AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic. RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination. CONCLUSION:Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare deep sedation with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl regimens during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: After obtaining approval of the research ethics committee and informed consent, 200 patients were evaluated and referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were randomized to receive propofol-fentanyl or midazolam-fentanyl (n = 100/group). We assessed the level of sedation using the observer's assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) score and bispectral index (BIS). We evaluated patient and physician satisfaction, as well as the recovery time and complication rates. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software and included the Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, measurement of analysis of variance, and the κ statistic. RESULTS: The times to induction of sedation, recovery, and discharge were shorter in the propofol-fentanyl group than the midazolam-fentanyl group. According to the OAA/S score, deep sedation events occurred in 25% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 11% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.014). Additionally, deep sedation events occurred in 19% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 7% of the midazolam-fentanyl group according to the BIS scale (P = 0.039). There was good concordance between the OAA/S score and BIS for both groups (κ = 0.71 and κ = 0.63, respectively). Oxygen supplementation was required in 42% of the propofol-fentanyl group and 26% of the midazolam-fentanyl group (P = 0.025). The mean time to recovery was 28.82 and 44.13 min in the propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no severe complications in either group. Although patients were equally satisfied with both drug combinations, physicians were more satisfied with the propofol-fentanyl combination. CONCLUSION: Deep sedation occurred with propofol-fentanyl and midazolam-fentanyl, but was more frequent in the former. Recovery was faster in the propofol-fentanyl group.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adverse effects; Anesthetic administration; Anesthetic dose; Deep sedation; Endoscopy
Authors: Douglas O Faigel; Todd H Baron; Jay L Goldstein; William K Hirota; Brian C Jacobson; John F Johanson; Jonathon A Leighton; J Shawn Mallery; Kathryn A Peterson; J Patrick Waring; Robert D Fanelli; Jo Wheeler-Harbaugh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.427
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
Authors: Lawrence B Cohen; Julie S Wecsler; John N Gaetano; Ariel A Benson; Kenneth M Miller; Valerie Durkalski; James Aisenberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.864
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
Authors: Tyler McVay; John C Fang; Linda Taylor; Alexander Au; Wesley Williams; Angela P Presson; Ragheed Al-Dulaimi; Eric Volckmann; Anna Ibele Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Thomas R McCarty; Kelly E Hathorn; David W Creighton; Mohd Amer AlSamman; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 4.584