Hamita Sachar1, Nipaporn Pichetshote2, Kavitha Nandigam1, Keta Vaidya1, Loren Laine3. 1. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients. METHODS:Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score with adequate sedation defined as 3 on a 0- to 5-point scale. Patients not adequately sedated with midazolam5 mg and fentanyl 100 μg were randomly assigned to diphenhydramine 25 mg versus continued midazolam 1.5 mg. Adequacy of sedation was assessed 3 minutes after each study medication dose. If MOAA/S was 4 to 5, study medication was repeated, to a maximum of 3 doses. The primary endpoint was adequate sedation. RESULTS: The planned enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each study group) was attained. Adequate sedation was achieved less often with diphenhydramine than midazolam (27% vs 65%, difference = -38%; 95% CI, -50% to -24%; P < .0001). After study medications were completed, more patients required additional medication for sedation or analgesia with diphenhydramine versus midazolam (84% vs 68%, P = .008), whereas the time to discharge from the recovery unit was similar (134 vs 129 minutes). Treatment effect was consistent across subgroups including age ≤55, substance abuse, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and psychiatric medication use. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists performing moderate sedation should continue midazolam rather than switching to diphenhydramine in patients who do not achieve adequate sedation with usual doses of midazolam and an opioid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01769586.). Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend diphenhydramine in patients undergoing endoscopy who are not adequately sedated with a benzodiazepine and opioid combination. Because this practice has not been adequately assessed, we performed a randomized, double-blind trial comparing diphenhydramine with continued midazolam in such patients. METHODS:Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with moderate sedation were eligible. Sedation was measured with the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) score with adequate sedation defined as 3 on a 0- to 5-point scale. Patients not adequately sedated with midazolam 5 mg and fentanyl 100 μg were randomly assigned to diphenhydramine 25 mg versus continued midazolam 1.5 mg. Adequacy of sedation was assessed 3 minutes after each study medication dose. If MOAA/S was 4 to 5, study medication was repeated, to a maximum of 3 doses. The primary endpoint was adequate sedation. RESULTS: The planned enrollment of 200 patients (100 in each study group) was attained. Adequate sedation was achieved less often with diphenhydramine than midazolam (27% vs 65%, difference = -38%; 95% CI, -50% to -24%; P < .0001). After study medications were completed, more patients required additional medication for sedation or analgesia with diphenhydramine versus midazolam (84% vs 68%, P = .008), whereas the time to discharge from the recovery unit was similar (134 vs 129 minutes). Treatment effect was consistent across subgroups including age ≤55, substance abuse, benzodiazepine use, opioid use, and psychiatric medication use. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists performing moderate sedation should continue midazolam rather than switching to diphenhydramine in patients who do not achieve adequate sedation with usual doses of midazolam and an opioid. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01769586.). Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Raymond H Tu; Pam Grewall; Joseph W Leung; Arun G Suryaprasad; Paul I Sheykhzadeh; Caitlin Doan; Juan Carlos Garcia; Nan Zhang; Thomas Prindiville; Surinder Mann; Walter Trudeau Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J Katz; M A Feldman; E B Bass; L H Lubomski; J M Tielsch; B G Petty; L A Fleisher; O D Schein Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Anne F Peery; Evan S Dellon; Jennifer Lund; Seth D Crockett; Christopher E McGowan; William J Bulsiewicz; Lisa M Gangarosa; Michelle T Thiny; Karyn Stizenberg; Douglas R Morgan; Yehuda Ringel; Hannah P Kim; Marco Dacosta DiBonaventura; Charlotte F Carroll; Jeffery K Allen; Suzanne F Cook; Robert S Sandler; Michael D Kappelman; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: D C Pound; K W O'Connor; E D Brown; R Weddle; R McHenry; D Crabb; R Brunelle; G A Lehman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1988 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jung Min Lee; Geeho Min; Bora Keum; Jae Min Lee; Seung Han Kim; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Yeon Seok Seo; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hoon Jai Chun; Hong Sik Lee; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Jung Min Lee; Geeho Min; Jae Min Lee; Seung Han Kim; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hoon Jai Chun; Hong Sik Lee; Chang Duck Kim; Jong-Jae Park; Beom Jae Lee; Seong Ji Choi; Woojung Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 1.889