OR propofol 0.98 (CI 0.97-0.99); fentanyl 0.99 (CI 0.98-0.997), independent of depth of sedation. In conclusion, increasing age is associated with the use of lower doses of sedative/analgesic in ICU, whereas CVL and vasopressor use were associated with higher doses.
Project description:Gastrointestinal endoscopies are invasive and unpleasant procedures that are increasingly being used worldwide. The importance of high quality procedures (especially in colorectal cancer screening), the increasing patient awareness and the expectation of painless examination, increase the need for procedural sedation. The best single sedation agent for endoscopy is propofol which, due to its' pharmacokinetic/dynamic profile allows for a higher patient satisfaction and procedural quality and lower induction and recovery times, while maintaining the safety of traditional sedation. Propofol is an anesthetic agent when used in higher doses than those needed for endoscopy. Because of this important feature it may lead to cardiovascular and respiratory depression and, ultimately, to cardiac arrest and death. Fueled by this argument, concern over the safety of its administration by personnel without general anesthesia training has arisen. Propofol usage seems to be increasing but it's still underused. It is a safe alternative for simple endoscopic procedures in low risk patients even if administered by non-anesthesiologists. Evidence on propofol safety in complex procedures and high risk patients is less robust and in these cases, the presence of an anesthetist should be considered. We review the existing evidence on the topic and evaluate the regional differences on sedation practices.
Project description:Objectives:To examine the impact of endoscopy setting (hospital-based vs. office-based) on sedation/analgesia administration and to provide nationwide data on monitoring practices among Greek gastroenterologists in real-world settings. Material and Methods. A web-based survey regarding sedation/analgesia rates and monitoring practices during endoscopy either in a hospital-based or in an office-based setting was disseminated to the members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology and Professional Association of Gastroenterologists. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 35 items, stratified into 4 sections: demographics, preprocedure (informed consent, initial patient evaluation), intraprocedure (monitoring practices, sedative agents' administration rate), and postprocedure practices (recovery). Results:211 individuals responded (response rate: 40.3%). Propofol use was significantly higher in the private hospital compared to the public hospital and the office-based setting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (85.8% vs. 19.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.0001) and colonoscopy (88.2% vs. 20.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.0001). This effect was not detected for midazolam, pethidine, and fentanyl use. Endoscopists themselves administered the medications in most cases. However, a significant contribution of anesthesiology sedation/analgesia provision was detected in private hospitals (14.7% vs. 2.8% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the other settings. Only 35.2% of the private offices have a separate recovery room, compared to 80.4% and 58.7% of the private hospital- and public hospital-based facilities, respectively, while the nursing personnel monitored patients' recovery in most of the cases. Participants were familiar with airway management techniques (83.9% with bag valve mask and 23.2% with endotracheal intubation), while 49.7% and 21.8% had received Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) training, respectively. Conclusion:The private hospital-based setting is associated with higher propofol sedation administration both for EGD and for colonoscopy. Greek endoscopists are adequately trained in airway management techniques.
Project description:The importance of providing effective analgesia during sedation for complex endoscopic procedures has been widely recognized. However, repeated administration of opioids in order to achieve sufficient analgesia may carry the risk of delayed recovery after propofol based sedation. This study was done to compare recovery profiles and the satisfaction of the endoscopists and patients between conventional balanced propofol sedation and analgesia-oriented combination sedation for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Two hundred and two adult patients scheduled for ERCP were sedated by either the Conventional (initial bolus of meperidine with propofol infusion) or Combination (repeated bolus doses of fentanyl with propofol infusion) method. Recovery profiles, satisfaction levels of the endoscopists and patients, drug requirements and complications were compared between groups.Patients of the Combination Group required significantly less propofol compared to the Conventional Group (135.0 ± 68.8 mg vs. 165.3 ± 81.7 mg, P = 0.005). Modified Aldrete scores were not different between groups throughout the recovery period, and recovery times were also comparable between groups. Satisfaction scores were not different between the two groups in both the endoscopists and patients (P = 0.868 and 0.890, respectively).Considering the significant reduction in propofol dose, the non-inferiority of recovery profiles and satisfaction scores of the endoscopists and patients, analgesia oriented combination sedation may be a more safe yet effective sedative method compared to conventional balanced propofol sedation during ERCP.