Anantha Padmanabhan1, Christoforos Frangopoulos, Lynn E T Shaffer. 1. 1 Graduate Medical Education, Transitional Year Residency Program, Mount Carmel Health System, Columbus, Ohio 2 Graduate Medical Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 3 Office of Research Affairs, Mount Carmel Health System, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous literature has shown that propofol has ideal anesthetic properties for patients undergoing colonoscopy, a common procedure at outpatient surgery centers. However, there is a paucity of information regarding patient satisfaction with propofol. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with propofol compared with nonpropofol (fentanyl/midazolam) anesthesia for outpatient colonoscopies. Safety and complications were secondary end points. DESIGN: This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group controlled clinical trial (NCT 02937506). SETTING: This study was conducted at a single ambulatory surgery center at an urban teaching community health system. PATIENTS: Patients were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Those with high-risk cardiac or pulmonary disease were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia personnel administered either fentanyl/midazolam (n = 300) or propofol (n = 300) for sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. A single, highly experienced endoscopist performed all colonoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were patient satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and procedure complications. Data were collected on the day of endoscopy by the nursing staff of the postanesthesia care unit. A subinvestigator blinded to the randomization called patients 24 to 72 hours after discharge to obtain data on postprocedure problems and status of resumption of normal activities. Analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Fewer patients who received propofol remembered being awake during the procedure (2% vs 17% for fentanyl, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to rate the amount of anesthesia received as being "just right" (98.7% vs 91.3% for fentanyl, p = 0.0002) and state that they were "very satisfied" with their anesthesia (86.3% vs 74% for fentanyl, p = 0.0005). Twenty-six percent of fentanyl procedures were rated "difficult" compared with 4.3% for propofol (p < 0.0001), and complications were fewer in the propofol group (2.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: The endoscopist could not be completely blinded to the anesthetic administered. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prefer propofol over a combination of fentanyl/midazolam as their anesthetic for outpatient colonoscopies. From a patient and provider perspective, propofol appears to be superior to fentanyl/midazolam for outpatient colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A445.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous literature has shown that propofol has ideal anesthetic properties for patients undergoing colonoscopy, a common procedure at outpatient surgery centers. However, there is a paucity of information regarding patient satisfaction with propofol. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with propofol compared with nonpropofol (fentanyl/midazolam) anesthesia for outpatient colonoscopies. Safety and complications were secondary end points. DESIGN: This study was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group controlled clinical trial (NCT 02937506). SETTING: This study was conducted at a single ambulatory surgery center at an urban teaching community health system. PATIENTS: Patients were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Those with high-risk cardiac or pulmonary disease were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia personnel administered either fentanyl/midazolam (n = 300) or propofol (n = 300) for sedation during outpatient colonoscopy. A single, highly experienced endoscopist performed all colonoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were patient satisfaction (5-point Likert scale) and procedure complications. Data were collected on the day of endoscopy by the nursing staff of the postanesthesia care unit. A subinvestigator blinded to the randomization called patients 24 to 72 hours after discharge to obtain data on postprocedure problems and status of resumption of normal activities. Analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Fewer patients who received propofol remembered being awake during the procedure (2% vs 17% for fentanyl, p < 0.0001) and were more likely to rate the amount of anesthesia received as being "just right" (98.7% vs 91.3% for fentanyl, p = 0.0002) and state that they were "very satisfied" with their anesthesia (86.3% vs 74% for fentanyl, p = 0.0005). Twenty-six percent of fentanyl procedures were rated "difficult" compared with 4.3% for propofol (p < 0.0001), and complications were fewer in the propofol group (2.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: The endoscopist could not be completely blinded to the anesthetic administered. CONCLUSIONS:Patients prefer propofol over a combination of fentanyl/midazolam as their anesthetic for outpatient colonoscopies. From a patient and provider perspective, propofol appears to be superior to fentanyl/midazolam for outpatient colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A445.
Authors: Muhammad Aziz; Simcha Weissman; Rawish Fatima; Zubair Khan; Babu P Mohan; Tej I Mehta; Wade Lee-Smith; Ammar Hassan; Michael Sciarra; Ali Nawras; Douglas G Adler Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Robbert S Puijk; Valentijn Ziedses des Plantes; Sanne Nieuwenhuizen; Alette H Ruarus; Laurien G P H Vroomen; Marcus C de Jong; Bart Geboers; Caroline J Hoedemaker-Boon; Deirdre H Thöne-Passchier; Ceylan C Gerçek; Jan J J de Vries; Petrousjka M P van den Tol; Hester J Scheffer; Martijn R Meijerink Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cesare Hassan; Pedro Amaro; Anurag Agrawal; Lene Brink; Wolfgang Fischbach; Matthias Hünger; Rodrigo Jover; Urpo Kinnunen; Akiko Ono; Árpád Patai; Silvia Pecere; Lucio Petruzziello; Jürgen F Riemann; Harry Staines; Ann L Stringer; Ervin Toth; Giulio Antonelli; Lorenzo Fuccio Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-15