13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Conventional versus Analgesia-Oriented Combination Sedation on Recovery Profiles and Satisfaction after ERCP: A Randomized Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          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).

          Methods

          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.

          Results

          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).

          Conclusions

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Moderate level sedation during endoscopy: a prospective study using low-dose propofol, meperidine/fentanyl, and midazolam.

          Propofol provides several benefits over benzodiazepine and narcotic agents as a sedative medication for endoscopic procedures, including faster recovery and improved patient satisfaction. However, its use generally has been limited to anesthesiologists because of the risks associated with deep sedation. One hundred patients undergoing colonoscopy or EGD were sedated with low-dose propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl (or meperidine). Depth of sedation was assessed at 2-minute intervals by an independent observer by using the American Society of Anesthesiologists criteria. Recovery time was determined by using paired neuropsychometric tests. A post-procedure satisfaction survey and 24-hour follow-up questionnaires were administered. For colonoscopy and EGD, respectively, the mean propofol dose was 98 mg and 79 mg, the mean midazolam dose was 0.9 mg and 0.8 mg, the mean fentanyl dose was 69 mcg and 63 mcg, and the mean meperidine dose was 42 mg (for both procedures). There were 628 assessments of the level of sedation performed during 74 colonoscopies and 101 assessments during 26 EGDs. The level of sedation was minimal in 77%, moderate in 21%, and deep in 2% of assessments. Nine of the 13 episodes of deep sedation were recorded during colonoscopy and 4 during EGD. In no instance was more than a single assessment of deep sedation recorded during one procedure. Ninety-eight percent of patients were satisfied with the sedation, and 71% returned to their usual activities within 2 hours of discharge. There was no serious adverse event. Endoscopic sedation with low-dose propofol, a narcotic agent, and midazolam produces a moderate level of sedation. The quality of sedation and measures of recovery are comparable with the results reported with standard-dose propofol.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Position statement: Nonanesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy.

            John J. Vargo, , (2009)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Optimal sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: review and recommendations.

              Sedation practices for endoscopy vary widely. The present review focuses on the commonly used regimens in endoscopic sedation and the associated risks and benefits together with the appropriate safety measures and monitoring practices. In addition, alternatives and additions to intravenous sedation are discussed. Personnel requirements for endoscopic sedation are reviewed; there is evidence presented to indicate that non-anesthetists can administer sedative drugs, including propofol, safely and efficaciously in selected cases. The development of endoscopic sedation as a multi-disciplinary field is highlighted with the formation of the Australian Tripartite Endoscopy Sedation Committee. This comprises representatives of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Possible future directions in this area are also briefly summarized.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                24 September 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 9
                : e0138422
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50–1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50–1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 03722, Seoul, Korea
                Universita' degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SS TGO JC SHP SB YCY. Performed the experiments: SS TGO MJC JYP SWP JBC SYS SB YCY. Analyzed the data: SS TGO JC SHP YCY. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SS TGO JC SHP YCY. Wrote the paper: SS TGO SB YCY.

                ‡ These authors are first authors on this work.

                Article
                PONE-D-15-10231
                10.1371/journal.pone.0138422
                4581832
                26402319
                74ca3252-6a86-4225-9b4e-609524e7b8f8
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 24 April 2015
                : 27 August 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 6, Pages: 11
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article