Evaluation of bispectral index monitoring efficacy in endoscopic patients who underwent retrograde cholangiopancreatography and received sedoanalgesia.
ABSTRACT: Introduction:Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring provides an objective, non-invasive measurement of the level of consciousness in a sedated patient. Aim:In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate the hypothesis that risk of respiratory depression could be reduced and the desired level of sedation with minimal doses of propofol could be achieved by using BIS monitoring in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Material and methods:Sixty patients in the ASA 1-2 category, who were scheduled for an ERCP with sedation, were randomly divided into two groups. The procedure was performed, and sedation was administered so that the patient's Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) would be 4-5 in the first group (group 1) and the patient's BIS value would be 65-75 in the second group (group 2). Cardiopulmonary complications, the total duration of the procedure, and the total amount of propofol administered were recorded. Results:The mean SpO2 measurements at the third minute, fifth minute, and 10th minute were higher in the BIS group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.05). The mean number of respirations during the third, fifth, 10th, and 15th minute of sedation was significantly higher in the RSS group than in the BIS group (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in terms of recovery time, total propofol amount, and additional doses of bolus propofol. Conclusions:BIS monitoring during sedation with propofol for ERCP did not reduce total propofol use, but it may be an efficient guide for the timing of additional dose administration, which could reduce the risk of respiratory depression, and it could be used safely as an objective method in the follow-up of level of sedation.
Project description:Appropriate sedation benefits patients by reducing the stress response, but it requires an appropriate method of assessment to adjust the dosage of sedatives. The aim of this study was to compare the difference in the sedation of mechanically ventilated patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy (FB) monitored by auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) or the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS).In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, all patients who underwent FB with propofol sedation were monitored and their sedation adjusted. During FB, one group was monitored by AEP and another group was monitored by RSS. The propofol dosage was adjusted by the nursing staff during examination to maintain the Alaris AEP index (AAI) value between 25 and 40 in the AEP group and the RSS at 5 or 6 in the RSS group. Before FB and during FB, the AAI, heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded every 5 min. The percentages of time at the sedation target and the propofol dosages were calculated.Nineteen patients received AEP monitoring and 18 patients received RSS monitoring. The percentage of time at the sedation target during FB was significantly higher in the AEP monitoring group (51.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 47.0-63.5%) than in the RSS group (15.4%; IQR, 9.5-23.4%), (P < 0.001). During FB, the RSS group had a significantly higher AAI (P = 0.011), HR (P < 0.001), and MAP (P < 0.001) than the AEP group.In mechanically ventilated patients undergoing FB, AEP monitoring resulted in less variation in AAI, HR, and MAP, and a higher percentage of time at the sedation target than RSS monitoring.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex endoscopic procedure that requires moderate to deep sedation. Propofol is the sedative agent of choice for sedation in ERCP due to its fast distribution and fast elimination time without a cumulative effect after infusion, resulting in shorter recovery time. Benzydamine hydrochloride is a topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that has analgesic, local anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory effects that have been known to be effective in reducing postoperative sore throat. Combination of propofol and topical analgesic may provide adequate sedation and reduce propofol consumption. This study aimed to determine the effectivity of benzydamine hydrochloride gargling in reducing propofol consumption in the ERCP procedure. METHODS:This study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial for patients undergoing ERCP procedures at Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital from August to September 2018. A total of 72 subjects were recruited consecutively and randomly assigned into two groups. The first group received 15?mL of 0.15% benzydamine hydrochloride mouthwash prior to the procedure, whereas the second group received 15?mL of water mouthwash. Additional propofol was administered when patient moved or Ramsay Sedation Scale rose above 4. Cumulative propofol consumption per kg body weight per minute and incidence of postoperative sore throat were recorded in each group. Incidence of desaturation, postoperative nausea vomitting, and dysphagia were also recorded. Data analysis was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS:Cumulative propofol consumption per minute per kg body weight in the benzydamine hydrochloride group was 152.7 (91.9-238.8) mcg/kg/minute, while in the control group was 200.05 (114.4-380.2) mcg/kg/ minute (p?=?<?0.001). The incidence of sore throat on the 0th, 2nd, and 4th hour for the benzydamine hydrochloride group was 11.4, 11.4, and 5.7%, while in the control group was 50, 52.8, and 36.1% (p?=?<?0.001, <?0.001, 0.003). Desaturation was found in control group whereas none in benzydamine hydrochloride group. Complaints of nausea and vomiting were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION:Benzydamine hydrochloride gargling was effective in reducing cumulative propofol consumption in the ERCP procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Study was registered retrospectively in ClinicalTrials.gov with NCT04167592 on November 8th 2019.
Project description:Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and lengthy procedure requiring optimal depth of sedation. The bispectral index (BIS) monitor is a non-invasive tool that objectively evaluates the depth of sedation. The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to evaluate whether BIS guided sedation with propofol and remifentanil could reduce the number of patients requiring rescue propofol, and thus reduce the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.A total of 180 patients who underwent the ESD procedure for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer were randomized to two groups. The control group (n=90) was monitored by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale and the BIS group (n=90) was monitored using BIS. The total doses of propofol and remifentanil, the need for rescue propofol, and the rates of complications were recorded.The number of patients who needed rescue propofol during the procedure was significantly higher in the control group than the BIS group (47.8% vs. 30.0%, p=0.014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of sedation- and/or procedure-related complications.BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with remifentanil reduced the number of patients requiring rescue propofol in ESD procedures. However, this finding did not lead to clinical benefits and thus BIS monitoring is of limited use during anesthesiologist-directed sedation.
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.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires moderate to deep sedation, usually with propofol. Adverse effects of propofol sedation are relatively common, such as respiratory and cardiovascular depression. This study was conducted to determine if doxapram, a respiratory stimulant, could be used to reduce the incidence of respiratory depression. METHODS:This is a single-center, prospective randomized double-blind study performed in the endoscopy unit of Helsinki University Central Hospital. 56 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either receive doxapram as an initial 1 mg/kg bolus and an infusion of 1 mg/kg/h (group DOX) or placebo (group P) during propofol sedation for ERCP. Main outcome measures were apneic episodes and hypoxemia (SpO2?<?90%). Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for discrete variables were used and mixed effects modeling to take into account repeated measurements on the same subject and comparing both changes within a group as a function of time and between the groups. RESULTS:There were no statistically significant differences in apneic episodes (p?=?0.18) or hypoxemia (p?=?0.53) between the groups. There was a statistically significant rise in etCO2 levels in both groups, but the rise was smaller in group P. There was a statistically significant rise in Bispectral Index (p?=?0.002) but not modified Observer's Assessment of Agitation/Sedation (p?=?0.21) in group P. There were no statistically significant differences in any other measured parameters. CONCLUSIONS:Doxapram was not effective in reducing respiratory depression caused by deep propofol sedation during ERCP. Further studies are warranted using different sedation protocols and dosing regimens. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02171910.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The bispectral index (BIS) has been used to monitor sedation during spinal anesthesia. We evaluated the correlation between BIS and the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine, propofol, or midazolam. METHODS:This prospective, randomized study included 46 patients scheduled for knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia with sedation. The patients were randomized to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine (n?=?15), propofol (n?=?15), or midazolam (n?=?16). Correlation between BIS and OAA/S was assessed during sedation in the three groups. RESULTS:A linear correlation was observed between BIS and OAA/S, and there was no significant difference in BIS score between the groups during mild to moderate sedation status (OAA/S 3-5). During deep sedation (OAA/S 1-2), the BIS score in the midazolam group was significantly higher than that in the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups (74.4?±?11.9 vs 67.7?±? 9.5 vs 62.6?±?12.2). CONCLUSIONS:BIS values differed at the same level of sedation between different sedative agents. Objective sedation scores should therefore be used in combination with BIS values for the assessment of sedation levels during spinal anesthesia.
Project description:Aim:To compare the effects of propofol/remifentanil and meperidine/midazolam on postprocedure cognitive function. Materials and methods:A total of 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score I to III patients undergoing elective colonoscopy were taken into the study and divided into two groups. Exclusion criteria were patient refusal, mini mental test (MMT) <26, The Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) >10, advanced cardiopulmonary or psychiatric disease, chronic alcohol abuse, morbid obesity, and known allergy to study drugs. In group MM, 2 mg midazolam and 20 mg meperidine was given intravenously and additional 1 to 2 mg midazolam and 20 mg meperidine (with a maximum total of 5 mg midazolam and 50 mg meperidine) was given when bispectral index (BIS) was >80. In group RP, 100 ?g/kg/minute propofol infusion and 1 ?g/kg remifentanil bolus was administered and additional 0.5 ?g/kg remifentanil bolus was given when BIS was >80. Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (OAA/S) and Facial Pain Score (FPS) values were recorded. Cognitive function was measured by Trieger Dot Test (TDT) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). Results:The study was concluded with 100 patients. Heart rate was slower and BIS values were lower in group RP throughout the procedure. Blood pressure was lower in group RP without clinical significance. There was no difference concerning recovery time and visual analog scores (VASs). In group MM, TDT scores were higher and DSST scores were lower. Satisfaction was higher in group RP. Conclusion:Propofol/remifentanil combination is better than meperidine/midazolam combination concerning cognitive function in sedation for colonoscopy. Clinical significance:The addition of BIS monitorization to evaluate the depth of sedation and the negative effects of midazolam meperidine combination on postprocedural cognitive function.How to cite this article: Ekmekci P, Erkan G, Yilmaz H, Kazbek BK, Koksoy UC, Doganay G, Tüzüner F. Effect of Different Sedation Regimes on Cognitive Functions in Colonoscopy. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(2):158-162.
Project description:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the UK has been historically performed under conscious sedation. However, given the increasing complexity of cases, the role of propofol-assisted ERCP (propERCP) is increasing. We describe our experience of propERCP and highlight the importance of this service.Our prospective ERCP database was interrogated between January 2013 and January 2014. Data collection included procedural information, patient demographics, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status, Cotton grade of endoscopic difficulty and endoscopic and anaesthetic complications. Comparison was made with patients undergoing conscious sedation ERCP (sedERCP).744 ERCPs were performed in 629 patients (53% male). 161 ERCPs were performed under propofol. PropERCP patients were younger compared with the sedERCP group (54 vs 66 years, p<0.0001) but ASA grade 1-2 status was similar (84% vs 78%, p=0.6). An increased number of Cotton grade 3-4 ERCPs were performed in the propERCP group (64% vs 34%, p<0.0001). Indications for propERCP included sphincter of Oddi manometry (27%), previously poorly tolerated sedERCP (26%), cholangioscopy (21%) and patient request (8%). 77% of cases were elective, 12% were urgent day-case transfers and 11% were urgent inpatients. 59% of cases were tertiary referrals. ERCP was completed successfully in 95% of cases. Anaesthetic and endoscopic complications were comparable between the two groups (5% and 7% vs 3% and 5%). Where sedERCP had been unsuccessful due to patient intolerance, the procedure was completed successfully using propofol.PropERCP is safe and is associated with high endoscopic success. The need for propERCP is likely to increase given patient preference and the high proportion of complex procedures being undertaken. All endoscopy units should look to incorporate propofol-assisted endoscopy into aspects of their services.
Project description:ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP.ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n?=?103) and the controls (n?=?102). For induction, a combination of 25?mg of meperidine and 2.5?mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1?mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25?mg of meperidine or 2.5?mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation.In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2?mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03?mg/kg and 0.12?mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients' satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67?minutes and 12.89?minutes (P?=?0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal.Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients' satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01540084.
Project description:Several studies have suggested that the menstrual cycle has the impact on sedation. No previous study has evaluated the effects of the menstrual cycle on sedation level and propofol requirement with preoperative intravenous dexmedetomidine. Sixty-four adult fertile women receiving general anesthesia for elective gynecologic surgery were included in the study. Patients were classified into four groups on the basis of the phase of menstrual cycle and whether infused dexmedetomidine preoperatively: Group FS: the follicular phase (days 8-12) and preoperative intravenous normal saline; Group FD: the follicular phase (days 8-12) and preoperative intravenous dexmedetomidine; Group LS: the luteal phase (days 20-24) and normal saline; Group LD: the luteal phase (days 20-24) and dexmedetomidine. The patients were infused respectively dexmedetomidine at 0, 1.0, 0 and 1.0 ?g/kg over 10 min, and then propofol TCI, which was administered with target plasma concentration at 4.0 ?g/ml. BIS, heart rate, MAP were recorded until BIS to 50. In the LD group, the descent range of the BIS values was significantly sharpest among the four groups at loss of eyelash reflex. From propofol administered to loss of eyelash reflex and BIS values reach to 50, propofol requirements were significantly least and duration were shortest in the LD group among the four groups. Menstrual cycle phases affect the sedation of propofol induction with preoperative intravenous dexmedetomidine, which is deeper in the luteal phase. We should cautious of excessive sedation by propofol anesthesia with preoperative dexmedetomidine in the luteal phase.