• Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. · Sep 2000

    Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial

    Sedation with propofol plus midazolam versus propofol alone for interventional endoscopic procedures: a prospective, randomized study.

    • H Seifert, T H Schmitt, T Gültekin, W F Caspary, and T Wehrmann.
    • Department of Internal Medicine II, J.W. Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
    • Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2000 Sep 1;14(9):1207-14.

    AimAdequate patient sedation is mandatory for most interventional endoscopic procedures. Recent anaesthesiologic studies indicates that propofol and midazolam act synergistically in combination and therefore may be superior to sedation with propofol alone in terms of sedation efficacy, recovery and costs (due to a presumed lower total dose of propofol needed).MethodsA total of 239 consecutive patients undergoing therapeutic EGD or ERCP (EGD/ERCP-ratio, 1:1) randomly received either propofol alone (n=120, group A, loading dose 40-60 mg intravenously, followed by repeated doses of 20 mg) or propofol plus midazolam (n=119, group B, initial midazolam dose of 2. 5-3.5 mg intravenously, followed by repeated doses of 20 mg of propofol) for sedation. Vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, electrocardiogram) were continuously monitored. Procedure-related parameters, the recovery time and quality (post-anaesthesia recovery score) as well as the patient's co-operation and tolerance to the procedure (visual analogue scale) were prospectively assessed.ResultsPatients of group A and B were well matched with respect to demographic and clinical data, endoscopic findings, and the type of associated procedures. In group A, a mean dose of 0.25 +/- 0.13 mg.min/kg propofol was used compared to 0.20 +/- 0.09 mg.min/kg of propofol in group B (P < 0.01, plus additional 2.9 +/- 0.5 mg of midazolam). Clinically relevant changes in vital signs were observed at comparable frequencies with a lowering of the systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg in six out of 119 patients in group B and one out of 120 patients in group A (P=0.07). The sedation efficacy was rated similarly in both groups, whereas the mean recovery time (group A, 19 +/- 7 min vs. group B, 25 +/- 8 min, P < 0.05) as well as the recovery score (post-anaesthesia recovery score group A, 8.0 +/- 1.1 vs. post-anaesthesia recovery score group B, 7.3 +/- 1.2, P < 0.001) were significantly better with propofol alone than with propofol plus midazolam.ConclusionDuring therapeutic endoscopy, sedation with propofol and midazolam requires a lower total dose of propofol, but otherwise has no superior sedation efficacy and is associated with a slower post-procedure recovery than sedation with propofol alone.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…