Nonanesthesiologist-Administered Propofol Versus Midazolam and Propofol, Titrated to Moderate Sedation, for Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- 487 Downloads
Nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) is controversial due to deep sedation concerns.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of moderate sedation with two different NAAP regimens for colonoscopy.
This was a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial allocating 135 consecutive outpatients to placebo (group P) or midazolam 2 mg (group M+P) before NAAP targeted to moderate sedation. Depth of sedation every 2 min throughout the procedure, propofol doses, recovery times, complications and patient and endoscopist satisfaction were measured.
A total of 84 % of assessments of the depth of sedation were moderate. Mean induction (76 [40–150] vs. 53 [30–90]) and total propofol doses (mg) (136 [60–270] vs. 104 [50–190]) were significantly higher for group P (p < 0.001). However, deep sedation was significantly more prevalent in group M+P in minutes 4 (16 vs. 1 %, p = 0.05), 6 (20 vs. 3.5 %, p = 0.046) and 8 (17 vs. 1.8 %, p = 0.06) of the procedure, coinciding with midazolam peak action. From minute 8 on, moderate sedation was significantly deeper for M+P (p = 0.002). Early recovery time (6.8 min vs. 5.2, p = 0.007), but not discharge time (10.4 min vs. 9.8, p = 0.5), was longer for M+P. Pain perception (P 1.03 vs. M+P 0.3, p = 0.009) and patient satisfaction scores (P 9.4 vs. M+P 9.8, p = 0.047) were better for M+P. No major complications occurred.
Moderate sedation was feasible with both NAAP regimens. Drug synergy in the midazolam plus propofol sedation regimen promotes a deeper and longer moderate sedation, improving patient satisfaction rates but prolonging early recovery time (Clinical Trials gov NCT01428882).
KeywordsPropofol Midazolam Colonoscopy Moderate sedation Non-anesthesiologist
American Society of Anesthesiology
Balanced propofol sedation
Observer assessment of alertness/sedation
We are indebted to the hard work and dedication of the endoscopy nurses (Rosa Benito, Elena Luengo, Sara Martinez y Paula Santisteban) who participated in this study.
Conflict of interest
- 2.Singh H, Poluha W, Cheung M, et al. Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4:CD006268.Google Scholar
- 4.Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2010;42:960–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.American Society of Anesthesiologists. Task force on sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by noon-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1004–1017.Google Scholar
- 18.American Society of Anesthesiology. Statement on safe use of propofol. Available from http://www.asahq.org/For-Members/Standards-Guidelines-and-Statements.aspx. Accessed 10 May 2012.
- 21.Porostocky P, Chiba N, Colacino P, Sadowski D, Singh H. A survey of sedation practices for colonoscopy in Canada. Canad J Gastroenterol. 2011;25:255–260.Google Scholar
- 22.Riphaus A, Macias-Gomez C, Deviere J, Dumonceau JM. Propofol, the preferred sedation for screening colonoscopy, is underused. Results of an international survey. Dig Liv Dis. 2012;44:389–92.Google Scholar