BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that some patients are not able to tolerate colonoscopy without sedation because of low pain threshold, anxiety, colonic sensitivity and anatomical variations. Benzodiazepines are most commonly used, often in combination with pethidine. Our study compares sedation with propofol to midazolam and colonoscopy without sedation. METHODS: In this study 147 patients were examined. The patients were divided into three groups: The first group included patients in whom propofol was used for sedation, the second group included patients sedated with midazolam, and the third group was comprised of patients who received no sedation. Oxygen saturation and heart rate were recorded continuously by pulse oxymetry. Arterial blood pressure (BP) was monitored at 3-min intervals. RESULTS: A decrease in blood pressure and heart rate was documented in the first two groups (P < 0.001), whereas in group 3 we found an increase in both BP and heart rate (P < 0.001). Oxygen saturation dropped below 90 % in 11/102 patients sedated with propofol and in 9/23 sedated with midazolam. Two of 22 patients in whom no sedation was used were found to have oxygen saturation below 90 %. The recovery time was shorter (7 min) in group 1 (propofol) than in group 2 (midazolam), in which it was found to be 20 min. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant haemodynamic side effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that some patients are not able to tolerate colonoscopy without sedation because of low pain threshold, anxiety, colonic sensitivity and anatomical variations. Benzodiazepines are most commonly used, often in combination with pethidine. Our study compares sedation with propofol to midazolam and colonoscopy without sedation. METHODS: In this study 147 patients were examined. The patients were divided into three groups: The first group included patients in whom propofol was used for sedation, the second group included patients sedated with midazolam, and the third group was comprised of patients who received no sedation. Oxygen saturation and heart rate were recorded continuously by pulse oxymetry. Arterial blood pressure (BP) was monitored at 3-min intervals. RESULTS: A decrease in blood pressure and heart rate was documented in the first two groups (P < 0.001), whereas in group 3 we found an increase in both BP and heart rate (P < 0.001). Oxygen saturation dropped below 90 % in 11/102 patients sedated with propofol and in 9/23 sedated with midazolam. Two of 22 patients in whom no sedation was used were found to have oxygen saturation below 90 %. The recovery time was shorter (7 min) in group 1 (propofol) than in group 2 (midazolam), in which it was found to be 20 min. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that propofol provided good sedation with excellent pain control, a short recovery time and no significant haemodynamic side effects.
Authors: Harminder Singh; William Poluha; Mary Cheung; Nicole Choptain; Ken I Baron; Shayne P Taback Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2008-10-08