Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Remifentanil Compared with Midazolam and Pethidine Sedation During Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of remifentanil during colonoscopy with those of the standard combination of midazolam and pethidine.

Methods

One-hundred and sixteen consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly assigned to groups A or B. Patients in group A (n = 56) received intravenous (IV) midazolam and pethidine. Patients in group B (n = 60) received IV remifentanil.

Results

Recovery was faster in group B (0 min) than in group A (56 ± 11.3 min) (P < 0.001). There was a marked difference between groups B and A with regard to the time of hospital discharge—28.7 ± 4.3 and 148.9 ± 34 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients in group A rated the procedure as comfortable, as also did those in group B. A combination of midazolam and pethidine had a greater affect on patients’ cardiorespiratory characteristics.

Conclusion

Remifentanil during colonoscopy provides sufficient pain relief with better hemodynamic stability, less respiratory depression, and significantly faster recovery and hospital discharge than moderate sedation with midazolam and pethidine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rex DK (2006) Review article: moderate sedation for endoscopy: sedation regimens for non-anaesthesiologists. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24:163–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, Benson AA, Miller KM, Durkalski V, Aisenberg J (2006) Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol 101:967–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Paspatis GA, Manolaraki M, Xirouchakis G, Papanikolaou N, Chlouverakis G, Gritzali A (2002) Synergistic sedation with midazolam and propofol versus midazolam and pethidine in colonoscopies: a prospective, randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1963–1967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey PL, Pace NL, Ashburn MA, Moll JW, East KA, Stanley TH (1990) Frequent hypoxemia and apnea after sedation with midazolam and fentanyl. Anesthesiology 73:826–830

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel S, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Trolli P, Dumot JA, Conwell DL, Zuccaro G (2005) Deep sedation occurs frequently during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam. Am J Gastroenterol 100:2689–2695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rex DK (2004) The science and politics of propofol. Am J Gastroenterol 99:2080–2083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen LB, Dubovsky AN, Aisenberg J, Miller KM (2003) Propofol for endoscopic sedation: A protocol for safe and effective administration by the gastroenterologist. Gastrointest Endosc 58:725–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Paspatis GA, Charoniti I, Manolaraki M, Vardas E, Papanikolaou N, Anastasiadou A, Gritzali A (2006) Synergistic sedation with oral midazolam as a premedication and intravenous propofol versus intravenous propofol alone in upper gastrointestinal endoscopies in children: a prospective, randomized study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 43:195–199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Koch ME, Gevirtz C (2004) Propofol may be safely administered by trained nonanesthesiologists. Con: Propofol: far from harmless. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1208–1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bell GD, Quine A (2006) Preparation, premedication, and surveillance. Endoscopy 38:105–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lazzaroni M, Bianchi Porro G (2005) Preparation, premedication, and surveillance. Endoscopy 37:101–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Qadeer MA, Vargo JJ, Khandwala F, Lopez R, Zuccaro G (2005) Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:1049–1056

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. VanNatta ME, Rex DK (2006) Propofol alone titrated to deep sedation versus propofol in combination with opioids and/or benzodiazepines and titrated to moderate sedation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2209–2217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen LB (2006) The future of endoscopic sedation. Proceedings of the 3rd annual endoscopic sedation meeting. New York, pp 3–4

  15. Moerman AT, Foubert LA, Herregods LL, Struys MM, De Wolf DJ, De Looze DA, De Vos MM, Mortier EP (2003) Propofol versus remifentanil for monitored anaesthesia care during colonoscopy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 20:461–466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bouvet L, Allaouchiche B, Duflo F, Debon R, Chassard D, Boselli E (2004) Remifentanil is an effective alternative to propofol for patient-controlled analgesia during digestive endoscopic procedures. Can J Anaesth 51:122–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lauwers M, Camu F, Breivik H, Hagelberg A, Rosen M, Sneyd R, Horn A, Noronha D, Shaikh S (1999) The safety and effectiveness of remifentanil as an adjunct sedative for regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg 88:134–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Keats AS (1978) The ASA classification of physical status–a recapitulation. Anesthesiology 49:233–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aldrete JA (1995) The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 7:89–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chung F, Chan VW, Ong D (1995) A post-anesthetic discharge scoring system for home readiness after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 7:500–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MI (1976) The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 31:1191–1198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Servin F, Desmonts JM, Watkins WD (1999) Remifentanil as an analgesic adjunct in local/regional anesthesia and in monitored anesthesia care. Anesth Analg 89:S28–S32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rudner R, Jalowiecki P, Kawecki P, Gonciarz M, Mularczyk A, Petelenz M (2003) Conscious analgesia/sedation with remifentanil and propofol versus total intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol for outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 57:657–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Akcaboy ZN, Akcaboy EY, Albayrak D, Altinoren B, Dikmen B, Gogus N (2006) Can remifentanil be a better choice than propofol for colonoscopy during monitored anesthesia care? .Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 50:736–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Glass PS, Gan TJ, Howell S (1999) A review of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. Anesth Analg 89:S7–S14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Avramov MN, Smith I, White PF (1996) Interactions between midazolam and remifentanil during monitored anesthesia care. Anesthesiology 85:1283–1289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gold MI, Watkins WD, Sung YF, Yarmush J, Chung F, Uy NT, Maurer W, Clarke MY, Jamerson BD (1997) Remifentanil versus remifentanil/midazolam for ambulatory surgery during monitored anesthesia care. Anesthesiology 87:51–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bahal-O’Mara N, Nahata MC, Murray RD, Linscheid TR, Williams T, Heitlinger LA, Li BU, McClung HJ, Lininger B (1993) Efficacy of diazepam and meperidine in ambulatory pediatric patients undergoing endoscopy: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 16:387–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Greilich PE, Virella CD, Rich JM, Kurada M, Roberts K, Warren JF, Harford WV (2001) Remifentanil versus meperidine for monitored anesthesia care: a comparison study in older patients undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy. Anesth Analg 92:80–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Benizelion General Hospital, Heraklion-Crete, Greece

    Maria M. Manolaraki & Aliki Gritzali

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Benizelion General Hospital, L.Knossou, Heraklion-Crete, 71021, Greece

    Angeliki Theodoropoulou, Charalampos Stroumpos, Emmanouil Vardas, Pantelis Oustamanolakis & Gregorios A. Paspatis

  3. School of Education, University of Crete, Heraklion-Crete, Greece

    Gregorios Chlouverakis

Authors
  1. Maria M. Manolaraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angeliki Theodoropoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charalampos Stroumpos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emmanouil Vardas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pantelis Oustamanolakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aliki Gritzali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gregorios Chlouverakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gregorios A. Paspatis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregorios A. Paspatis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manolaraki, M.M., Theodoropoulou, A., Stroumpos, C. et al. Remifentanil Compared with Midazolam and Pethidine Sedation During Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized Study. Dig Dis Sci 53, 34–40 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-9818-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-9818-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation