Dataset Information

Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Angsuwatcharakon P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3434082 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Angsuwatcharakon Phonthep P Rerknimitr Rungsun R Ridtitid Wiriyaporn W Kongkam Pradermchai P Poonyathawon Sahadol S Ponauthai Yuwadee Y Sumdin Sakolkan S Kullavanijaya Pinit P

BMC anesthesiology 20120809

<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 22873637

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an invasive procedure that required deep sedation to suppress coughing and body movements. Deep sedation, on the other hand, has been shown to cause respiratory and circulatory depression, especially when the airway is shared with the endoscopist. Esketamine is a novel sedative and analgesic with little respiratory inhibition that appears to be an appropriate adjuvant in propofol sedation for EBUS-TBNA. We compared the efficacy and safety of esketamine combined with propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) and propofol TCI for deep sedation in EBUS-TBNA.MethodsThe study included 135 patients with ASA II-III undergoing EBUS-TBNA. They were randomly divided into two groups (group E and group P). Both groups received midazolam (0.01-0.03 mg/kg) and oxycodone (0.07-0.08 mg/kg). Then, patients in group E received 0.3 mg/kg esketamine, propofol TCI, and 0.2 mg·kg-1·h-1 esketamine for sedative maintenance. Patients in group P received only propofol TCI. The primary outcome was the dose of 1% lidocaine administrated by the endoscopist and the times of lidocaine sprays. Secondary outcome indicators were cough score, propofol dosage, patient satisfaction, endoscopist satisfaction, the incidence of sedation-related adverse effects and side effects, and recovery time.ResultsPatients in group E were given significantly less lidocaine (4.36 ml/h (2.67-6.00) vs 6.00 ml/h (4.36-7.20), P < 0.001) and less spraying frequency (2.18 times/h (1.33-3.00) vs 3.00 times/h (2.18-3.60), P < 0.001) than group P. There was a statistically significant difference in cough score between the two groups (group E 2 (0-4) vs group P 3 (2-4), P=0.03). Also, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher in group E in the 30th min (T5, 84.10 ± 12.91 mmHg versus 79.04 ± 10.01 mmHg, P=0.012) and 40th min (T6, 87.72 ± 15.55 mmHg versus 82.14 ± 10.51 mmHg, P=0.026). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sedation-related adverse events and side effects, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction.ConclusionsIn patients with ASA II-III, esketamine as an adjuvant in combination with propofol TCI deep sedation for EBUS-TBNA can improve the sedation effect, reduce coughing reaction during the procedure, and obtain more stable blood pressure. No reduction in the occurrence of sedation-related side effects was observed. This trial is registered with ChiCTR2200061124.

Project description:BackgroundTo improve patient tolerability and satisfaction as well as minimize complications, procedural sedation has been widely used. Propofol is the most widely used agent for induction of anesthesia and sedation by anesthesiologists. With a different mechanism compared to propofol, remimazolam is a new short-acting GABA-A receptor agonist. It is an ester-based benzodiazepine. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol for procedure sedation.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy or safety of remimazolam versus propofol. Meta-analysis were conducted using RStudio with "metafor" package with random-effects model.ResultsA total of twelve RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that patients with remimazolam for procedural sedation had lower risk of bradycardia (OR 0.28, 95% CI [0.14-0.57]), hypotension (OR 0.26, 95% CI [0.22-0.32]), and respiratory depression (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.14-0.36]). There was no difference in the risk of developing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.15-2.79]) and dizziness (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.53-1.61]) between the remimazolam and propofol groups. Using remimazolam for procedural sedation is significantly associated with less injection pain compared to propofol (OR 0.06, 95% CI [0.03-0.13]). Regarding the sedation efficacy, there was no difference in sedation success rate or time to loss of consciousness, recover and discharge between the remimazolam and the propofol groups.ConclusionsBased on our meta-analysis, patients receiving procedural sedation with remimazolam had lower risk of bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression and injection pain compared with propofol. On the other hand, there was no difference in sedation success rate, risk of PONV, dizziness, time to LOC, recovery and discharge between these two sedatives.Prospero registration numberCRD42022362950.

Project description:Target-controlled infusion (TCI) provides precise pharmacokinetic control of propofol concentration in the effect-site (Ce), eg. brain. This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and optimal TCI regimen for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) sedation.After alfentanil bolus, initial induction Ce of propofol was targeted at 2 ?g/ml. Patients were randomized into three titration groups (i.e., by 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 ?g/ml, respectively) to maintain stable sedation levels and vital signs. Adverse events, frequency of adjustments, drug doses, and induction and recovery times were recorded.The study was closed early due to significantly severe hypoxemia events (oxyhemoglobin saturation <70%) in the group titrated at 0.5 ?g/ml. Forty-nine, 49 and 46 patients were enrolled into the 3 respective groups before study closure. The proportion of patients with hypoxemia events differed significantly between groups (67.3 vs. 46.9 vs. 41.3%, p?=?0.027). Hypotension events, induction and recovery time and propofol doses were not different. The Ce of induction differed significantly between groups (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.1±0.3 ?g/ml, p?=?0.005) and the Ce of procedures was higher at 0.5 ?g/ml titration (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.2±0.3 ?g/ml, p?=?0.006). The adjustment frequency tended to be higher for titration at 0.1 ?g/ml but was not statistically significant (2 (0?6) vs. 3 (0?6) vs. 3 (0?11)). Subgroup analysis revealed 14% of all patients required no further adjustment during the whole sedation. Comparing patients requiring at least one adjustment with those who did not, they were observed to have a shorter induction time (87.6±34.9 vs. 226.9±147.9 sec, p<0.001), a smaller induction dose and Ce (32.5±4.1 vs. 56.8±22.7 mg, p<0.001; 1.76±0.17 vs. 2.28 ±0.41, p<0.001, respectively), and less hypoxemia and hypotension (15.8 vs.56.9%, p?=?0.001; 0 vs. 24.1%, p?=?0.008, respectively).Titration at 0.5 ?g/ml is risky for FB sedation. A subgroup of patients required no more TCI adjustment with fewer complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal regimen of TCI for FB sedation.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101477.

Project description:BackgroundOxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.MethodsWe will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.DiscussionPropofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

Dataset Information

Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Publications

Cocktail sedation containing propofol versus conventional sedation for ERCP: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets