Safer colonoscopy with patient-controlled analgesia and sedation with propofol and alfentanil. Patient-controlled sedation with propofol for colonoscopy. Patient-controlled sedation for colonoscopy: a randomized trial comparing patient-controlled administration of propofol and alfentanil with physician-administered midazolam and pethidine. Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol versus midazolam and pethidine in colonoscopies: a prospective, randomized study. Patient-controlled sedation and analgesia, using propofol and alfentanil, during colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. [Comparison of 2 anesthetic protocols in colonoscopy on a series of 100 patients]. Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anaesthesia care during colonoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol-alfentanil sedation using a patient-controlled analgesia pump compared with opioid-benzodiazepine sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. [Propofol narcosis for endoscopy--more dangerous than midazolam?]. Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care? Synergistic sedation with low-dose midazolam and propofol for colonoscopies.
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.
                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.
                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).
                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. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) allows the patient to titrate the dosage of sedative drugs according to need.
                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.
                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.
                PCS with propofol is effective and results in high patient satisfaction and faster discharge. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol and alfentanil provides effective sedation for colonoscopy, with the advantage of a shorter recovery time in comparison with diazepam and pethidine. However, most endoscopy units in the United Kingdom are currently using midazolam (a shorter-acting benzodiazepine) as a sedative agent. This study compares the efficacy of sedation and recovery times between PCS and a combination of midazolam and pethidine.
                Sixty-seven patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned prospectively to receive sedation with either PCS, using propofol and alfentanil, or a bolus of midazolam and pethidine. Sedation and pain scores were recorded during the procedure by one specialist nurse. Patients' recollection of pain was recorded after the procedure. Recovery was assessed using number connection tests. The impact on subsequent activities and the level of amnesia, as well as overall satisfaction, were established by telephone call after 24 h.
                The sedation method had no impact on the success, difficulty, or duration of the colonoscopy. PCS could be set up by the specialist nurse without affecting the time between cases. Patients in the PCS group recovered significantly faster (median 5 min vs 35 min; P < 0.0001) and left the department more quickly (median 40 min vs 75 min; P < 0.0001). Patients in the PCS group had significantly higher pain scores and significantly more recall than those in the midazolam and pethidine group. All patients were satisfied with the sedation they received.
                PCS provides an acceptable alternative to sedation with midazolam and pethidine with the advantage of significantly faster recovery times, which are of relevance in the outpatient setting. Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures.
                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.
                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.
                For outpatient colonoscopy, propofol administered by nurses and supervised by endoscopists has several advantages over midazolam plus meperidine and deserves additional investigation. Propofol is under evaluation as a sedative for endoscopic procedures. We compared nurse-administered propofol to midazolam plus fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy.
                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.
                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).
                Nurse-administered propofol resulted in several advantages for outpatient colonoscopy compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, but did not improve patient satisfaction. The aim of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the synergistic sedation with a low dose of midazolam combined with propofol versus the standard regimen of midazolam and pethidine for conscious sedation in colonoscopy in a group of patients that included a sufficient number of elderly patients with several comorbidities.
                A total of 120 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in a prospective study were randomly assigned to one of two medication regimens (55 patients were over 65 yr). Patients in group A (n = 64) received i.v. 2 mg (<70 kg b.w.) or 3 mg (>70 kg b.w.) of midazolam and a median dose of 80 mg of propofol (range 40-150). Patients in group B (n = 56) received i.v. a median dose of 5 mg of midazolam (range 3-7) and 75 mg of pethidine (range 50-125). The patient's comfort level was assessed by a 4-point scale 24 h after the procedure. The time to recover from sedation was assessed at 5, 10, and 30 min after the procedure by using the Aldrete score.
                Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, duration of the test, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status Classification grade, and the sort of sedation, the synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol was the only factor associated with a higher level of patient comfort (chi2 = 5.5, p < 0.05). Additional multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that among sex, age, duration of the test, American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status Classification grade, and the sort of sedation, the synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol was the only factor associated with a quicker patient recovery time (chi2 = 24.5, p < 0.01; chi2 = 51.7, p < 0.01; chi2 = 148.4, p < 0.01 for Aldrete in 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min, respectively). The endoscopist's evaluation of patient sedation and cardiorespiratory parameters were similar in both groups and in all age groups.
                Our data suggest that the synergistic sedation with a low dose of midazolam combined with propofol was superior to a standard combination of midazolam and the opioid pethidine for colonoscopies as far as the patient comfort and recovery times are concerned. Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) enables titration of dosage to an individual's requirements and is potentially useful in colonoscopy. The aim was to compare the value of patient-controlled sedation, using propofol and alfentanil, with that of intravenous diazemuls and pethidine during colonoscopy.
                Following randomization, 66 patients undergoing colonoscopy received either an intravenous bolus of pethidine (50 mg) and diazemuls (10-20 mg) prior to colonoscopy or were connected to an infusion pump containing propofol (10 mg/ml) and alfentanil (25 microg/ml). Patients self-administered 0.5 ml boluses as often as they required. Pain and sedation score were recorded by a nurse specialist and on a patient questionnaire. An anaesthetist was present throughout the procedure.
                PCS provided lighter sedation (median sedation score, 3 versus 4; P=0.0001), less analgesia (median pain score, 1 versus 0; P=0.004), a smaller maximum fall in systolic blood pressure (23 mmHg versus 33 mmHg; P=0.02) and a faster recovery time (median 10 min versus 40 min; P=0.0001), irrespective of the dose administered, compared with a diazemuls-pethidine combination. The duration of the procedure was unaffected. All patients were satisfied with their level of sedation.
                Patient-controlled sedation is an effective alternative to premedication with narcotic/benzodiazepine combinations during colonoscopy. The quality of the anaesthesia and of the recovery (appreciated by Newman's test) of two anesthetic technics for colonoscopies are compared on two homogeneous groups from 50 patients each: propofol alone versus midazolam-alfentanyl association. The differences registered during anaesthesia, particularly concerning the breathing depression might be attributed to alfentanyl which has been used often at important doses. The recovery is delayed in the midazolam + alfentanyl's group in comparison with the propofol's group. The difference is very significant at 15 and 60 minutes. The use's safety and the fast recovery with propofol incite to advocate it as an unique+ anaesthetic agent for colonoscopies. We conducted an open, prospective, randomized study to compare the efficacy, safety and recovery characteristics of remifentanil or propofol during monitored anaesthesia care in patients undergoing colonoscopy.
                Forty patients were randomly assigned to receive either propofol (1 mg kg(-1) followed by 10 mg kg (-1) h(-1), n = 20) or remifentanil (0.5 microg kg(-1) followed by 0.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1), n = 20). The infusion rate was subsequently adapted to clinical needs.
                In the propofol group, arterial pressure and heart rate decreased significantly from the baseline. These variables remained unchanged in the remifentanil group, but hypoventilation occurred in 55% of patients. Early recovery was delayed in the propofol group (P < 0.002). Recovery of cognitive and psychomotor functions was faster in the remifentanil group. Fifteen minutes after anaesthesia, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test score was 28.6 +/- 12.8 versus 36.2 +/- 9.4 and the Trieger Dot Test score was 25.6 +/- 8.1 versus 18.7 +/- 4.1 in the propofol and remifentanil groups, respectively (both P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction, using a visual analogue scale, was higher in the propofol group (96 +/- 7 versus 77 +/- 21, P < 0.001).
                Remifentanil proved efficient in reducing pain during colonoscopy. Emergence times were shorter and the recovery of cognitive function was faster with remifentanil compared with propofol. Remifentanil provided a smoother haemodynamic profile than propofol; however, the frequent occurrence of remifentanil-induced hypoventilation requires the cautious administration of this agent. Nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) and patient-controlled sedation using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps are gaining increasing popularity for gastrointestinal endoscopy. We compared the safety and efficacy of NAPS using PCA pumps with diazemuls-pethidine sedation (DPS) for outpatient colonoscopy.
                In a prospective randomized controlled trial patients underwent outpatient colonoscopy with sedation by either NAPS or DPS. For NAPS, following intravenous loading of 0.8 mg/kg propofol, mixtures of 14.3 mg propofol and 35 microgram alfentanil were titrated by nurses using a PCA pump. For DPS, 0.1 mg/kg diazemuls and 0.5 mg/kg pethidine were given as intravenous bolus; further titration was administered as half doses at the endoscopist's discretion. Adequacy of sedation was measured by the Observer's Scale for Sedation and Alertness (OSSA) score (range 1-5).
                Between July 2005 and June 2006, 88 patients were randomly allocated to NAPS and 90 to DPS. The groups were comparable for baseline characteristics and procedure time. With NAPS, levels of sedation both during colonoscopic intubation and at reaching the cecum were significantly deeper than with DPS (OSSA 3 vs. 5, P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary complication rates, pain scores, satisfaction scores, and patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same sedation. Drugs cost for NAPS was higher than for DPS (Hong Kong dollars [HKD] 98.34 vs. 5.01).
                Despite higher costs, nurse-administered propofol-alfentanil sedation using a PCA pump can provide deeper conscious sedation, comparable satisfaction, and similar complication risks compared with conventional opioid-benzodiazepine sedation. nan This prospective, randomized trial was designed to test the hypothesis that continuous infusion of low-dose remifentanil can provide effective analgesia, sedation, amnesia, patient comfort and stable recovery profile without respiratory depression when compared with propofol infusion during colonoscopy.
                One hundred patients were randomly assigned to receive either remifentanil (group R, 0.5 microg/kg followed by 0.05 microg/kg/min, n = 50) or propofol (group P, 0.5 mg/kg followed by 50 microg/kg/min, n = 50). Supplemental doses of remifentanil 12.5 microg in group R and propofol 10 mg in group P were given to treat complaints of moderate to severe pain and discomfort. Hemodynamic and respiratory data, pain, discomfort and sedation scores, patient and gastroenterologist satisfaction and recovery profiles were recorded.
                The duration of colonoscopy was longer in group P. The mean arterial pressure, heart rate and end-tidal CO2 remained stable during the procedure and were comparable between the groups. After bolus injection of the study drugs, the respiratory rate and oxygen saturation values were lower in group R than in group P. Only one patient in group R required airway support. Pain and discomfort scores were better in group R than in group P. Sedation levels were higher in group P than in group R. Group P needed more supplemental doses than group R. The time to reach an Aldrete score of nine or more was shorter in group R, but discharge times were similar in the two groups. Amnesia was better in group P. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent in group R during the recovery phase.
                Low-dose remifentanil infusion with intermittent bolus injections can provide adequate sedation, amnesia and better analgesia than propofol infusion during colonoscopy. However, remifentanil-induced nausea and vomiting may be a problem during the recovery phase. Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often sedated with benzodiazepines and long-acting opiates. Since low-dose midazolam also acts synergistically with short-acting propofol, we compared this synergistic sedation with a standard combination of midazolam and the opioid nalbuphine for colonoscopies.
                A total of 79 patients presenting for colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the following protocols. Patients in group I (n = 32) received a median dose of 9 mg midazolam (interquartile range [IQR] 6 to 12); 20 patients (59%) needed additional nalbuphine (median 20 mg, IQR 10 to 20). Patients in group II (n = 47) received 2 mg midazolam and repeated injections of propofol (median 100 mg, IQR 53 to 145) with a maximal bolus of 50 mg.
                Patients treated with the synergistic sedation (group II) recovered remarkably sooner after the procedure compared with those in group I, with a median time to discharge of 17 minutes vs. 93 minutes (P<0.001). Of the patients treated with analgosedation (group I), 28 % were unable to take part in a reaction time measurement and attention awareness test 1 hour after the procedure. All patients treated with the synergistic sedation were able to participate (P=0.002), and performed better. Despite a lower proportion of complete amnesia, patients treated with synergistic sedation more often rated the procedure as comfortable (81% vs. 50 %). Quality of sedation from the point of view of the endoscopist, and cardiorespiratory parameters, were similar in both groups.
                Low-dose midazolam combined with propofol is an effective and economic alternative to benzodiazepine-based analgosedation. It is associated with a high degree of patient comfort and rapid recovery times, and has a potential cost benefit concerning nursing care and bed facilities.