A randomized controlled trial of light versus deep propofol sedation for elective outpatient colonoscopy: recall, procedural conditions, and recovery

被引:2
|
作者
Allen, Megan [1 ,2 ]
Leslie, Kate [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Hebbard, Geoffrey [5 ,6 ]
Jones, Ian [7 ,8 ]
Mettho, Tejinder [1 ,2 ]
Maruff, Paul [9 ,10 ]
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia & Pain Management, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Anaesthesia Perioperat & Pain Med Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Univ Melbourne, Dept Pharmacol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[5] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Melbourne, Dept Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Colorectal Surg Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[9] Cogstate Ltd, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[10] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Neurosci, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
COGNITIVE FUNCTION; MIDAZOLAM; COMBINATION; IMPAIRMENT; ANESTHESIA; AWARENESS; HYPNOSIS; BATTERY; EXAMPLE;
D O I
10.1007/s12630-015-0463-3
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
This study aimed to determine if the incidence of recall was equivalent between light and deep sedation for colonoscopy. Secondary analysis included complications, patient clinical recovery, and post-procedure cognitive impairment. Two hundred patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to light (bispectral index [BIS] 70-80) or deep (BIS < 60) sedation with propofol and fentanyl. Recall was assessed by the modified Brice questionnaire, and cognition at baseline and discharge was assessed using a Cogstate test battery. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) BIS values were different in the two groups (69 [65-74] light sedation vs 53 [46-59] deep sedation; P < 0.0001). The incidence of recall was 12% in the light sedation group and 1% in the deep sedation group. The risk difference for recall was 0.11 (90% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis, thus refuting equivalence in recall between light and deep sedation (0.05 significance level; 10% equivalence margin). Overall sedation-related complications were more frequent with deep sedation than with light sedation (66% vs 47%, respectively; P = 0.008). Recovery was more rapid with light sedation than with deep sedation as determined by the mean (SD) time to reach a score of 5 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale [3 (4) min vs 7 (4) min, respectively; P < 0.001] and by the median [IQR] time to readiness for hospital discharge (65 [57-80] min vs 74 [63-86] min, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of post-procedural cognitive impairment was similar in those randomized to light (19%) vs deep (16%) sedation (P = 0.554). Light sedation was not equivalent to deep sedation for procedural recall, the spectrum of complications, or recovery times. This study provides evidence to inform discussions with patients about sedation for colonoscopy. This trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number 12611000320954.
引用
收藏
页码:1169 / 1178
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Randomised controlled trial of patient controlled sedation for colonoscopy: Entonox versus patient maintained target controlled propofol
    Maslekar, Sushil
    Pa, Balaji
    Hartley, John E.
    Culbert, Brian
    Duthie, Graeme
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 65 (05) : AB115 - AB115
  • [32] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol: An effective combination with ketamine for adult procedural sedation: A randomized clinical trial
    Esmaillian, Mehrdad
    Kouhestani, Soheila
    Azizkhani, Reza
    Heydari, Farhad
    Safavi, Mohammad Raza
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2023, 73 : 95 - 101
  • [33] Etomidate versus midazolam for procedural sedation in pediatric outpatients: A randomized controlled trial
    Di Liddo, Lydia
    D'Angelo, Antonio
    Nguyen, Bao
    Bailey, Benoit
    Amre, Devendra
    Stanciu, Constantin
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2006, 48 (04) : 433 - 440
  • [34] A randomized trial comparing patient-controlled sedation using propofol/alfentanil to diazemul/pethidine in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy.
    Liu, GM
    Ching, JY
    Chan, SK
    Lau, JY
    Sun, LC
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 51 (04) : AB62 - AB62
  • [35] The utility of supplemental oxygen during emergency department procedural sedation with propofol: A randomized, controlled trial
    Deitch, Kenneth
    Chudnofsky, Carl R.
    Dominici, Paul
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2008, 52 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [36] The influence of parents' voice on the consumption of propofol for pediatric procedural sedation-a randomized controlled trial
    Tschiedel, Eva
    Heck, Victoria
    Felderhoff-Mueser, Ursula
    Dohna-Schwake, Christian
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2017, 27 (04) : 394 - 398
  • [37] Routine versus "on demand" sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial
    Terruzzi, V
    Meucci, G
    Radaelli, F
    Terreni, N
    Minoli, G
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2001, 54 (02) : 169 - 174
  • [38] A prospective, randomized, comparative trial evaluating respiratory depression during patient-controlled versus anesthesiologist-administered propofol-remifentanil sedation for elective colonoscopy
    Mandel, Jeff E.
    Lichtenstein, Gary R.
    Metz, David C.
    Ginsberg, Gregory G.
    Kochman, Michael L.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2010, 72 (01) : 112 - 117
  • [39] Effects of alfentanil or fentanyl added to propofol for sedation in colonoscopy on cognitive functions: Randomized controlled trial
    Doganay, Guler
    Ekmekci, Perihan
    Kazbek, Baturay Kansu
    Yilmaz, Hakan
    Erkan, Gulbanu
    Tuzuner, Filiz
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2017, 28 (06): : 453 - 459
  • [40] Patient-controlled sedation versus intravenous sedation for colonoscopy in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial
    Lee, DWH
    Chan, ACW
    Sze, TS
    Ko, CW
    Poon, CM
    Chan, KC
    Sin, KS
    Chung, SCS
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2002, 56 (05) : 629 - 632