Literature DB >> 23082055

Carbon dioxide accumulation during analgosedated colonoscopy: comparison of propofol and midazolam.

Ludwig T Heuss1, Shajan Peter Sugandha, Christoph Beglinger.   

Abstract

AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO₂) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO₂ values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO₂ values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.
RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO₂ at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO₂ that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO₂ value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).
CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO₂ values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood gas monitoring; Colonoscopy; Deep sedation; Hypoventilation; Propofol; Transcutaneous

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23082055      PMCID: PMC3471107          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  26 in total

1.  Propofol use during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  D B Nelson; A N Barkun; K P Block; J S Burdick; G G Ginsberg; D A Greenwald; P B Kelsey; N L Nakao; A Slivka; P Smith; N Vakil
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  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.

Authors:  J M Dumonceau; A Riphaus; J R Aparicio; U Beilenhoff; J T A Knape; M Ortmann; G Paspatis; C Y Ponsioen; I Racz; F Schreiber; P Vilmann; T Wehrmann; C Wientjes; B Walder
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 10.093

3.  Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mohammed A Qadeer; John J Vargo; Farah Khandwala; Rocio Lopez; Gregory Zuccaro
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.382

4.  Trained registered nurses/endoscopy teams can administer propofol safely for endoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Ludwig T Heuss; John A Walker; Rong Qi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl for upper gastrointestinal endomicroscopy: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Xiu-Li Zuo; Zhen Li; Xiao-Ping Liu; Chang-Qing Li; Rui Ji; Peng Wang; Cheng-Jun Zhou; Han Liu; Yan-Qing Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Propofol versus midazolam/meperidine for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists.

Authors:  Brian W Sipe; Douglas K Rex; Danielle Latinovich; Chris Overley; Karen Kinser; Lisa Bratcher; David Kareken
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  John J Vargo; Gregory Zuccaro; John A Dumot; Kenneth M Shermock; J Brad Morrow; Darwin L Conwell; Patricia A Trolli; Walter G Maurer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Carbon dioxide retention and oxygen desaturation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  M L Freeman; J T Hennessy; O W Cass; A M Pheley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Combined pulse oximetry/cutaneous carbon dioxide tension monitoring during colonoscopies: pilot study with a smart ear clip.

Authors:  Ludwig T Heuss; Prashant N Chhajed; Patricia Schnieper; Thomas Hirt; Christoph Beglinger
Journal:  Digestion       Date:  2004-10-12       Impact factor: 3.216

10.  Capnographic monitoring of respiratory activity improves safety of sedation for endoscopic cholangiopancreatography and ultrasonography.

Authors:  Mohammed A Qadeer; John J Vargo; John A Dumot; Rocio Lopez; Patricia A Trolli; Tyler Stevens; Mansour A Parsi; Madhusudhan R Sanaka; Gregory Zuccaro
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  4 in total

1.  Clinical study of anesthetization by dezocine combined with propofol for indolent colonoscopy.

Authors:  Bin-Bin Xu; Xiao-Liang Zhao; Gui-Ping Xu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Endoscopist-directed propofol: pros and cons.

Authors:  Eun Hye Kim; Sang Kil Lee
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2014-03-31

Review 3.  Hypotension during propofol sedation for colonoscopy: a retrospective exploratory analysis and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Robert Sneyd; Anthony R Absalom; Clemens R M Barends; Jordan B Jones
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 11.719

4.  Carbon dioxide versus room air for colonoscopy in deeply sedated pediatric patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Andrea Kresz; Benjamin Mayer; Maria Zernickel; Carsten Posovszky
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-01-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.