Ngozi Imasogie1, Rhiannon V Rose2, Aze Wilson3,4. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Yorkton Regional Centre, Yorkton, SK, Canada. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopy under propofol sedation has become a routine procedure. Given the number of Canadians undergoing an endoscopy annually, as well as the pervasive use of cannabis by many patients, understanding the effect of cannabis use on the propofol dose at endoscopy is highly relevant. We aimed to evaluate the association between cannabis exposure and the propofol dose needed to achieve adequate sedation at endoscopy. METHODS: A case-control study of individuals undergoing endoscopy was conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy clinic in London, Ontario between 2014 and 2017. Cases included all individuals with any self-reported cannabis exposure, while controls included all individuals without any self-reported history of cannabis use. Dose of propofol administered by a single anesthetist was collected on each subject as well as additional demographic and procedure-related covariates. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen participants were included (cases, n = 151; controls, n = 167). Cannabis exposure was associated with an increase in propofol dose (cases 0.33 mg/kg/minute ±0.24; controls, 0.18 mg/kg/minute ±0.11; p<0.0001). Cannabis exposure remained an independent predictor of propofol dose on multivariate linear regression accounting for other important covariates (p<0.0001). Daily cannabis users required a higher propofol dose than weekly or monthly users. Three procedural sedation-related complications occurred in the cannabis-exposed group, while none occurred in the unexposed group. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that cannabis use is significantly associated with the quantity of propofol needed for sedation at endoscopy. Further study is needed to better understand the molecular basis for this possible drug-drug interaction.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopy under propofol sedation has become a routine procedure. Given the number of Canadians undergoing an endoscopy annually, as well as the pervasive use of cannabis by many patients, understanding the effect of cannabis use on the propofol dose at endoscopy is highly relevant. We aimed to evaluate the association between cannabis exposure and the propofol dose needed to achieve adequate sedation at endoscopy. METHODS: A case-control study of individuals undergoing endoscopy was conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy clinic in London, Ontario between 2014 and 2017. Cases included all individuals with any self-reported cannabis exposure, while controls included all individuals without any self-reported history of cannabis use. Dose of propofol administered by a single anesthetist was collected on each subject as well as additional demographic and procedure-related covariates. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen participants were included (cases, n = 151; controls, n = 167). Cannabis exposure was associated with an increase in propofol dose (cases 0.33 mg/kg/minute ±0.24; controls, 0.18 mg/kg/minute ±0.11; p<0.0001). Cannabis exposure remained an independent predictor of propofol dose on multivariate linear regression accounting for other important covariates (p<0.0001). Daily cannabis users required a higher propofol dose than weekly or monthly users. Three procedural sedation-related complications occurred in the cannabis-exposed group, while none occurred in the unexposed group. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that cannabis use is significantly associated with the quantity of propofol needed for sedation at endoscopy. Further study is needed to better understand the molecular basis for this possible drug-drug interaction.
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Robert M Hovis; Michael A Ansstas; Lawrence Waldbaum; Riad R Azar; Dayna S Early; Steven A Edmundowicz; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 11.382